PDA

View Full Version : Feeling of flight will not change in BoB?



dbuff
08-09-2006, 06:43 AM
From the quote in the interview with Mr. Maddox :

"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

Now I read that and thought about something I had not bothered to think about in long time. I felt like the planes in original IL2 gave such a "realistic feeling of flight". I dont remeber when that feeling of flight went missing, but i think with FB.

Now. I am NOT saying the flight dynamics specifics like roll rate or and the like were wrong in FB - just the "feeling of flight" did not seem same. I love this sim and appreciate each additonal upgrade, but something is missing. I have hoped that the feeling of flight would return with BoB but I read Mr. Maddox's comment that it would stay the same.

Does anyone feel same or recall similar thoughts? Maybe I was just imagining things.

Either way , I will surely be buying BoB when it does come out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
08-09-2006, 07:09 AM
Need to define 'feeling of flight'. Even being a passenger on an airliner is nothing like a PC sim, you don't get the feeling of acceleration or the bump on landing, the noise and vibration of the undercarrage extending or retracting, breaking on landing, flaps going back and forth etc. YOu get none of the effects or feeling you get on the body in a sim.

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 07:10 AM
Oleg is using what version? And we have from post that feel will change from 4.05
but we only speculate just how. Best guess given clue is that movements will at
least start slower.

Also we know from post that IL2/FB models do not have distributed mass by part.
When 4.0 was announced that was the main difference, BoB models have mass of parts
in them. My guess is that changes in 4.0x series have been in the ways that such
distribution of masses are done in general form, all the same yet each plane still
has its own mass. Just my guess.

IAFS_Painter
08-09-2006, 07:56 AM
With current technology, there are some things that are difficult to model.

I'm thinking of the way your stomach lurches as the nose goes down; or the seat presses into you, even in a gentle turn.

Skoshi Tiger
08-09-2006, 08:23 AM
I'm starting up a new gaming peripheral company and as soon as my patents come through I'm going to market my all new 'Sphincter contractor/dilator' device that will be able to add huge level of realism into sims like BOB.

It's an electronic device that's triggered by the sounds of bullets hitting your aircraft or by the sound of over stressed metal. It works like this, After applying the lubric...........

faustnik
08-09-2006, 09:44 AM
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel".

slappedsilly
08-09-2006, 10:06 AM
One thing I've noticed in BoB2 WoV, when in hard turns the g-force pushes and pulls your head around a lot and this (IMO) adds quite a bit the the feeling of fight. Sounds minor, but it does really add to the feeling of flight.

papotex
08-09-2006, 12:19 PM
yes original IL2 was a rush to fly..still is if you dont patch it, the feeling was gone with FB
you are right.

but look, I bet the felling of flight will be enhanced by wind, for example if you turn your plane against the wind it will feel diferent than if you turn with the wind.

right now with current flight models this will
radically change the feel of flight.

oleg did say he was going to add this in BOB
PLUS the flight models will be more complex them selves... if this is true, trust me...after flying BOB you are going to find FBs flight models very dull

russ.nl
08-09-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Didn't 40 some pilots beta test 4.02.

Chuck_Older
08-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by dbuff:
From the quote in the interview with Mr. Maddox :

"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

Now I read that and thought about something I had not bothered to think about in long time. I felt like the planes in original IL2 gave such a "realistic feeling of flight". I dont remeber when that feeling of flight went missing, but i think with FB.

Now. I am NOT saying the flight dynamics specifics like roll rate or and the like were wrong in FB - just the "feeling of flight" did not seem same. I love this sim and appreciate each additonal upgrade, but something is missing. I have hoped that the feeling of flight would return with BoB but I read Mr. Maddox's comment that it would stay the same.

Does anyone feel same or recall similar thoughts? Maybe I was just imagining things.

Either way , I will surely be buying BoB when it does come out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Well, firstly, I don't think flight modelling has much to do with the feeling of flight, as far as the "seat of the virtual pants" experience goes. For instance, why would the incorrect modelling of wing area reduce or increase the feeling of actually flying? What that would do is make the plane behave incorrectly

Secondly, I disagree that the feeling of flight was "lost" with FB. FB is an extension of Il2, we all know that.

When FB came out, I honestly did not "lose" the feeling of anything. I knew, right off, it was the pilot, not the machine that was doing "wrong" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. In fact, I could not manage to even take off 5 times out of ten- I was used to Il2, in which I barely ever used throttle stick and rudder together as a unit in. I tooled around, and yes the 'feeling of flight' was there in Il2

When FB came out, I was very frustrated. I could not fly the sim until I got a HOTAS, which is 100% user error in not being able to adapt to the FM, true. having a dedicated throttle and rudder allowed me to fly the sim with at l;east enough promise to keep at it. I disagree that Il2 needed that tyoe of input...it always seemed as if Il2 had a degree of auto-coordination on turns with any difficulty setting

I have flown in a signle engine, 4 place prop plane. For me, the sensation of flight is "correct" in this sim. For me, the feeling is not quite the loss of your terrestrial 'anchor', but the feeking that you might lose it. I've 'flown' many flight sims that feel like driving a sim car in 3 dimensions, this sim avoids that unpleasant situation well. In fact, I suppose I might define the simulated sensation of flight as being "good" if it neatly and easily avoids the "3D car" feeling. The better it avoids that, the better the sensation

I use default stick settings; I have read snippets of articles in which real pilots flew this sim, and they altered their stick settings. Perhaps what you need is a change in your settings, to 'regain' what you feel you have 'lost'

VW-IceFire
08-09-2006, 02:59 PM
You can become desensitized to how good the feeling of flight in this game is. I had a ride on a jetliner recently and couldn't help thinking how real IL-2 feels.

Feeling of flight does not equal flight model either. The feeling of flight has been pretty consistently good throughout this series...the FM has changed many times. I expect it will be quite a bit different in BoB as well (wind, turbulence modeling, prop wash modeling, etc.).

slipBall
08-09-2006, 03:19 PM
Secondly, I disagree that the feeling of flight was "lost" with FB. FB is an extension of Il2, we all know that.

When FB came out, I honestly did not "lose" the feeling of anything. I knew, right off, it was the pilot,



Chuck, I think that there were little changes not easily picked up on. Perhap's a little more obvious to the rl pilots here. I just posted a week or two ago, of some of the changes that I was aware of.
For example,

the 109 is reported by those that flew her, to have no tendencey to flip up upon on ground braking action. In the original game, you will find this to be modeled correctly, not so in fb.

you could apply right rudder/brake, a little power, and spin around on a dime, no longer true in fb.

On take off's, and landings you really had to watch your angle/ and airspeed. This is no longer a major concern in fb

When I flew ra, I would sometime's not be up to par on my landings. There would be a bounce and a long decending period till the wheels touched again. That feeling was very well modeled in the original IL2, so good, that you feel it in your stumack.

pre-stall indicators, such as a dropping wing, was lost with fb

Don't get me wrong, I love fb, it's just that the original game was that much better. And the sounds, they are missed the most

Chuck_Older
08-09-2006, 04:05 PM
I'm at a loss Slipball

You seem to be keying on my comments about the sensation of flight, and using them to illustrate how I am in error because I say that FB is "better" than Il2

I have said nothing of the sort; I have been limiting my comments to things that influence the illusion of flight

Actually, all of your examples have much less to do with the feeling of flight than the modelling of a speciific plane

I think you are confusing "accurate modelling of flight in specific aircraft" with "feeling of flight" or "sensation of flight". To illustrate the difference, nosing over or pivoting the aircraft in place has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am not here to argue which sim is "better", I am giving my comments on how FB accurately conveys the feeling of flight that I experienced in a small(ish) single engine plane. The focus isn't 'which sim gets idiocyncracies of individual flight models', or even how sound in FB isn't so good, it's about dbuff feeling that Il2 had a great sensation of flight, while somehow FB "lost" that feeling. You're making your examples much much too specific to individual flight model, when as far as I know, the topic is the illusion of having the sensation of flight itself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have a lot of respect for the real life pilots among us who fly this sim and give their input, but I can't see how I'm not picking up on little things like the 109 flipping over in real life, just because I am not a real pilot- you yourself point out these are pilot reports you're dicussing, which I can read as well as anyone provided they are translated to English http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I gather you are a pilot. As a rebuttal to your statement- have you ever nosed over a 109 in real life? If you haven't, how do you know to 'pick up' on this danger? It's because somebody told you about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you have...well then obviously this behavior is easily detected. But I do, admittedly perhaps foolishly, doubt that many of the real life pilots in our Community have ever been in a 109 cockpit, much less flown one, and even less likely to have flipped the bird over...but the point is kind of moot, as this behavior is not part of the sensation I'm describing at all.

I know the P-40 needed a lot of rudder in a dive and that the short fuselage models could 'tumble' (which is not modelled in this sim), I know the ki-27s throttle worked'backwards' and I know that I don't see a map tray in the Wildcat cockpit- but I have never ever flown a real aicraft, let alone any of these planes in question. I gently suggest that my lack of experience in actual flight does not limit my knowledge of the aircraft that are modelled- only my free time, interest, and knowledge sources limit that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif In fact, pilot impressions of flight are the most interesting articles I read in the warbird magazines I read. I especially miss Mark Hanna's reports from the cockpit.

The only thing I lack is the biggest part of the whole thing- knowing what the planes handled like. However, I disagree that this curtails my getting knowledge of flight characteristics- it only curtails my experience with those characteristics. As an couple of examples, I know what the moon is made of- but I've never set foot on it. I've never flown an F-100- but I can describe John Boyd's method of initiating a turn in one- but still, I'm not an astronaut, nor a pilot

I think you're mistaking some of the things I've posted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

slipBall
08-09-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel".


If you ever have a chance, for your pilot friend's to try the original game. It would be interesting to read about their comparison thoughts to fb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

slipBall
08-09-2006, 04:18 PM
Sorry Chuck, I'm not the best with words. I was'nt trying to slam you or anything like that. I just strongly feel that fb is a little arcade, compared to the original game. The original IL2 always brought back the feeling of flight that I experienced in my life. I still fly that game the most, always wishing for the grafics, and aircraft, of fb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
08-09-2006, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:

If you ever have a chance, for your pilot friend's to try the original game. It would be interesting to read about their comparison thoughts to fb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I have asked this question too. The answer that I received was that the differences between aircraft were more pronounced in in IL-2 than PF. They did like the new inertia and torque effects of some PF patch versions.

TheGozr
08-09-2006, 04:30 PM
fb is a little arcade, compared to the original game. The original IL2 always brought back the feeling of flight that I experienced in my life

I strongly desagree.

mazexx
08-09-2006, 04:46 PM
Well, not that I've flown any real warbird accept the Tiger Moth (and of course the Piper Cub http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) but I've flown the YAK-52 which supposedly was used by Oleg and the team while programming the original IL2. I sure agree that the flight model in the IL2/FB/PF series is far superior to anything else out there on the market... The only thing that annoys me is that it's completely impossible to do the abrakadabra like in the YAK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Snap roll behavior overall is actually kind of lousy (negative or positive).

I do however agree that there was something about the IL2 version 1.0 that has been lost in the succeeding versions. I just can not pinpoint it. Maybe something about the fact that the planes where a bit more "on rails" before departure. The later versions sometimes feel a bit to fudgy (but not nearly in the M$ **** simulator domain). A few months ago I downloaded the old beta demo we all drooled over to revive the memories of the original 0.99 version... It had that "something" but a lot of other things that did not feel good. Overall it has progressed a lot over the years with some black holes like version 3.0. Maybe it's just nostalgia that makes us think about version 1.0 (or the demo) as something special?

Finally:


Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
have you ever nosed over a 109 in real life?

Couldn't help answering this even though it is not adressed to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The answer no but I have flown a pilot that had done it. I once flew with an old 109 pilot that was to old to fly (bad hart) so he went for a spin around the field with me in his Grob (that he was not allowed to fly himself as his certification had just been withdrawn). He sure had a lot of stories to tell... He said the 109 was really awful to fly if you where unexperienced and half of his unit died in landing accidents (late war, 18 year old pilots with marginal training in 109K:s). He was in several engaements but never got an enemy plane close to his sights as he was desperately trying to keep his 109 in the air, dreading the upcoming landing...

/Mazex

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 05:09 PM
I squad with a number of pilots, ex-military pilots and one commercial-pilot inspector.
None of them wants to go back to IL2, it's less real, the FM is much more simplified.

Does anyone here have 4.06 or 4.07?
Want to bet that Oleg does?
Anyone read the post where Oleg did explain that handling changed in one of those?
So what good is it discussing the feel of a product we don't have?

Yeeesh!

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by mazexx:
He was in several engaements but never got an enemy plane close to his sights as he was desperately trying to keep his 109 in the air, dreading the upcoming landing...

He could have been a big ace with full brag rights if reality just had some changes;

1) the other side was mostly as bad at flying as him
2) their airbase was at most 60 km distant
3) whenever you died you were ressurected back at your base

He could have then gone to Willie M. and demanded that he fix the 109's.

Capt.LoneRanger
08-10-2006, 01:31 AM
well, I must confess I really was shocked by this statement, too. The current systems doesn't allow realistic stalls, ground-handling, high-altitude-dogfights, etc. Not even daring to mention 2-engined dogfighters...

If these limits apply to BoB, too, that would be a BIG mistake. And please, keep in mind, that these problems are due to the nature of the engine, not a matter of free or addon patches!

maheikki
08-10-2006, 01:42 AM
Oleg's statement is alittle bit worrying, but we just have to wait and see what it will bring.

OT:
I tried Target Tobruk yesterday and I must say that it has more feeling of flying than Il2 ever has. Don't know which one is more close to reality though since I not real pilothttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sg1_gunkan
08-10-2006, 01:44 AM
From another great post:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1401018074

1. No ability to shoot under high G-forces.
2. Constant high Gs tire pilot down.

And Capt.LoneRanger said something very interesting: high-altitude-dogfights. The high altitude FM in IL2FB is very light. High altitude planes have no real avantage (P47, P51).

dbuff
08-10-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by papotex:
yes original IL2 was a rush to fly..still is if you dont patch it, the feeling was gone with FB
you are right.

Ok, at least I am totally alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Now someone mentioned that "realistic stalls and high altitude handling is not modelled" - items like that werent my point, Nor do I have issue with it. I am sure all that be addressed by Mr. Maddox. BTW I dont have any issue with the game.

My point was that with IL2 it just felt like flying more. Another person stated that they felt something was different but they "couldnt put their finger on it" - Likewise here.

And yes in IL2 each plane really feels quite different from the next.

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-10-2006, 07:36 AM
I've flown many different aircraft of different varieties. IMO our current FM is quite good and considerably better than IL2-original. I can remember in IL2 corkscrewing and dropping my undercarriage to bleed energy and dropping on the runway in a way that is no longer possible in PF. Now we have torque (whether 'accurate' or not it's an improvement), Ground loops, Faulty undercarriage, CEM, etc,...

Personally, I think the thing people miss from the original is the newness. IL2 was a vast improvement over anything that had preceded it. FB was an extension of that...nothing more. So many people desperately wanted FB to be as fresh and new and groundbreaking as IL2 was. In many ways it was, but those ways were much more subtle.

BoB will likely be fresh and new and some of the things I'm excited about are many of the things already listed as inclusions (i.e. dynamic wind and improved DAMAGE MODEL). The thing I think will add so much more to the next generation of flight sim is the graphics and damage model. That doesn't mean the current damage model sux...it just means that the ability to program higher detail into it has. As well as our desire to have it and own a pc that is able to run it.


My .02c



TB

Chuck_Older
08-10-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
well, I must confess I really was shocked by this statement, too. The current systems doesn't allow realistic stalls, ground-handling, high-altitude-dogfights, etc. Not even daring to mention 2-engined dogfighters...

If these limits apply to BoB, too, that would be a BIG mistake. And please, keep in mind, that these problems are due to the nature of the engine, not a matter of free or addon patches!

I think we all need to stop a second and consider this whole thing a little better.

Here's the quote:

"We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect."

Clearly, Oleg says that the "Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2". So- no worries at all about these physics engines in FB making incorrect stall, groundhandling, or twin engine performance in BoB, becuse FB's engines simply won't be present at all.

Oleg also says, quote:

"Feel of the flying will not change much."

That's the "<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">feeling of flight</span>" that will not change, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">much</span>. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I see nothing at all in this quote that says: flight characteristics and stall modelling will be based on FB's model. A lot of people are reading WAY too much into "feel of the flying".

This isn't ground handling or stall traits. It's how the planes feel as they move through the "air"- not how incorrect FM characteristics particluar to certain planes are handled. This isn't how a plane stalls, it's not how wing loading effects a plane, it's not how a clipped wing causes changes to a wing- it's how you feel as if you might actually be in flight. There's a big difference between this and stall traits

I see a lot of people who post that the way a plane flies is what is being discussed when "feel of the flying" is mentioned. It's not, ok? This is the illusion that the cockpit you're flying is actually making it's way through the air, not that it's modelling that plane correctly. Incorrect or correct FM has nothing to do with the illusion of movement itself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We are getting worked up over nothing here.

Thake a close close look at this part of the quote:

"so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change"

Am I the only one who sees that this is an admittance that corrections will be made to flight characteristics and modelling (such as: counter rotating props, stall, ground handling), but that it's also an assurance that the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">feeling of flight</span> will be preserved?

Another second close look at the quote:

" <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2</span>"

How is this an indication of limits placed on BoB by FB's game engines?

Please folks, we're jumping to lots and lots of conclusions. Read the quote and digest it a little bit more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think that what some folks are worried about is just coloring some interpretations of what was said. There's nothing in that quote by Oleg to confirm these fears, actually it's quite the opposite if you read it the way I read it- feeling will be good, corrections will be made, detail will be added, FB engine will not be present

What's bad about any of that?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

russ.nl
08-10-2006, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
What's bad about any of that?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Nothing, the're all scared.

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel".

Bingo!

As a side note, folks, please dont take words out of Oleg mouth, change it some way that makes you all upset and then spread it around. Feeling of flying and FM are two different animals....even tho, FM has something to do with feeling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skoshi Tiger
08-10-2006, 10:02 PM
One of the main reasons I've stuck with Pacific fighters, upgraded my PC and bought a Track-IR is that il2/pacific fighters gives me that feeling of flying. My shelves is full of nice practically new flight sim boxes that never get looked at because they don't give me that feeing.

The last sim that gave me the feeling of actually being there, (I do have a Private Pilots Licence by the way), and I'm not talking about the fight models of the aircraft, was Janes WWII Fighters.

That sim had great a atmosphere! It prompted an PC upgrade and the phurchace of a HOTAS& Rudder pedals. I still have WWII Fighters on my PC with I fly Multipayer games on my LAN with my nephews (8&10)

If BOB has that 'Feeling' I can see me upgrading my PC when it's released to help nurture that feeling.

heywooood
08-12-2006, 03:25 PM
"feeling of flight will not change.."

Good.

I'm sure stall effects and other FM related stuff will be enhanced within the new code and better comp. power down the road.

And even if out of the box BoB doesn't seem much different in this regard than FAP - you and I both know it will be adjusted and patched over time just like FAP was and is.

sudoku1941
08-12-2006, 10:44 PM
oops, double post

sudoku1941
08-12-2006, 10:46 PM
Well, the "feeling of flight" in IL-2 is not bad. A few versions ago, it lost it's original "on rails" feel, and that was a big step up.

However, many planes are still missing their "personalities" in this sim. They don't match up with their historic counterparts the way history tells us.

That, to me, just says that the flight models are OFF. And the way some planes fluctuate so wildly when minor changes are made to the overall flight engine...(see: P-39s and Hurricanes as just two prime examples!) that just about proves it to my mind.

I certainly can't agree that IL-2 is "the best FM out there..." not by a long shot. The best flight model would get much closer to each plane's individual personality...it would serve to illuminate the dynamics of historic plane matchups...and you could successfully use historic, proven tactics much better than you can here. Here, tail gunners will put a round through your head at 300 yards while the host plane's doing a barrel roll... here, you can't even see aircraft below you, a historic advantage you simply cannot exploit properly... I could go on and on.

I'd have to expect BoB to pull a real rabbit out of the hat if it's going to be a better simulation... a better game, I have no doubt.

heywooood
08-13-2006, 11:14 AM
I predict that it will please some and disappoint others...so it goes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Viper2005_
08-13-2006, 12:09 PM
twas ever thus...

IL2 feels quite realistic to me.

I think that Oleg is simply pointing out that whilst there is certainly room for improvement, there is a lot less of it than there was before IL2 arrived on the scene.

The goal of a flight simulation is fidelity, which means that music makes for a good analogy.

I can buy a relatively low quality tape of a song, and play it on a cheap "all in one" system, and it won't sound great.

I can alternatively buy an LP of that same song, and play it on a decent deck. It'll sound much better. Little details lost on the tape version will become audible. It's a great step forward, but it's still the same tune...

slipBall
08-13-2006, 12:28 PM
I agree that il2 is the best available for gaming. I think that having too many aircraft in the sim, made the possibility of accurite historic individualy modeling, too overwhelming for Oleg and crew. Maybe the future will bring very historic models for us, that would be great

sudoku1941
08-13-2006, 06:28 PM
That's a weak and rather convenient excuse to make for Oleg.

Provided you can get data on aircraft and weapons, you can make them pretty accurate. Simply taking on a large planeset doesn't mean that the fidelity goes down per se. The same work you need to do on the physics model to do ONE plane to the nth degree, works for any others you add; meaning, the base physics model. Earth physics don't change by aircraft designation. Neither do aerodynamic principles. You may add additional variables when speeds get near the Mach 1 range (like with early jets and so forth), but still...

When the base model is suspect, that's when you get the wild performance swings you see in IL-2. "Tweaking" the physics to get proper behavior should not drastically change planes' entire character, as we've seen here with P-39s, Hurricanes, La5s, etc.

The flight model for IL-2 isn't the worst out there by any means, but it is a far cry from the best.

ElAurens
08-13-2006, 08:21 PM
Stigler, you never give it a rest do you? This is not a discussion of FMs.

The real pilots among the BlitzPigs, all say the same things. The torque is over exaggerated, there is no real P Factor, the ground handeling is comical, and this is by far the best sim out there, as it feels the most like real flying. I'll take their word over any of the virtual "experts" on this board anyday.

By the way the aircraft they fly/have flown include PT 17 Stearman, T28 Trojan, RAF Jaguar, King Airs and Lears, and a smattering of 1930's air racers.

sudoku1941
08-13-2006, 09:29 PM
They have their opinion, I have mine. Others have theirs, and cast votes on both sides of the fence.

As for the Targetware ground handling, the collision coding isn't in place, something that effects friction. P Factor, most definitely IS there, as is torque that doesn't need to be dumbed down to keep the gamers from howling. Also, I don't notice any noted 2800HP torque monsters on your BPig pilots' list of mounts, so forgive me if I take that with a big grain of salt.

As far as "feel of flight" I noticed about two versions ago that there was any "wallow" in any of the flight models in IL-2. Targetware had that from the get-go, long before IL-2 planes left their 'rails'.

As for accuracy, there are tons of things in this sim that just don't add up. Energy bleed, off; acceleration off (the common occurance of planes doing a 180 flat turn and catching up to planes going the opposite direction in about 5 seconds). Stall behavior, canned. And it also renders some time-proven tactics much less effective than they should be, boom and zoom chief among them. Clearly a turnfighter bias... and we won't even get into any of the national ones.

And somebody, Blitz Pig expert or not, please explain how the same plane can go from dog to worldbeater and back again if this vaunted flight model is so good. Anybody got that one? Anybody? Because nobody every seems to have an answer for it.

ElAurens
08-14-2006, 05:38 AM
As I said in my first sentence, this is not a discussion of flight models.

BTW the T28 has 1400HP, more than most aircraft in this planeset.

Just how many hours do you have logged Stigler?

Darkmousegrob
08-14-2006, 07:34 AM
IL2/FB/PF collectively are the best flight sims I have ever played. Although they only WW2 era aircraft, no other sim gives such a realistic feeling of flight. Things like MS FS9 are absolutely awfull when it comes to FM, and 'feeling.'

Those of you that fly real aircraft will hopefully know what I mean. In IL2 (im using it as a generic term for the entire series), everything just feels like it should, from applying rudder to counteract torque, to pulling loops and hard turns, 'on the buffet nibble.'

Just like a real aircraft, when flying in IL2 you can sense what the aircraft is about to do. Fly slowly and the controls get sluggish, fly slow and pull up too sharply and you can sense even before it happens one wing stalling, wing drop and then the resulting spin. Again, pulling tight turns with some light buffet, pull a bit harder to bring your guns to bear, and wham, youve got an incipient spin. amazing stuff.

my only criticism, and im sure BOB will correct this is the lack of 'ground rush.' its there in LOMAC. All it requires is a little more detailed scenery (hedges, trees, church spires) and an ability to 'zoom out?', and hedge hopping home to avoid enemy fighters gets much more fun. As long as I can do that in BOB im happy.

Oh and IL2 is also the only sim in which formation flying feels 'right' (excepting the lack of turbulence right behind another aircraft). the constant jockying of the throttle and stick to maintain close formation is very realistic.

phew, thats my tuppence worth.

Jaws2002
08-14-2006, 08:46 AM
The IL-2 was unic when it came out. Was so breathtakingly diferent from anything we flew untill then, that it marked us until this day.
That's what makes some pretend it was superior to the following patches/addons.
The FM in the Il-2 was quite bad when compared with the latest versions.
Remember the dive and zoom climbs? You would dive from 5000m and on the zoom you'll only go up to 1500m. Generally the energy retention was realy bad in the IL-2. Altitude advantage did not mean much since you blew it all in the first dive.

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
As I said in my first sentence, this is not a discussion of flight models.

BTW the T28 has 1400HP, more than most aircraft in this planeset.

Just how many hours do you have logged Stigler?

Well, I'm only commenting as a counter to the seque to the gushing "best flight model ever" statements being made.

True, we have all agreed that the overall "feeling of flight" is good. But that doesn't translate into the 'leap' to a superior flight model. That's all I'm sayin'.

But, if you really want to get back to subject, as you claim, care to tackle the charge I made about IL-2 only even getting "wobble" and "wallow" feel a couple of versions ago (IIRC, 4.01), and being on rails up until that time? I'll give you a head start on that: it's true.

Jaws2002
08-14-2006, 10:18 AM
Sorry. Targetware is a lot further from a simulation then PF. The more I play that game the more I realize how unfinished it is. I know is beta but there are so many things required in a simulation that are just not possible to implement "until next version".
You see if you want to compare them, compare them how they are not how they could be it they were finished.

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 10:48 AM
That's a fair criticism, to be sure. I certainly get tired of explaining how the collision and ground code aren't finished, when it's such an important thing to GET FINISHED!!!

But, that does really only affect taxiing and the takeoff roll, and that's a relatively minor thing, when the goal is to get IN THE AIR and fight.

Speaking of which, that's a marvelous segue: once you're in the air, and not attempting to crash into objects that may or may not be solid on the ground... that's where you see the HUGE difference between IL-2 and Targetware. YMMV, but I think it shows Targetware to be far superior. But you have to fly more than just 5 minutes (the average amount of time any IL-2 fanboi flies any plane in an effort to "compare" the two sims) to see that. Circuits and bumps don't cut it; go find a fight and see the difference where it counts; in combat.

Fly a P-40 against a Zero. Note how the dynamics of this matchup really come to life in Target:Rabaul. If the 'Hawk doesn't have altitude, he's dead meat. The Zero can dictate the fight, outmaneuver the slow, sluggish P-40 beneath him, and pretty much destroy him at will, provided the P-40 doesn't just roll over and dive out, using his speed advantage and roll rate at high speed to stay alive. Very historical, and very well illustrated in Targetware.

Now, reverse the story: give your P40s about a 2km advantage on the Zekes and let them do their best imitation of a Focke Wulf: high speed, slashing passes, and then get out of Dodge. Hmmm....seems that same P-40B or E isn't such a bad mount after all.

Here's another experiment: try to attack a bomber in both sims. In IL-2, even if the bomber pilot is corksrewing all over the sky, at some point, he'll still probably manage to put ONE slug right through the central engine block and "oil your windscreen"; that is, if he doesn't put it into your face and just kill you outright.

Try that same thing in Targetware: you're much safer if your attack is faster, or involves more angle changes, or if the bomber pilot is putting Gs on his airframe. If you glide in slowly from dead 6 and the bomber pilot gives his gunner a good shot, you'll most likely hear the uncomfortable rattle of slugs hitting your airframe...all over your airframe, not JUST the engine. You'll get hits that reduce your engine power, you'll pick up holes in the wings, etc. Not just 'engine shot out' or 'pilot killed'.

Now, if the bomber pilot decides to do heavy evasives, you get hit a lot less often. I guess so: the gunner(s) are being thrown all about the plane and fighting just to keep their gun pointed in your general direction. You can forget about accuracy until the thrill ride stops. You see this clearly in Targetware.

Now, maybe it's just me, but things like this really add to the overall 'feeling of flight', too. When I can apply tactics and have them work, or do something dweebish and stupid and have it quickly get me killed, that "feels right". Conversely, when I fly sorties in this sim and find historical tactics produce bullsh*t results time and time again... that doesn't "feel right".

I have flown both this sim and Targetware (and a few others) many, many hours so I can see and identify the differences, and make a fair assesment of the two. Not many others here can make that claim, can they?

crazyivan1970
08-14-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Just how many hours do you have logged Stigler?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

BTW Stig, did you get banned for something again? I am out of the loop on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you did... and created another account...then you might be in trouble this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Frequent_Flyer
08-14-2006, 12:18 PM
Sudoko/Stigler I will certainly agree with your assessment of the rear gunner or other gunner positions on a bomber. However IL-2 is a finnished although outdated product. A meaningful comparision would be TW vs. BOB when their both finished. Competition is always a good thing for the consumer. .If TW is or will be as advertised it will create its own market share. You won't have to be here selling it.

269GA-Veltro
08-14-2006, 01:10 PM
The flight feeling will change...don't worry. In spite of Oleg words, it will change for sure because of the new graphic. The flight feeling depends also by the clouds, the weather, the 3D models, the fields ecc.. ecc..and why not, also with new sounds.

IL2 has a great feeling of flight (Me-262 for ex.), so it can only improve with a new graphic engine, first of all for with an improved weather.

triad773
08-14-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoko/Stigler ....If TW is or will be as advertised it will create its own market share. You won't have to be here selling it.

AMEN to THAT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

starfighter1
08-14-2006, 01:24 PM
hi,
in respect to the developers work
there is only one simulation engine in the market of pc-simulation at the moment, which is near real things of flight dynamic simulation at pc-systems and that is x-plane based on the mathematical physic blade method.

so please don't mix up scientific simulation of aerodynamics on advanced computer systems with arcade pre simple codet aerodynamic programs, pc-flightsimgames like IL-2/FB or FS 04 up to new FSX.

sorry the different is well discussed in science of computer simulation even at aerodynamics at pc-systems.
(OK ..of course there is a possibility to build up an advanced pc system at home
at the moment on realtime linux combined systems)

example: test the fm of IL-2 or FS 04/FSX by running a interface on a cockpit dynamic moving platform ..ok if it's will run well ???

test x-plane on an aproved system ..several are running..

I guess the codet background of IL-2 or FS for example are simple precodet flight modells with few algorithmen to real things and
they have no dynamic fluence opportunities like x-plane for example

all professional sims use the blade method or a advanced mixed model of this as a background to
modern realtime aerodynamic running on advanced computer systems.

of course dynamic weather and atmosphere are parts of this realtime simulation background.

conclusion: this test pilots talk the same marketing **** than 10 or 15 years ago, when MS started with first flightsimulator to the pc-community.

I have not 10 tsd hours...
but enough hours to talk about... even compare to so called dynamic moving platform simulators in realtime http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

to BOB ..OK let's test it in the future with a interface on simple dynamic moving platform using professional equipment...but that means a recoding to realtime Linux OS ..and alot of more even to one simple plane model http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

my two cents to this 'feeling thread'

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 02:01 PM
Couple of things:

Nobody's mixing anything with regards to what a consumer PC game/sim is capable of, starfighter. We all know there are certain limitations, we're discussing what is possible with consumer grade flight sims.

@Frequent Flyer: I'm not "selling" anything. Merely pointing out that there are alternatives to Oleg's FM, and that I don't think it's "the best thing since sliced bread". I'm offering merely a different viewpoint... and as even you can see (note: my comments on the gunners) I do have some pretty on-target points to make.

Whether anyone likes my persistence or not, or my refusal to bow down to the God of Oleg is beside the point. People are persistent in their praises (which I think are well overstated or undeserved), so as long as we can stick to the facts and observations, well, that's what a forum is supposed to be about.

As far as "finished vs. unfinished", that's a pretty watery dodge of an argument. For one, even though IL-2 is a commercially released product, it still has frequent patches, and at least the appearance that change is possible. Targetware is merely not at "1.0 gold release yet", and the way the system is built it will never be "set in stone and finished, either. So, both are in some kind of state of flux, and both can be lauded or criticised for the state they're in right now.

Also, "outdated"... is that even relevant? I thought we were talking about accuracy as well as how "good" or "entertaining" or "immersive" they are? Both do well with those yardsticks in different ways and to different degrees.

@Veltro: I'm not so sure the feeling of flight comes from the graphics. As examples, what about the cartoonish muzzle flashes (and what an argument that was to get the dev team to tone it down for proper DAYTIME display, when 90% of the combat is flown); the eye candy wingdip at startup (with no modeled torque actually causing it); the canned oil leaks (which Billfish showed shouldn't happen on a Tony, due to it's engine configuration, but still does in IL-2). Graphics are only PART of a feeling of immersion. It certainly does no good if what you're being shown is pure BS that just looks good, right?

starfighter1
08-14-2006, 02:58 PM
hi,
Yes you are right
of course 'we are talking about what is possible
with consumer grade flight sims'

or let me ask..better we should ask the developer and publisher http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1) what is possible at background of new hardware development to consumer-pc and
with this BoB engine even in FM, complex plane/ motor simulation and weather simulation... ?

2) what are you willing to do ?

give you the answer by analyse all that small talks from O.M and the history of this pc-simgame

result:
a medium compromise to 'Jonny and Igor Joystick' and some so called 'real settings' (I don't what that is ? You ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif who wants to (fight)play like a warbird pilot and have a lot of fun by using easy going simulation of warbird handling basics ...ok of course with the latest nice grafic illusion to desktops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


that's all and sorry not more is possible or in the interest of all this developers in that genre

believe or believe it not.. that's the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif



[QUOTE]Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Couple of things:

Nobody's mixing anything with regards to what a consumer PC game/sim is capable of, starfighter. We all know there are certain limitations, we're discussing what is possible with consumer grade flight sims.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Oleg already posted about changes past 4.05 to the handling and feel so.....
if you don't have the version that Oleg has,
then how can you be saying anything about the feel?

Gee I wonder how much more IL2 series would have no if it didn't have AI like an unfinished
sim that's going to be so much better? LOL! TW is so much more real *to a guy with no real
experience*! That's like a virgin telling me how good sex is with some skank because he's
seen pictures of it! Well, it's like what he's read about....

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 03:40 PM
I don't have 4.05, that's true.

But nothing changed much in that flight model. Certainly nothing of the order of change that happened in 4.0 up to this point.

It's the same little tweaks to the same faulty FM, resulting in the same whipsawing of certain aircraft.

We also know that actual stick time in real aircraft is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of how well planes react compared to what test documents, Pilot's Manuals and historical data say they'll do. So, while my opinion on overall feel of flight might be of less value than those of someone who is a pilot, it certainly doesn't mean I can't take part in the discussion at all.

Keep deflecting, Gunz, old boy, but the same points won't go away....

slipBall
08-14-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
That's a weak and rather convenient excuse to make for Oleg.

Provided you can get data on aircraft and weapons, you can make them pretty accurate. Simply taking on a large planeset doesn't mean that the fidelity goes down per se. The same work you need to do on the physics model to do ONE plane to the nth degree, works for any others you add; meaning, the base physics model. Earth physics don't change by aircraft designation. Neither do aerodynamic principles. You may add additional variables when speeds get near the Mach 1 range (like with early jets and so forth), but still...

When the base model is suspect, that's when you get the wild performance swings you see in IL-2. "Tweaking" the physics to get proper behavior should not drastically change planes' entire character, as we've seen here with P-39s, Hurricanes, La5s, etc.

The flight model for IL-2 isn't the worst out there by any means, but it is a far cry from the best.


What I was getting at, was that I would love to have individual aircraft modeled exactly as the real thing, both on ground/in air behaviour. Much of this coming from the hundreds of pilot statements, as to handelng those great aircraft. That may happen in the future, I look forward to that possibility, and I hope that it is from Russian, with Oleg love http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


edit: pf is what it is, at the near end of development, not perfect, but enjoyable. So we have to wait for the future

Frequent_Flyer
08-14-2006, 06:04 PM
Sudoku Il-2 was designed from inception to be a sim that features small formations of tiny little German and Russian aircraft ,with tiny fuel capacity and small amounts of ammunition chasing each other in a circle with one wing tip dragging in the dirt. It does this better than any other Sim. Anyone that has played this sim recognizes that their is a "glass ceiling" above this the sim is lacking.The flight models, the high altitude landscape, and clouds are bad. It seems to me you keep preaching to the chior. BOB claims to have addressed these issues. Only time will tell>

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoku Il-2 was designed from inception to be a sim that features small formations of tiny little German and Russian aircraft ,with tiny fuel capacity and small amounts of ammunition chasing each other in a circle with one wing tip dragging in the dirt. It does this better than any other Sim. Anyone that has played this sim recognizes that their is a "glass ceiling" above this the sim is lacking.The flight models, the high altitude landscape, and clouds are bad. It seems to me you keep preaching to the chior. BOB claims to have addressed these issues. Only time will tell>

Understood; the sim and any in its general class have some limits. But, I still feel it manages to get things correct that are within those limits, and that's what we're discussing here.

Now...you did touch on something interesting... where, in any of the info on BoB have we touched on ANY detail from Oleg about improving the flight model??? All I see is better graphics (the ones we have are great as it is, but if it can be even better, fine...) and a better, more granular damage model (which should be great as well) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . There has been NO EVIDENCE I've seen at all that the energy bleed will be better, acceleration will be better, the stall and spin behavior will be more fleshed out...nothing whatsoever to do with the flight model.

If I'm wrong, feel free to point that out, and attach the link to any info about that.

Frequent_Flyer
08-14-2006, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoku Il-2 was designed from inception to be a sim that features small formations of tiny little German and Russian aircraft ,with tiny fuel capacity and small amounts of ammunition chasing each other in a circle with one wing tip dragging in the dirt. It does this better than any other Sim. Anyone that has played this sim recognizes that their is a "glass ceiling" above this the sim is lacking.The flight models, the high altitude landscape, and clouds are bad. It seems to me you keep preaching to the chior. BOB claims to have addressed these issues. Only time will tell>

Understood; the sim and any in its general class have some limits. But, I still feel it manages to get things correct that are within those limits, and that's what we're discussing here.

Now...you did touch on something interesting... where, in any of the info on BoB have we touched on ANY detail from Oleg about improving the flight model??? All I see is better graphics (the ones we have are great as it is, but if it can be even better, fine...) and a better, more granular damage model (which should be great as well) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . There has been NO EVIDENCE I've seen at all that the energy bleed will be better, acceleration will be better, the stall and spin behavior will be more fleshed out...nothing whatsoever to do with the flight model.

If I'm wrong, feel free to point that out, and attach the link to any info about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no evidence any of these issue will be addressed.....Thats why only time will tell.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 07:39 PM
So the newer 3D models of SOW with mass data assigned to 3D elements is not going to make the
flight mechanics any better? Pull the other one.

I Frequent_Flyer really Leadspitter, or is that F6_Ace?

How about X-Plane gets debugged (the reviews say buggy) and then does combat with dozens of
planes and scores of ground objects that move and/or shoot and all works online at a comparable
framerate to IL2 4.05 and then we compare? Oh, wait, that might be fair so let's compare the
only good part of a pure sim that needs more PC to one that does far more on less PC since
that way you can make one of them sound bad, which is the real goal after all.

Frequent_Flyer
08-14-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So the newer 3D models of SOW with mass data assigned to 3D elements is not going to make the
flight mechanics any better? Pull the other one.

I Frequent_Flyer really Leadspitter, or is that F6_Ace?

How about X-Plane gets debugged (the reviews say buggy) and then does combat with dozens of
planes and scores of ground objects that move and/or shoot and all works online at a comparable
framerate to IL2 4.05 and then we compare? Oh, wait, that might be fair so let's compare the
only good part of a pure sim that needs more PC to one that does far more on less PC since
that way you can make one of them sound bad, which is the real goal after all. No its really me Frequent_Flyer.Quite frankly I am looking foreward to all the improvements hinted at in the interview with Oleg with guarded optimism.However, since neither you nor I have played BOB everything to this point is hearsay.

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So the newer 3D models of SOW with mass data assigned to 3D elements is not going to make the
flight mechanics any better? Pull the other one.

Hasn't got it right with the variables he's using now yet, has he? How many versions now, with aircraft whipsawing all over the "ability continuum"?

Adding in more variables is just likely to confuse the guy more, and to have more stuff to get wrong.

I'd settle for accurate energy bleed across the board and ditto for accereration. Big start, there. That'd be HUGE. I'd even be excited to buy it if I could count on those two changes. I could even put up with canned stalls and capricious spins for a little while in exchange.

Then, set up the graphics so that at least the top 3 graphics cards companies products are supported so that you can see dots below you when you ought to.

Now, that to me, would be a quantum leap, just in the change in the combat experience that'd bring. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

But, meanwhile, back to the discussion on the great graphics.... something IL-2 has already owned for a couple years now, with few if any challengers in sight for that mantle...

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 09:39 PM
Way off target with your usual get-it-wrong and run with it slanted rant Stiglr. WAY OFF.

The current 3D models were designed in late 2002 when PC standards were .... late 2002.
Consider the PC requirements for SOW are still not set yet 2+G RAM and 3+G CPU with much
more videocard than most have now is pretty certain. When FB came out 1/2+G RAM and a
1.5+G CPU with much less videocard than now worked okay.

Why do you invent your nonsense and then try and pump it up like your ego-filled head?
You don't like the sim, you don't like the maker, you have something else you swear is
so much better yet you spend time spreading made-up BS stink here for what reason? Or
is it just insanity on your part, some kind of obsession? Perhaps you spread half and
full lies to try and get people to switch to TW that -overall- is no better at all so
that you can gain points of some kind with the TW people. I've had that with ISP's I
have been with, 1 to 3 months free for every new customer I could get to mention my name.
So which is it with you? Or is it a combination? Dude, _you_ suck.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
No its really me Frequent_Flyer.Quite frankly I am looking foreward to all the improvements hinted at in the interview with Oleg with guarded optimism.However, since neither you nor I have played BOB everything to this point is hearsay.

First I am going to have to wait until I have enough PC to run it. Including OS upgrade,
and extra $100 I think right there. And I am on fixed income.

I am happy about what the FM promises for sure. Masses in the 3D model means that COG can
change with fuel and ammo use. Changes in attitude will be I hope more real. We will see,
I think. No guarantee on tomorrow for anyone.

Things I am hopeful for are:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better view system. The LOD's that disappear and the smallness of targets keep me having
to use icons that at least they can be limited. In this, IL2 series has been IMO second
rate to sims like Rowans MA especially but also EAW to a lesser extent even if the ground
of the IL2 series is much better. My main concern is SA and being able to judge energy
states which the LOD's really hurt even when they aren't disappearing while I watch and
closing in right to BnZ shooting range.

I live with what I've got but it means icons are a must for me, also padlock, both limited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better trim. It needs to be at least hold the key and it moves until you let up and then
stops. None of this count the clicks or guess how many seconds and fractions it will take
to have the right amount with the magic multiplier built in because you will not stop the
movement yourself when it reaches the right point. Better to me yet would be click button
for an axis when the stick is held off center and trim will move as much as needed to take
up tha slack as I can then concentrate on letting off on the joystick to match the change.

I live with what I've got by clicking trim one step at a time. Slider I would have to know
how far to move and I want only to trim for balance not for special turns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI with higher logical and tactical functions. Possibly also online that non-flying players
can direct an AI group from 3rd person POV to provide more realistic coops.

I live with what I've got because it is there at least. Well designed missions do avoid
the worst blunders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And then my private wishlist:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions able to load planes worn or damaged to create realistic front conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DF able to load and run AI, able to remove them on destroyed, landed or flown off the map
and then able to put other AI in those slots.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd party campaigns/missions able to fully control segments between missions by using
external programs to provide display. Like web browser. With this I am sure there will
be far more immersion and the ability to grow outside the actual missions. Brief and
debrief can be very dynamic, incidental action may be introduced all without much cost
in time/effort in development. But I have been hoping for this a long while. We are
VERY CLOSE to this already with the campaign and DF server interfaces. Only thing we
don't have is the sim relinquishing control of the display and inputs then taking back
up on command from the generator or daemon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

starfighter1
08-15-2006, 02:06 AM
hi,
try this The Ultimate Difficulty Setting
More Frank Humor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

by Frank "BA_Dart" Giger

http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_241a.html

sudoku1941
08-15-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Way off target with your usual get-it-wrong and run with it slanted rant Stiglr. WAY OFF.

The current 3D models were designed in late 2002 when PC standards were .... late 2002.
Consider the PC requirements for SOW are still not set yet 2+G RAM and 3+G CPU with much
more videocard than most have now is pretty certain. When FB came out 1/2+G RAM and a
1.5+G CPU with much less videocard than now worked okay.


Well, let's get to work defusing this bomb.

I, for one, think it's kind of risky for a developer to design for machines that most of his audience don't own, unless he knows for certain that they're gonna upgrade SOON. It seems rather obvious that the 2GB+ CPU, 512MB vid card, etc. etc. is aiming for a rig that's costing over $1000, with one of them thar newfangled dual core chips and at least a gig of memory standard. In a recent trip to CompUSA, I could only find ONE 512MB video card on the shelves, the rest were at 256MB.. and half the price.

So, while it is good to push the envelope, you still have to take into account that many of your base users might be left behind and won't buy the game simply because of that. If they can't run it, why own it? The other scenario, of course, is that there'll be alot of *****ing and moaning about "slide shows" on here about 1 week after release. Since Ubi is one of those companies that "downgrades" the 'Minimum System Requirements' to perhaps show would-be buyers the type of machine that can only run the sim at ugly 800 x 600 graphics and with only a few planes in a scenario on a very sparsely populated map... they'll likely say that today's "average" Pentium 3 or P4 system will be the recommended system.

There's something to be said for Oleg's take at rusty old 2002 graphics. The dot visbility problem excepted, the graphics are the one indisputable triumph of the entire IL-2 system.

IL-2 could certainly "skate by" with the current graphics engine ("old" as it is, it still looks better than anything it competes with), and put its greatest effort into those things that can improve the FM, DM and realism. For those things, they'll tax the chip and the memory more, but perhaps won't necessitate as big or as expensive an upgrade as the full boat changes would.

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 03:44 PM
Compared to Targetware for example, I find Il2/FB streets ahead in terms of 'feeling of flight'

I guess its a bit unfair to compare a non profit sim with Olegs sim, but I havent really tried any other flight sims from the past 2 years.

When flying Targetware, I didnt get the same complex flight feeling, no buffeting aproaching stall, I didnt get a real feeling of flying.

Il2/FB has so much character, I can see why he doesnt want to change it too much. It just needs tweaking now. It will never be perfect.

Just like the flight models, its always possible to improve them.

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 04:08 PM
I find the upcoming system specs to be steep and minimum RAM is expected at 2G, not 1G as
I already have that. CPU, I have a 2500+ and may need to upgrade but my mobo only goes
so far to like 3Gz. I played FB 1.0 on a 1Gz Athlon the first year before I could scrape
enough to upgrade to the 2500+ I have now. The 1Gz Athlon had 512MB PC133 RAM, on upgrade
I bought 512MB 333 RAM (been so long I've forgot the buzznames). Until less than 2 years
ago I survived on a GF2 64M card but now I have a GF5200FX with 128M.

DOTS? I can see DOTS fine. It's the LOD's that give me problems. I run ICONS. Limited
ICONS are fully acceptable to me. With my card it's 1024x768 anyway but with my eye defects
I really need the ICONS so that's what I stick to. I also use padlock as I have no TIR.
Oh sacriligeous horrors!

I figure I may be a year late getting SOW:BoB and hopefully no longer. With all the extra
details modelled it's gonna take twice the RAM. Hardware requirements are a business
decision and if that's what a manager decides then it is his business after all, not mine.

slappedsilly
08-15-2006, 04:27 PM
I think Oleg is aiming for the last word in WWII flight sims. To do that he has to time it perfectly. BoB (SOW) would have to be released when the hardware is capable (and I dont think its there yet) but not too late or someone will beat him to the punch. I think it will take a cutting edge computer to run it on high settings when its released, but even on lower settings will be quite awesome. The current sim itself is awesome (IMO) so I'll take BoB on low settings and be very happy. I think a computer that will run BoB on high settings might be the last computer you will need to buy, and wouldn't that be great?

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 05:25 PM
It will take a LOT of PC to run on middle settings even. Consider that newer hardware that
comes out later will not obsolete the SOW engine.

As to last computer upgrade I will ever need? No way!

I remember the first IBM PC had capacity for a whopping 640k of ram! This was when the 8085
machine I used in engineering at the fab shop had 32k ram and ran at a blazing 5mz. Even
later my first home-built PC was a Z-80 machine that I put in dram chips to make 64k ram.

The lid blew off in 86 when the true clone parts appeared at fully PC shows and sales (before
then we went to ham-radio gatherings, hamfests, to find cheap parts to build machines) and
if you knew what you were doing then you could build the same thing that sold in stores for
$2000 for right around $600-$700.

640k of ram was quoted by Bill Gates as all the memory anyone would ever need! Freaking LOL!
Those of us who WORKED in the industry knew better! There were add-in cards to take the PC
up to 1 meg and beyond even about then. My first big obstacle was getting hard drives to
work, paid $150 just for a controller card.

Nahhh, there will not be a final PC. Sorry but to model reality at 10% full for even a small
volume is more machine than most of us dream of and yet we dream of full reality for whole
large regions of the planet.

Just ride the wave and be happy to be so young that you may see more than you ever thought
and will put todays best completely to shame. That is if somehow the world isn't pushed
over into WW3 or perhaps a large asteroid doesn't hit since hey between terrorists and
greedy governments there is no push to be truely space-capable.

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I find the upcoming system specs to be steep and minimum RAM is expected at 2G, not 1G as
I already have that. CPU, I have a 2500+ and may need to upgrade but my mobo only goes
so far to like 3Gz. I played FB 1.0 on a 1Gz Athlon the first year before I could scrape
enough to upgrade to the 2500+ I have now. The 1Gz Athlon had 512MB PC133 RAM, on upgrade
I bought 512MB 333 RAM (been so long I've forgot the buzznames). Until less than 2 years
ago I survived on a GF2 64M card but now I have a GF5200FX with 128M.

DOTS? I can see DOTS fine. It's the LOD's that give me problems. I run ICONS. Limited
ICONS are fully acceptable to me. With my card it's 1024x768 anyway but with my eye defects
I really need the ICONS so that's what I stick to. I also use padlock as I have no TIR.
Oh sacriligeous horrors!

.

Max, your graphics card is really really poor, mate. The 5200 is not really a gamers card at all.

A Geforce 6800GS or a Radeon X80 will give your system a truly MASSIVE boost after using that POS 520 card. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even a 2nd hand 9800 Pro or 5900 Ultra off ebay would be 10 times better. You can pick these up for around 40.

If you cant afford these then pick up a Geforce Ti4600 off ebay for about 20. Still light years ahead of your 5200, and a good upgrade for next to no money.

The 9800/5900 would better tho as you could get close to perfect graphics settings.

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 06:45 PM
It's about priorities. I will probably upgrade late this year if some other bill or
need doesn't get in the way. But to get a used 5900 sounds good to me. Really my
5200 has 256 RAM, BTW. I run graphics on mostly low settings. Had to ditch the GF2
because of view range where I was getting shadowed by onliners I couldn't see who
couldn't catch up till I was slowed down to land.

Eye candy is not a big goal for me and from all I've read, having more videocard does
not improve SA at all. If it did then yeah I'd have upgraded better last time.

Higher priorities include small donations to some charities and the like. I donate
enough there to get that used card but I think those veterans far worse off than me
really need the help. And some others. All rate more than eye candy level to me.
Perhaps if that money tree out back will bloom.....

Frequent_Flyer
08-15-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
No its really me Frequent_Flyer.Quite frankly I am looking foreward to all the improvements hinted at in the interview with Oleg with guarded optimism.However, since neither you nor I have played BOB everything to this point is hearsay.

First I am going to have to wait until I have enough PC to run it. Including OS upgrade,
and extra $100 I think right there. And I am on fixed income.

I am happy about what the FM promises for sure. Masses in the 3D model means that COG can
change with fuel and ammo use. Changes in attitude will be I hope more real. We will see,
I think. No guarantee on tomorrow for anyone.

Things I am hopeful for are:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better view system. The LOD's that disappear and the smallness of targets keep me having
to use icons that at least they can be limited. In this, IL2 series has been IMO second
rate to sims like Rowans MA especially but also EAW to a lesser extent even if the ground
of the IL2 series is much better. My main concern is SA and being able to judge energy
states which the LOD's really hurt even when they aren't disappearing while I watch and
closing in right to BnZ shooting range.

I live with what I've got but it means icons are a must for me, also padlock, both limited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better trim. It needs to be at least hold the key and it moves until you let up and then
stops. None of this count the clicks or guess how many seconds and fractions it will take
to have the right amount with the magic multiplier built in because you will not stop the
movement yourself when it reaches the right point. Better to me yet would be click button
for an axis when the stick is held off center and trim will move as much as needed to take
up tha slack as I can then concentrate on letting off on the joystick to match the change.

I live with what I've got by clicking trim one step at a time. Slider I would have to know
how far to move and I want only to trim for balance not for special turns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI with higher logical and tactical functions. Possibly also online that non-flying players
can direct an AI group from 3rd person POV to provide more realistic coops.

I live with what I've got because it is there at least. Well designed missions do avoid
the worst blunders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And then my private wishlist:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions able to load planes worn or damaged to create realistic front conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DF able to load and run AI, able to remove them on destroyed, landed or flown off the map
and then able to put other AI in those slots.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd party campaigns/missions able to fully control segments between missions by using
external programs to provide display. Like web browser. With this I am sure there will
be far more immersion and the ability to grow outside the actual missions. Brief and
debrief can be very dynamic, incidental action may be introduced all without much cost
in time/effort in development. But I have been hoping for this a long while. We are
VERY CLOSE to this already with the campaign and DF server interfaces. Only thing we
don't have is the sim relinquishing control of the display and inputs then taking back
up on command from the generator or daemon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No. 1 Realistic and complex damage modelling.No more "magic bullet" that takes out my engine from a "dead" rear gunner. Or the flamming AI that continues to score victories. I don't care how much CPU i'll need I hope AI have the same sophisticated DM as the "live" aircraft.

sudoku1941
08-15-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Compared to Targetware for example, I find Il2/FB streets ahead in terms of 'feeling of flight'

I guess its a bit unfair to compare a non profit sim with Olegs sim, but I havent really tried any other flight sims from the past 2 years.

When flying Targetware, I didnt get the same complex flight feeling, no buffeting aproaching stall, I didnt get a real feeling of flying.

Il2/FB has so much character, I can see why he doesnt want to change it too much. It just needs tweaking now. It will never be perfect.

Just like the flight models, its always possible to improve them.

Considering you stayed only long enough to get a cup of coffee, I just don't take your comments with more than a large grain of sea salt.

I remember when you popped up on the forum there, and just as quickly disappeared. Not that I'm online all the time, but I don't recall ever seeing you online on a TW server. Did you have a handle there, and if so what was it? Maybe I can do a little sleuth work and see if you actually did more than a few circuits and bumps.

For one thing, you get a definite "wallow" when you're at or near stall in almost any plane in Targetware. I've heard the buffet noise many a time, so I know that's there too.

But, as for "feel of flight" I think we've established both of the sims have that.

Now, go a little further and look at some of the historical matchups, like F4f vs. Zero, even FW190 vs. contemporary Spitfire. Examine the difference in what happens when you attack a flexgun-armed aircraft, both the ill-advised and the tactically expedient ways.

Bearcat99
08-15-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by russ.nl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Didn't 40 some pilots beta test 4.02. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean IL2 or FB4.xx?

I think that BoB will run decently on current rigs that run FB well. Meaning that we may not be able to run the highest settings but we will be able to run. I ran IL2 on excellent settings for a long long time... even FB.. it was only when I got my 6800 that I was able to run Perfect settings with any kind of flyable frames.... and on excellent settings this sim is..... excellent!! WE are so spoiled..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
No. 1 Realistic and complex damage modelling.No more "magic bullet" that takes out my engine from a "dead" rear gunner.

That needs to be ntrk recorded and the track sent in. Long ago I was able to make and send
a track where a 20mm shell exploded inside a Tu cockpit and no damage. The next patch one
of the changes was noted that shrapnel was not making damage. Yet from some screenshot
evidence I think that still shrapnel does not do much to pilots and crew. I know that I
have always had a devil of a time killing bomber gunners for example. It's possible but....

[QUOTE Or the flamming AI that continues to score victories. I don't care how much CPU i'll need I hope AI have the same sophisticated DM as the "live" aircraft.[/QUOTE]

I have a yes and no feeling about this. Like damage graphics there are limited flame graphics
and the look is not the level of the model. In some cases of damage I do think that graphics
are mistakenly assigned in data, what is seen is far from what is is 3D data. Perhaps just
so with flames, small fire may be seen as huge flaming trail of fireballs. Real fire that
big should precede explosion of the plane by 30 seconds of less, usually much less. I think
we can agree that if pilot would know of fire then pilot should bail out, even player pilot
should have no choice -- you ever find yourself moving from danger without thought? I have!

slappedsilly
08-16-2006, 09:53 AM
As to last computer upgrade I will ever need? No way!

I think photo realism is only 5-6 years out. Look at crysis game, It will be released within a year and graphics are close to photo realism. I think there's and end to improved graphics. Now physics wise, you can take that as far as you want, but at some point for games theres an end there too. There will be a slim market only for true to life physics carried out to the point thats past detection though a video monitor.

WWMaxGunz
08-16-2006, 12:21 PM
Physics-wise it can never get down to a Planck-length because of uncertainty itself.
But for flight sims the farest goal will may be total air modelling. There will be posts
about imagine no more approximations if the trend continues, people are around and able
to run sims and post or some analogue. Until then, shortcuts and approximations.

Closer to the next few decades ther may be more and more detail, down to sub-millimeter.
Thickness of aircraft skin in WWII was from engineers I knew who did work those things
in those years about 1/2 mm. I was in precision sheet metal and machining fabricators
and those guys were 'old' then, twice my age and a few, half my life now ago, LOL! So
imagine how much PC it will take when a shell punches hole through skin that tears by
stress and strain formulae such as laid out in Machinery's Handbook to tear in precise
way of deformation and fatigue and cause correct deformation of the shell and change
to spin, tumble through at the correct angle? When the impact there affects the rivets
in very small scale so when/if the rib gets hit there is correct small scale loosening
that when the charge in the shell goes off with hypervelocity wavefront it tears at
skin, ribs, fastenings and major structure in complete realistic manner by forces both
over square areas but also stress accumulations that cause certain parts to tear or
shear first precisely by position of parts and explosion... the effect when hit from
some angle and precise velocity down to meter per second being different from hit at
others rather than all hits grouped to limited effects (equals somewhere a "table")
well, that is beyond just making it look right or act approximately and beyond the
ability to see right. And some day possibly when WWII is ancient history it may be
achieved. But then we have people playing RTW so the interest may still live.

So imagine that! Shell fragments that bounce. Will that piece that nicked you also
hit a big vein or small artery or will you have a minor wound... or will the AI that
has to be slowed down to not be inhumanly fast and accurate? Oh yes... what goes on
inside the AI's head is beyond photo-real limit!

The nanotech people like Eric Drexler say that there can be computers the size of blood
cells more powerful than what I write this reply with. Team up a soccerball sized net
of those and maybe even with efficiency losses and need for power, cooling and commo
lines it will be enough for above and STILL the maps will not be large, the number of
planes, ground objects and virt people will be too small to populate as approximated
by a small IL2 map that you note they are ghost towns, few vehicles and no troops now.

So how far to this ultimate where no one says "more"? I think it will not happen due to
limits of materials, energy and time.

JG4_Helofly
08-16-2006, 07:52 PM
The feeling of flight is better in TW I think. Have you ever tried to start with full power in 0.1 sec in a spit? You will not survive it without damages. In il2 you can apply full power instantly on planes like bf109, spit,... . If this is correct from the point of view of these 40 RL pilots then they only fly with hand made paper planes.
And inspite of such evidences Oleg what us to belive him that the FM is very close to RL.
Sorry, but it is simply not possible to start with 2000ps, applyed instantly, without crashing your plane ( 109, spit,...),also when Oleg says it's correct.

If we will still have such flight behaviours in bob than bye bye to realisme improvements.

maheikki
08-17-2006, 03:05 AM
Ignore Gunz, he is Olegs funboy no.1.
I bet he gets salary to tell that Olegs FM is the best in world.

And Helofly, I only tried TW for 10 minutes offline and difference to FB is huge. You mentoined takeoff, the way you can takeoff now in PF is simply ridicilous, just slam the trottle and gohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dont take me wrong, I think that PF is better game though, but not in the era of FM.

WWMaxGunz
08-17-2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by maheikki:
Ignore Gunz, he is Olegs funboy no.1.
I bet he gets salary to tell that Olegs FM is the best in world.

And Helofly, I only tried TW for 10 minutes offline and difference to FB is huge. You mentoined takeoff, the way you can takeoff now in PF is simply ridicilous, just slam the trottle and gohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dont take me wrong, I think that PF is better game though, but not in the era of FM.

Says 11 posts already?

Best FB for a WWII combat flight sim and there is no money or anything my way except for the
best WWII combat flight sim to date my judgement overall and does include eye-candy as an
element of immersion.

I have my wishes of changes with SOW. Spots I would wish to have different but are not,
I just don't feel like being a d**k about it. It's that simple.

sudoku1941
08-17-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I have my wishes of changes with SOW. Spots I would wish to have different but are not,
I just don't feel like being a d**k about it. It's that simple.

Well, that's the first time you've made a statement like that. As for "being a d**k about it", that seems to be your usual tack: refusal to answer on-target challenges half the time, instead resorting to trying to uncover other posters' agendas (like you know them personally), inventing theories to cover Oleg's butt, etc.

We all have at least small nits to pick with any sim we enjoy or dislike; that's to be expected. What also should be expected is the maturity to discuss them with a level head.

Actually, Gunz, that doesn't just apply to you, it also applies to the moderation. Stifling debate on "unpleasant issues" certainly doesn't make the issues go away, either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

starfighter1
08-17-2006, 10:34 AM
hi,
2007 will be the year of advanced hardware

1) Dual- and Quad-CPU (AMD is ready by the way)
2) Dual-GPU or a quad bundle of graphic cards
plus high tech intergrated physic chips

3) hope to more exact sim equipment

the important point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
it's up to the software developer to improve the programs.
either in graphic and so my hope together with more komplex physic design in FM and of course KI.

but one main point
only if the developer/publisher is willing to do that...by looking to the background of marketing and the mass market
to Jonny and Igor Joystick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

by the way: there was a comment from a game magazine to MS new FSX ...
'yes now it's a interest game ..with misssion and ...'

in several FS forums the old flight sim
enthusiasts talking about the missing of improved FM and the rest of the fans talking about graphic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

so if there is a strong interest in the community to get mor realistic FM and komplex features
OK why not
than I guess the sim will cost up to 500 bucks
nearly a prize same as all this trainee software at flight schools.

my idea to BoB as MS is doing with FSX:

1) Standard Edition

2) Deluxe or advanced Edition with improved FM
komplex handling settings, wide interface to
cockpit builders and may be together with
TrackIR 6dof. (OS Windows and Linux)

OK it's up to the publisher if the developer say yes we have the time, the will and know how to do more

and it's up th ecommunity to give a clear response to O.M. and the publisher

mazexx
08-17-2006, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
in respect to the developers work
there is only one simulation engine in the market of pc-simulation at the moment, which is near real things of flight dynamic simulation at pc-systems and that is x-plane based on the mathematical physic blade method.

so please don't mix up scientific simulation of aerodynamics on advanced computer systems with arcade pre simple codet aerodynamic programs, pc-flightsimgames like IL-2/FB or FS 04 up to new FSX.



Ehh, after this comment I had to try X-Plane... Fired up version 8.40. Full throttle in my 747 and down the runway we go. Up in the air and at 2000ft and 370kt I pull the stick to my stomach and apply full left rudder (snap roll beeing a personal favourite). After completing a snap roll left I keep the stick in my stomach and just apply full right rudder as I get level. Wham it snaps to the right. Repeat the procedure to the left. Lost 1000ft and almost no speed at all... Yes that was a 747 and not an SU-26 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So I try the Cirrus glider. Push it to 160kts and starts a loop at 1000ft. It loops nicely so I keep the stick in my stomach. After 10-15 loops I still have 1000ft but my six minutes have passed...

Is that your IL-2 cruscher in FM modelling or did I miss something?

/Mazex

WWMaxGunz
08-17-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
2007 will be the year of advanced hardware

1) Dual- and Quad-CPU (AMD is ready by the way)
2) Dual-GPU or a quad bundle of graphic cards
plus high tech intergrated physic chips



British company INMOS has been making multicore von-Neumann processors with multiple highspeed
serial links internal and external since... I first saw em written about in IIRC 1985, they
were being used then. Even has a parallel processing language named Occam and by design keeps
very high efficiency when multi-processing, 95%. The came out on PC cards I saw in 1987 with
2 to 4 multi-CPU chips per card and the cards interconnected. There was a 'connectivity card'
that let the serial links (4 per processor, kinda like carbon atoms hehe) be reconfigured
during operation. If anyone remembers The Connectivity Machine back then, what were the
processors used? And there was "Alice" that had over 100 INMOS proocessors as well.

The name of those is Transputers and last I checked they are still improving them for speed
and capacity.

2007? Those things were available over 20 years ago. Intel wasn't ready and AMD was doing
what? Next best was Motorola with clean, non-segment architecture and then Intel 80-line.

NonWonderDog
08-17-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by mazexx:
Ehh, after this comment I had to try X-Plane... Fired up version 8.40. Full throttle in my 747 and down the runway we go. Up in the air and at 2000ft and 370kt I pull the stick to my stomach and apply full left rudder (snap roll beeing a personal favourite). After completing a snap roll left I keep the stick in my stomach and just apply full right rudder as I get level. Wham it snaps to the right. Repeat the procedure to the left. Lost 1000ft and almost no speed at all... Yes that was a 747 and not an SU-26 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So I try the Cirrus glider. Push it to 160kts and starts a loop at 1000ft. It loops nicely so I keep the stick in my stomach. After 10-15 loops I still have 1000ft but my six minutes have passed...

Is that your IL-2 cruscher in FM modelling or did I miss something?

/Mazex

X-Plane flight models are actually rather horrible, all things being equal. I can certainly appreciate what they're trying to do, though. X-Plane determines the flight characteristics of each plane based on the shape of the wings and control surfaces and the airfoil cross-section... there's a lot less fudge-factor involved than IL-2, for instance.

Ultimately, though, it's the fudge-factor that makes the planes seem real. It will be a LONG time until we're able to run a real-time CFD flight simulator, and blade element is simply not made for what X-Plane tries to do with it. X-Plane originally started as and is best appreciated as an interesting diversion in aircraft design; as a flight simulator it falls flat on its face.

starfighter1
08-18-2006, 02:25 AM
hi,

I guess you tried a short demo ..and did not change different inside settings...even to stick and more ....
on the other hand ..Yes a Boeing 747 or Airbus has a capability of a little more like You know by joining as passenger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ask a testpilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

so try it for longer time and get an advice from
someone who will show you the basics and correct settings to different planes in that simultion.

[/QUOTE]

Ehh, after this comment I had to try X-Plane... Fired up version 8.40. Full throttle in my 747 and down the runway we go. Up in the air and at 2000ft and 370kt I pull the stick to my stomach and apply full left rudder (snap roll beeing a personal favourite). After completing a snap roll left I keep the stick in my stomach and just apply full right rudder as I get level. Wham it snaps to the right. Repeat the procedure to the left. Lost 1000ft and almost no speed at all... Yes that was a 747 and not an SU-26 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So I try the Cirrus glider. Push it to 160kts and starts a loop at 1000ft. It loops nicely so I keep the stick in my stomach. After 10-15 loops I still have 1000ft but my six minutes have passed...

Is that your IL-2 cruscher in FM modelling or did I miss something?

/Mazex[/QUOTE]

mazexx
08-18-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,

I guess you tried a short demo ..and did not change different inside settings...even to stick and more ....
on the other hand ..Yes a Boeing 747 or Airbus has a capability of a little more like You know by joining as passenger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ask a testpilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

so try it for longer time and get an advice from
someone who will show you the basics and correct settings to different planes in that simultion.

[QUOTE]

Ehh, after this comment I had to try X-Plane... Fired up version 8.40. Full throttle in my 747 and down the runway we go. Up in the air and at 2000ft and 370kt I pull the stick to my stomach and apply full left rudder (snap roll beeing a personal favourite). After completing a snap roll left I keep the stick in my stomach and just apply full right rudder as I get level. Wham it snaps to the right. Repeat the procedure to the left. Lost 1000ft and almost no speed at all... Yes that was a 747 and not an SU-26 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So I try the Cirrus glider. Push it to 160kts and starts a loop at 1000ft. It loops nicely so I keep the stick in my stomach. After 10-15 loops I still have 1000ft but my six minutes have passed...

Is that your IL-2 cruscher in FM modelling or did I miss something?

/Mazex

Well, I don't have too many hours IRL on jets but I can tell you that even IF a testpilot in a stripped down 747 would be able to do a tripple reversing snap roll it would bleed off more energy than Chernobyl at breakdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If we forget about the 747 and go to the GLIDER looping at continous max elevator deflection without loosing altitude 15 times there is not much to say? It sure makes the PF 3.0 F4U loops feel realistic...

An FM like that can use scientific methods for calculations as much as it likes. If you apply scientific formulae to the wrong values and the result is WAY off mark it does not make it scientific... I do like the ambition level but it's unfortunatley not working.

/Mazex

starfighter1
08-18-2006, 12:00 PM
hi,
you have to test such things on a professional X-plane dynamic moving platform compare to real flying.

and even with gliders the weather settings are very important at X-plane.
There are wide areas of settings which influence
the planes behavior as in real atmosphere.

so it takes time of getting the correct stick and rudder settings..
by the way, how to trim the planes in X-Plane is one of the important points
as in real flying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif







/Mazex[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't have too many hours IRL on jets but I can tell you that even IF a testpilot in a stripped down 747 would be able to do a tripple reversing snap rolls it would bleed off more energy than Chernobyl at breakdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If we forget about the 747 and go to the GLIDER looping at continous max elevator deflection without loosing altitude 15 times there is not much to say? It sure makes the PF 3.0 F4U loops feel realistic...

An FM like that can use scientific methods for calculations as much as it likes. If you apply scientific formulae to the wrong values and the result is WAY off mark it does not make it scientific... I do like the ambition level but it's unfortunatley not working.

/Mazex[/QUOTE]

mazexx
08-18-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
you have to test such things on a professional X-plane dynamic moving platform compare to real flying.

and even with gliders the weather settings are very important at X-plane.
There are wide areas of settings which influence
the planes behavior as in real atmosphere.

so it takes time of getting the correct stick and rudder settings..
by the way, how to trim the planes in X-Plane is one of the important points
as in real flying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Well, I don't have too many hours IRL on jets but I can tell you that even IF a testpilot in a stripped down 747 would be able to do a tripple reversing snap rolls it would bleed off more energy than Chernobyl at breakdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If we forget about the 747 and go to the GLIDER looping at continous max elevator deflection without loosing altitude 15 times there is not much to say? It sure makes the PF 3.0 F4U loops feel realistic...

An FM like that can use scientific methods for calculations as much as it likes. If you apply scientific formulae to the wrong values and the result is WAY off mark it does not make it scientific... I do like the ambition level but it's unfortunatley not working.

/Mazex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it why I continue this discussion...

The only jet I have flown aerobatics in IRL is the light attack ac SK60 (swedish). That plane would sure not be able to make three reversing snap rolls successively keeping the stick in full elevator deflection all the time (and it's used by the swedish air force for aerobatics shows). I don't think that it's even allowed for that manouvre - which is actually common with other aerobatic planes too.

I've also flown the SU-29 IRL and I don't think that even that beast of an aerobatics plane would do it easily, but maybe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just face it - whatever trim settings or atmospheric miracles you summon a 747 wouldn't even be close to make one snap roll. The elevator and rudder authority is way to low and the tailplane would sure break if it could pull it off.

Even the P-51 was known to damage it's tailplane during snap rolls before modifications where made and it was sure built for aerobatics. The twisting forces on the tailplane during a snap roll are really heavy...

/Mazex

starfighter1
08-18-2006, 02:14 PM
hi,
short answer...
by using correct inside difficulty and peripherie settings you will get the results compare to real dynamics or an overstressed 747 ...be shure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

this X-Plane is more complex than many simers know after a quick ride http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


/Mazex[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I don't get it why I continue this discussion...

The only jet I have flown aerobatics in IRL is the light attack ac SK60 (swedish). That plane would sure not be able to make three reversing snap rolls successively keeping the stick in full elevator deflection all the time (and it's

Recon_609IAP
08-18-2006, 06:53 PM
Whew, alot to read in this thread.

Everytime I take a few weeks off, or even longer, then come back in and fly, I'm always 're-memorized' by the sense of flight.

To think that BoB will bring dynamic weather, wind, truly moving clouds, etc... that alone will increase the feeling of flight even more so imo.

What I notice most that is missing now is wind effects - that typically you only get when taking off in rough whether. I've been on some shaky real life flights and I always think that in that area the game could improve. Sounds like in BoB it will.

As far as a system...I have mixed feelings, but overall I really hope it's developed to improve on frames in online senarios. It's not very immersive to not be able to have the ground and air units involved while your computer chokes along.

Back in Il2 I could put a alot more units on the ground in a coop - alot. Now, it's much worse - I've had to degrade my coops every time a new addon comes out. This BoB will be crucial to support alot of objects in the game, with a smooth play.

I'd pay 2x as much for smooth play as I would for extra eye candy - eye candy doesn't help much when you get big pauses while firing while somebody spawns. Issues like that have been around since day 1 in this sim.

Let's hope they keep that in mind while they code up BoB

WWMaxGunz
08-18-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Back in Il2 I could put a alot more units on the ground in a coop - alot. Now, it's much worse - I've had to degrade my coops every time a new addon comes out. This BoB will be crucial to support alot of objects in the game, with a smooth play.

Does adding RAM help?

mazexx
08-19-2006, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
What I notice most that is missing now is wind effects - that typically you only get when taking off in rough whether. I've been on some shaky real life flights and I always think that in that area the game could improve. Sounds like in BoB it will.


I sign on that one too. Landing IRL on a small strip with strong crosswind and a forest or a slope on the up-wind side can be really nasty. On final approach you have 75kts, suddenly the wind gradient makes you fly 55kts but the ac has not decelerated, the wind noice just vanishes and you sit there on the edge of the envelope. Then you pass the small ravine at the edge of the runway and with a shudder you are out of the envelope, unable to straighten up the crosswind compensation you bounce at 20 degrees offset like a wounded crow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd like some of that please!

/Mazex

L33T-Zoolander
08-19-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The IL-2 was unic when it came out. Was so breathtakingly diferent from anything we flew untill then, that it marked us until this day.
That's what makes some pretend it was superior to the following patches/addons.
The FM in the Il-2 was quite bad when compared with the latest versions.
Remember the dive and zoom climbs? You would dive from 5000m and on the zoom you'll only go up to 1500m. Generally the energy retention was realy bad in the IL-2. Altitude advantage did not mean much since you blew it all in the first dive.

The energy retention currently modeled is way overblown.
Drag increased as the square of the velocity.
Engine horsepower does not increase as the square of the velocity.
Those are the facts.
IMO, Oleg enhanced energy retention to promote game play balance. For instance, I have 15/20 vision and from the air I can spot light aircraft (without any combat training) at distances of 5 - 7kM away. Many fighter pilots have visual accuity as high as 10/20 (or better) vison. So, I expect a trained pilot with good vision (who is fighting for his life) would be seeking targets as far away as 15kM.
With a 19" monitor you can't even see a defined shape at 1.5kM. That means the differential of visual accuity of the game is greater than one order of magnitude. Add to that the fact that your pilot cannot change the POV of his head, nor move his 'eyes' in real time (due to a presumed morphine addiction) and you have some very serious visual issues.
That means, for that hard pore corn 'full real' (read fully unrealistic radical control geeks) players that refuse to use icons, some sort of game balance had to be implimented. Either everyone buys 190 inch monitors with a dozen VGAs to back them up, or not. So, we have JATO B$Z capabilities for the office cubicle jockeys whose normal daily FOV never exceeds 5 feet.
It seems to work just fine for me. I'm not into historical accuracy, 'full real' (I frown on bull****, even with shellack on it), etc, so I get a real kick out of warp drive.
It's all good fun. It's a game :-)

Recon_609IAP
08-19-2006, 05:24 AM
Sounds like a good x-files plot -but certainly nothing Oleg would do - lol

sudoku1941
08-19-2006, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by L33T-Zoolander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The IL-2 was unique [sic] when it came out. Was so breathtakingly diferent from anything we flew untill then, that it marked us until this day.
That's what makes some pretend it was superior to the following patches/addons.
The FM in the Il-2 was quite bad when compared with the latest versions.
Remember the dive and zoom climbs? You would dive from 5000m and on the zoom you'll only go up to 1500m. Generally the energy retention was realy bad in the IL-2. Altitude advantage did not mean much since you blew it all in the first dive.

The energy retention currently modeled is way overblown.
Drag increased as the square of the velocity.
Engine horsepower does not increase as the square of the velocity.
Those are the facts.
IMO, Oleg enhanced energy retention to promote game play balance. For instance, I have 15/20 vision and from the air I can spot light aircraft (without any combat training) at distances of 5 - 7kM away. Many fighter pilots have visual accuity as high as 10/20 (or better) vison. So, I expect a trained pilot with good vision (who is fighting for his life) would be seeking targets as far away as 15kM.
With a 19" monitor you can't even see a defined shape at 1.5kM. That means the differential of visual accuity of the game is greater than one order of magnitude. Add to that the fact that your pilot cannot change the POV of his head, nor move his 'eyes' in real time (due to a presumed morphine addiction) and you have some very serious visual issues.
That means, for that hard pore corn 'full real' (read fully unrealistic radical control geeks) players that refuse to use icons, some sort of game balance had to be implimented. Either everyone buys 190 inch monitors with a dozen VGAs to back them up, or not. So, we have JATO B$Z capabilities for the office cubicle jockeys whose normal daily FOV never exceeds 5 feet.
It seems to work just fine for me. I'm not into historical accuracy, 'full real' (I frown on bull****, even with shellack on it), etc, so I get a real kick out of warp drive.
It's all good fun. It's a game :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I don't know if any of these mistakes are actual game balancing features... I would like to hope Oleg is smarter than to do that... but the visual problems with this otherwise beautiful graphic approach are legion. You forgot to mention how bass-ackwards the visuals are, such that when you zoom in to a closer field of vision, dots/invisispecks actually get smaller and disappear as you zoom IN, rather than as you zoom out.

Xiolablu3
08-19-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's about priorities. I will probably upgrade late this year if some other bill or
need doesn't get in the way. But to get a used 5900 sounds good to me. Really my
5200 has 256 RAM, BTW. I run graphics on mostly low settings. Had to ditch the GF2
because of view range where I was getting shadowed by onliners I couldn't see who
couldn't catch up till I was slowed down to land.

Eye candy is not a big goal for me and from all I've read, having more videocard does
not improve SA at all. If it did then yeah I'd have upgraded better last time.

Higher priorities include small donations to some charities and the like. I donate
enough there to get that used card but I think those veterans far worse off than me
really need the help. And some others. All rate more than eye candy level to me.
Perhaps if that money tree out back will bloom.....

I just picked up a 5900 Ultra for 40 off ebay.

If you look often you can find some really good buy it now offers from people who just want to sell their card as quick as possible.

Stick the Ebay Graphics card page in your favourites and search for 5900 or 9800 every few days, you may find one which comes up as buy it now for around 30-40. (inc P&P of course)

You will see a MASSIVE improvement over your 5200 mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Even a Ti4600 would be a big improvement and you can get them for less than 20 now)

Recon_609IAP
08-19-2006, 11:05 AM
To state issues visually with the game, then to say you are running some low end Wal-Mart $20 special isn't really going to get you too far.

As the last posts suggest, do yourself a favor and bump it up a notch.

This is currently like saying 'Gee, IL2 is bad because on my current Atari I can't see dots...'

If it's really a huge problem for you - go fly with 5km icons - or whatever suits you - that is why they are there.

sudoku1941
08-19-2006, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
To state issues visually with the game, then to say you are running some low end Wal-Mart $20 special isn't really going to get you too far.

As the last posts suggest, do yourself a favor and bump it up a notch.

This is currently like saying 'Gee, IL2 is bad because on my current Atari I can't see dots...'

If it's really a huge problem for you - go fly with 5km icons - or whatever suits you - that is why they are there.

How about agreeing with those visual issues and having a perfectly fine, 256MB video card?

This says nothing about the backwards dot sizing when you zoom in or out...

and, if you choose to fly on a "realistic server" you may not be able to fly with icons on, whether or not you "agree" with using those as a solution. So, the problems still remain.

WWMaxGunz
08-19-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by L33T-Zoolander:
The energy retention currently modeled is way overblown.
Drag increased as the square of the velocity.
Engine horsepower does not increase as the square of the velocity.
Those are the facts.


You have information to kick in for Thrust at engine settings vs Airspeed for these planes?
For some reason, Oleg has chosen to model down to prop efficiency curves. I dunno why when
the relevant facts don't seem to include that as only engine power and limited sets of facts
really matter.

WWMaxGunz
08-19-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
How about agreeing with those visual issues and having a perfectly fine, 256MB video card?


Which is what I've read enough posts to know. Super-card does not fix LOD's or add color depth.
It's nice for eye candy and a part solution to shudders in crowded maps, but only part as AI
needs more RAM is just as major. But since I don't get much shudders as I don't play crowded
maps I deal with it until I can save. Just lately though the bills and outside needs are not
getting smaller.

sudoku1941
08-19-2006, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
How about agreeing with those visual issues and having a perfectly fine, 256MB video card?


Which is what I've read enough posts to know. Super-card does not fix LOD's or add color depth.

It's nice for eye candy and a part solution to shudders in crowded maps, but only part as AI
needs more RAM is just as major. But since I don't get much shudders as I don't play crowded
maps I deal with it until I can save. Just lately though the bills and outside needs are not
getting smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet skillfully avoids most of the question... you know about the backwards sizing of the invisispecks and such...

WWMaxGunz
08-20-2006, 12:51 AM
It's in steps and I've seen evidence that some LOD's are out of order. I have no idea how
direct or indirect the process is to say what any fix would involve. Coding for short term
that gets stuck for long term is endemic in the software business since quick and dirty still
costs more the first time than anyone wants. Yeah, I know the business well from experience.

The LOD's make guaging speeds, position and energy difficult but with practice we get there.
I don't try no icons, it's overkill just as to me no padlock is given lack of peripheral
vision combined with pixels and shades. But limited icons are fine. You spent much time
in a small plane trying to spot another that ATC warned you is "near"? Even without camo,
in fact with paintjobs that stand out it's hard to _find_ the other plane yet once found
it is easy to pick it up again. Same for grounf features like where's that little airstrip
you're supposed to land on? Enough practice and at least that one's no biggie. Finding
the other plane esp if below is like that classroom game where one kid leaves and another
sits an object in plain sight then see how long to find it. Too long, every time.

Don't make mountains out of small hills. Drive the car you have, etc.

sudoku1941
08-20-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The LOD's make gauging speeds, position and energy difficult but with practice we get there.
I don't try no icons, it's overkill just as to me no padlock is given lack of peripheral
vision combined with pixels and shades. But limited icons are fine. You spent much time
in a small plane trying to spot another that ATC warned you is "near"? Even without camo,
in fact with paintjobs that stand out it's hard to _find_ the other plane yet once found
it is easy to pick it up again. Same for grounf features like where's that little airstrip
you're supposed to land on? Enough practice and at least that one's no biggie. Finding
the other plane esp if below is like that classroom game where one kid leaves and another
sits an object in plain sight then see how long to find it. Too long, every time.

Don't make mountains out of small hills. Drive the car you have, etc.

Well, I agree with your assesment on icons. You have to look past the rather obvious fact that real life objects don't have letters floating above them, and look at the effect they have on spotting and combat. No icon combat is laughable with the "hide in plain sight" shenanigans and the relative inability to reacquire visual on planes you know are in the general area.

However, I don't agree with the "mountains out of small hills comment". Visuals are a HUGE part of the overall combat experience, and until they're right, it's another case of how this sim relies too much on gorgeous visuals at the expense of correct simulation... even within the visual system itself!!

WWMaxGunz
08-20-2006, 01:10 PM
The view system is second rate and I don't think I've seen claims of highest realism there.
The best I've seen and used, since UI is to me an integral part of view systems, is Rowans.
I still don't have BoB II:WOV but at a guess it's as good as Rowan's MA and BoB.

Overall, which includes all elements and fullness, I find this series is still the best.
Feature for feature I can pick at details but I know what I like best. IL2:FB series has
a lot of material with when I compare good to not-good it comes up most and best.

Say I can make a very good entree that I feel is better than a first class restaurant and
I add a salad and drink. Is that better than their whole full meal with arguably better
entree depending on opinion? Should I go there and point out to patrons what I add or do
and disparage the dishes there even to go as far as saying things I can't really show?
Are there really canned peaches in the cobbler? Better I look at myself and get real
instead of being a tragedy-clown.

Skoshi Tiger
08-20-2006, 06:39 PM
"Say I can make a very good entree that I feel is better than a first class restaurant and
I add a salad and drink. Is that better than their whole full meal with arguably better
entree depending on opinion? Should I go there and point out to patrons what I add or do
and disparage the dishes there even to go as far as saying things I can't really show?"

Of course you should! Anything, if it helps you get through another day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sudoku1941
08-20-2006, 07:37 PM
But.... how can he eat, when he's the dinner entertainment?

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

I just don't know how you can call this the best overall sim when two of the things that matter most (visual acquistion and flight modeling) are so badly flawed from the outset, and so unstable as to change wildly between versions? I can understand "plain old opinion" better than a so-called reasoned assesment that this is better when it clearly isn't. Before 4.05 was released I had got to the point where I could never have two sorties in a row where I didn't have completely B***S**** results determine the results of the sortie.

WWMaxGunz
08-21-2006, 02:14 AM
You don't accept explanations and exaggerate wildly yourself.
Troll away, picture boy.

slipBall
08-21-2006, 03:15 AM
As I have tried most flight sims, this one is clearly the best. Oleg is aware of some of its shortfall's, I think we will see vast gains with bob. I have learned in the last few weeks, HOW to keep AI in constant view, I increased the mouse speed from default 1, up to 4, this made a huge difference for me. I use the mini stick on the CH pro throttle to always keep the aircraft in view. Also to look where he should be, if ever I loose track of him. I have been flying no icons, and my game has improved alot.

sudoku1941
08-21-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
As I have tried most flight sims, this one is clearly the best. Oleg is aware of some of its shortfall's, I think we will see vast gains with bob. I have learned in the last few weeks, HOW to keep AI in constant view, I increased the mouse speed from default 1, up to 4, this made a huge difference for me. I use the mini stick on the CH pro throttle to always keep the aircraft in view. Also to look where he should be, if ever I loose track of him. I have been flying no icons, and my game has improved alot.

Oleg's "aware", is he? Not the same as making a positive change and doing something about it... besides just picking some plane for this version based on political or community lobbying reasons and either "allowing it" to be ueber, or downgrading it on a whim.

And, what do base your hope for "vast gains" in BoB on? There has been NO indication whatsoever that the flight model will change one iota. Just screen shots and vague references to "feeling of flight"; themselves pumped up with the promise of more eye candy and canned effects. I predict we'll have a "turbulence" effect that's every bit as scripted as the fabled "engine start wing dip", some variations in clouds and weather effects (which were already pretty decent to begin with), but no delta in the realism.

slipBall
08-21-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
As I have tried most flight sims, this one is clearly the best. Oleg is aware of some of its shortfall's, I think we will see vast gains with bob. I have learned in the last few weeks, HOW to keep AI in constant view, I increased the mouse speed from default 1, up to 4, this made a huge difference for me. I use the mini stick on the CH pro throttle to always keep the aircraft in view. Also to look where he should be, if ever I loose track of him. I have been flying no icons, and my game has improved alot.

Oleg's "aware", is he? Not the same as making a positive change and doing something about it... besides just picking some plane for this version based on political or community lobbying reasons and either "allowing it" to be ueber, or downgrading it on a whim.

And, what do base your hope for "vast gains" in BoB on? There has been NO indication whatsoever that the flight model will change one iota. Just screen shots and vague references to "feeling of flight"; themselves pumped up with the promise of more eye candy and canned effects. I predict we'll have a "turbulence" effect that's every bit as scripted as the fabled "engine start wing dip", some variations in clouds and weather effects (which were already pretty decent to begin with), but no delta in the realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I know that it is not a perfect game. But considering all that it does offer, it is the best out there. I would also like a historic flight model for each and every airplane. Since I have no knowledge of what is involved to obtain that. I must assume that there is great difficulties for doing so. Otherwise, we would have it now. I'm hopeing that bob will be better, very little has been said, but the future should see constaint improvements. You have to remember that this is just a game, but offers us, a sim, very close to real air combat. I try to enjoy the game the way it is, and thats not hard to do. I complain once in awhile, and then I realize that it is a game that I truely enjoy. Oleg is probably tired of all the demands from us. You can see that by the way he stay's away. If not for him, where would we all be.

Chuck_Older
08-21-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
As I have tried most flight sims, this one is clearly the best. Oleg is aware of some of its shortfall's, I think we will see vast gains with bob. I have learned in the last few weeks, HOW to keep AI in constant view, I increased the mouse speed from default 1, up to 4, this made a huge difference for me. I use the mini stick on the CH pro throttle to always keep the aircraft in view. Also to look where he should be, if ever I loose track of him. I have been flying no icons, and my game has improved alot.

Oleg's "aware", is he? Not the same as making a positive change and doing something about it... besides just picking some plane for this version based on political or community lobbying reasons and either "allowing it" to be ueber, or downgrading it on a whim.

And, what do base your hope for "vast gains" in BoB on? There has been NO indication whatsoever that the flight model will change one iota. Just screen shots and vague references to "feeling of flight"; themselves pumped up with the promise of more eye candy and canned effects. I predict we'll have a "turbulence" effect that's every bit as scripted as the fabled "engine start wing dip", some variations in clouds and weather effects (which were already pretty decent to begin with), but no delta in the realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I need to break into this here-

"Not the same as making a positive change and doing something about it... "

What does that mean? Define a positive change- a change you personally agree with? What are your criteria? Yes yes "correct FM". Well what's correct? You say Oleg doesn't know or that if he does he doesn't care, it seems. Well I don't know why this type of thing always turns into an "Oleg this and Oleg that" argument. "Oleg's" got little do with this, it doesn't matter who calls the shots, the questions are rather: What's right, and what's wrong? How do you know? How can the sim be changed to fix it if it's wrong? I don't know most of those answers. Do you?

"besides just picking some plane for this version based on political or community lobbying reasons and either "allowing it" to be ueber, or downgrading it on a whim."

this is opinion!

"And, what do base your hope for "vast gains" in BoB on? There has been NO indication whatsoever that the flight model will change one iota. Just screen shots and vague references to "feeling of flight"; themselves pumped up with the promise of more eye candy and canned effects"

Er...we've known for some time that the FM effects in this sim we play now reflect some of the elements in the new FM, not all, and the reason that only some of the effects have been tested out (Oleg basically announced the sim had become a test bed, if you recall) is because the sim can only support some of the new FM for BoB. We also know that for starters, "thermal effects" will be modelled. This can be anything from thermals high up, or the ground cushion on a black runway. We know that individual airframe stresses have been discussed. We have had some pretty clear indications that the FM is not going to be like this one, and in fact, if all you've read about FM is the thread about the feeling of flight, you'd read in that thread that BoB will NOT use this sim's engines. That means that even if the same data from this sim is plugged in, the sim engine can interpret it differently (well actually must interpret it differently, because it's a different engine)


"I predict we'll have a "turbulence" effect that's every bit as scripted as the fabled "engine start wing dip", some variations in clouds and weather effects (which were already pretty decent to begin with), but no delta in the realism."

Very good! I predict you're wrong, so that's how much a prediction is worth, and I also cannot agree with cloud and weather effects are currently pretty decent. For one thing- why can I take off and land with little trouble on a rain soaked grass runway in a valley?

triad773
08-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Chuck - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

How long do we have to put up with this sudoku1941/Stigler spam?

sudoku1941
08-21-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
Chuck - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

How long do we have to put up with this sudoku1941/Stigler spam?

It's only "spam" to you because you don't agree with it, and because it dashes your rose-colored glasses. Your post is closer to the classic definition of spam, being self-serving, devoid-of-content drivel.

How's about you answer some of the questions I pose, like Gunz or Older at least try to?

Chuck_Older posts:

What does that mean? Define a positive change- a change you personally agree with?

The two I cite most often are: much more accurate energy bleed and acceleration. We've all experienced the "pivot on CoG" and the "quick-catchup-after-180-turn" phenomena, and most of us know it's b***sh**.

Then, a stoppage of the "first hit, engine kill" AI gunner stuff. As a start.

Going further, fixing the graphics to allow the perch to be an advantage, on at least the top TWO vid card makers' products, since the ATI and nVidia chipsets and cards are far and away the most ubiquitous... but ATI cards are at a distinct disadvantage, visuals wise in IL-2.

How's that? Nothing new here, same few but very MAJOR items that need to be upgraded in BIG ways before this can remotely be called "realistic" or "best". As for how do I know, well, different people have done all kinds of Excel charts (like Mr. "Got Track?" himself, when he was a fanboi; he produced a series of charts that showed roll rates badly off across the planeset), or posted historical numbers, and shown that the IL-2 planes don't hit them, or VASTLY over/underperform them; and a player with a grasp on history or a copy of a real flight manual can play the sim and see how the historical matchups or even individual aircraft characteristics just don't ring true; try 109E vs. I-16 as one, try stall behavior of various planes for another....

Should I go on...?

triad773
08-21-2006, 12:27 PM
sudoku1941 wrote:

How's about you answer some of the questions I pose, like Gunz or Older at least try to?

Because it's obvious to me that any answer I, or any other of these gentlemen would have will simply lead you to challenge another facet of this sim. I'm not here for the Love Fest, but you are not here because you like this sim; you appear to be here to identify the weaknesses of IL-2, in it's own 'house', and how it compares to TargetWhere.

Goodbye

slipBall
08-21-2006, 12:46 PM
Hi sudoku1941

I got a couple of questions for you, I can tell that you just want perfection, so

Do you fly il2 very often?

what is the ww2 air combat sim that you enjoy the most?

KraljMatjaz
08-21-2006, 12:54 PM
"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change..."

in my opinion, energy retention has to be fixed. tnb fighters must bleed more than they do now, or bnz must bleed less.

sim as we have it now simply favours tnb because they retain energy to well compared to bnz (examples, F6F vs Zero, P51 vs 109, .......). when met on equal E bnz has no real option versus a tnb from same year but to run. this makes most of US fighters (especialy late war ones) useless unless 1k alt advantage, which I'm quite sure P51s, P47s, F6F, F4U,...s didn't alwways have versus their opponents.

many people here state 190A4 is superior to Vb as we have them. that's only partially truth. historically A4 was able to climb at a steeper angle with roughly same optimal climb speed and was unreachable for spit, because if he wanted to pitch up even further, he'd stall.

sudoku1941
08-21-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change..."

in my opinion, energy retention has to be fixed. tnb fighters must bleed more than they do now, or bnz must bleed less.

sim as we have it now simply favours tnb because they retain energy to well compared to bnz (examples, F6F vs Zero, P51 vs 109, .......). when met on equal E bnz has no real option versus a tnb from same year but to run. this makes most of US fighters (especialy late war ones) useless unless 1k alt advantage, which I'm quite sure P51s, P47s, F6F, F4U,...s didn't alwways have versus their opponents.

many people here state 190A4 is superior to Vb as we have them. that's only partially truth. historically A4 was able to climb at a steeper angle with roughly same optimal climb speed and was unreachable for spit, because if he wanted to pitch up even further, he'd stall.

Quite right! And that's just one of the deleterious effects. But, seemingly nobody want's to hear about that, because it drowns out the "Yayyyyyyyyy....team!!" cheers.

triad complains,

Because it's obvious to me that any answer I, or any other of these gentlemen would have will simply lead you to challenge another facet of this sim.

If you've been paying attention, triad, you'll note I usually bring up the same FEW problems, none of which get fixed, and which there appear to be no end to excuses for. The problem is, these problem areas are so basic, and so important to a combat flight sim that they come very close to balancing out the wonderful graphics.

Slipball asks,

Do you fly il2 very often?

what is the ww2 air combat sim that you enjoy the most?


Not very often now, since I don't have 4.05, I can't play online with the old version... so, until either 4.05 is offered Boonty-free, or 4.06 comes out (also Boonty-free)... I won't be flying much IL-2. But, up til that point, I've flown it a LOT, from beta til 4.04; literally hundreds, if not thousands of hours. I am one person who has flown both this sim and Targetware for enough hours to offer a good comparison of the two.

As for enjoying flying, it would have to be Targetware. The "feeling of flight" is superior, the matchups are closer to history, and the community is open, padlock free, and up for a honest exchange of ideas, facts, figures, opinions, etc. Plus, we're all so busy adding to and improving the sim, as well as enjoying the results, nobody has time to practice cheers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Still, I do own this sim, and thus have as much stake in its progress as you do. So, I have a right to, and will continue to, bring up its problems as long as the dev team continues to plug their ears and add more eye candy, and fail completely at improving the simulation.

JG4_Helofly
08-21-2006, 06:06 PM
The energy problem is probably the most important we have in this game. I think the problem is existant despite Olegs statements. But maybe he want say with "FM is near to RL" that with the current engine and the many planes it's not too bad.
As discussed in the Topic about the p51 it's maybe not a restriction due to the physic engine but simply wrong programmed. Oleg would never said that it's wrong because he had to correct it and this is probably to much work.
Now he works on bob and il2 is over. He just add some more arcade planes to make money and that's it.
I don't think that we will see great improvements or corrections in il2.

He as probably the possibility to correct old errors. Maybe we will get better p 51, fw 190, p 47,... with correct energy bleed, drag and thrust in BOB. I realy hope it will happen.

karost
08-22-2006, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
He as probably the possibility to correct old errors. Maybe we will get better p 51, fw 190, p 47,... with correct energy bleed, drag and thrust in BOB. I realy hope it will happen.

Yes , I Hope so.

I wonder about core feature to promote BOB reach to top sale witch solution is good for BOB

1) "FM is near to RL" and become great flight sim
or
2) beatiful eye-candy and "Compromise FM" to make every players happy..!

if you are investors for this project what solutoin above to make sure it will have a maximum profit return to you.

S!

joeap
08-22-2006, 02:35 AM
I wish this forum had an "ignore" feature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

sudoku1941
08-22-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
I wish this forum had an "ignore" feature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It does, joeap. You use it quite frequently.

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

You get the Pom Pom Girl of the Week Award!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chivas
08-22-2006, 10:50 AM
"Feel of Flight" now thats a difficult thing to do on a computer monitor.

Considering there isn't anyone here that can time travel back to WW2 and do the definitive test. I take all "my FM is better than your FM" debates with a grain of salt.

Oleg has produced a decent and entertaining Combat Flight Sim. Its not perfect and won't satisfy everyone. The Storm of War won't be perfect but it should provide for another 5 to 10 years of cheap entertainment.

Stigler we all know FB doesn't represent your version of history, but I guess you do provide some entertainment on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sudoku1941
08-22-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
"Feel of Flight" now thats a difficult thing to do on a computer monitor.

Considering there isn't anyone here that can time travel back to WW2 and do the definitive test. I take all "my FM is better than your FM" debates with a grain of salt.

Oleg has produced a decent and entertaining Combat Flight Sim. Its not perfect and won't satisfy everyone. The Storm of War won't be perfect but it should provide for another 5 to 10 years of cheap entertainment.

Stigler we all know FB doesn't represent your version of history, but I guess you do provide some entertainment on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, the problem is that IL-2 doesn't represent history's version of history... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slipBall
08-22-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by karost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
He as probably the possibility to correct old errors. Maybe we will get better p 51, fw 190, p 47,... with correct energy bleed, drag and thrust in BOB. I realy hope it will happen.

Yes , I Hope so.

I wonder about core feature to promote BOB reach to top sale witch solution is good for BOB

1) "FM is near to RL" and become great flight sim
or
2) beatiful eye-candy and "Compromise FM" to make every players happy..!

if you are investors for this project what solutoin above to make sure it will have a maximum profit return to you.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I say,

1) "FM is near to RL" and become great flight sim

That is what I think most of us want, I know that is what I want in bob. Word of a great RL FM, will spread world wide, and investor's will swim in money. Please tell Oleg! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
08-22-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I wish this forum had an "ignore" feature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It does, joeap. You use it quite frequently.



You get the Pom Pom Girl of the Week Award!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now why do you assume I meant you dude? Please show me where I've ignored posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif Could be for interminable threads too. We had some good exchanges on online vs. offline play...but as far as you and Max go it's getting a bit tiresome as neither of you will budge.

WWMaxGunz
08-23-2006, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
many people here state 190A4 is superior to Vb as we have them. that's only partially truth. historically A4 was able to climb at a steeper angle with roughly same optimal climb speed and was unreachable for spit, because if he wanted to pitch up even further, he'd stall.

I have seen the report that says they have roughly the same optimal climb speed. Elsewhere
it says that in the test the 190 climbed faster and steeper. But in the report it does not
say that the combat trials climb comparison was made at optimal climb speed. And that's
because it was not. A letter from the pilot who flew the Spit in that test to a friend at
the time was posted over at SimHQ and he stated that the climb comparison was run at high
speed just as the FW pilots fighting cross channel did and his Spit could not keep up the
speed and begin to match the climb. He had been supposed to fly the FW and was disappointed
until the climb test where he knew his friend in the FW did a better job and knew how the FW
was used better than he.

Tieing two seperate statements to make a third undeclared in a source is a common mistake.

jasonbirder
08-23-2006, 04:04 AM
Fortunately in FB/AEP/PF we have a great (but not perfect) WWII Flight Sim...room for improvement in areas, but kept me entertained for the last year and still even at this late stage there is the possibility of improvements (I'm hoping for AI improvements in the final patch 4.08)
BoB on the horizon and looks like it could be a leap forward in many areas realism, FMs, AI etc...I for one can't wait to see what it has to offer...even though i'm probably a new computer away from being able to run it!
Unfortunately it is pretty much the only game in town...unless you count CFS3 (?!?) or antiques that people enjoy as much for nostalgia value as anything else...
Even in the even more esoteric world of Fast Jet Sims we have a choice between F4, LOMAC and F/A18 with Fighter Ops being a possibility out on the horizon...
But for us Prop lovers the genre is really a one trick pony at the momenent...

joeap
08-23-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
"Feel of Flight" now thats a difficult thing to do on a computer monitor.

Considering there isn't anyone here that can time travel back to WW2 and do the definitive test. I take all "my FM is better than your FM" debates with a grain of salt.

Oleg has produced a decent and entertaining Combat Flight Sim. Its not perfect and won't satisfy everyone. The Storm of War won't be perfect but it should provide for another 5 to 10 years of cheap entertainment.

Stigler we all know FB doesn't represent your version of history, but I guess you do provide some entertainment on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, the problem is that IL-2 doesn't represent history's version of history... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No such thing, ask any academic historian.

WWMaxGunz
08-23-2006, 10:10 PM
It doesn't represent some people's hyped-up interpretations of history.

Esp those who think that with a realistic sim they can be test-pilot and ace easily.
By history these same put in a real plane would mostly not have to meet enemy to die
and the rest would not last long. Trying to live by expectations will do that.

For them, a sim more arcaded will help them fulfill those dreams. WTH, it's not like
any sim is so very real anyway.

Sintubin
08-24-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It doesn't represent some people's hyped-up interpretations of history.

Esp those who think that with a realistic sim they can be test-pilot and ace easily.
By history these same put in a real plane would mostly not have to meet enemy to die
and the rest would not last long. Trying to live by expectations will do that.

For them, a sim more arcaded will help them fulfill those dreams. WTH, it's not like
any sim is so very real anyway.

Yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

joeap
08-24-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It doesn't represent some people's hyped-up interpretations of history.

Esp those who think that with a realistic sim they can be test-pilot and ace easily.
By history these same put in a real plane would mostly not have to meet enemy to die
and the rest would not last long. Trying to live by expectations will do that.

For them, a sim more arcaded will help them fulfill those dreams. WTH, it's not like
any sim is so very real anyway.

Yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with that? What Gunz said could apply to MANY red flyers too (see the "why don't people like the P-51 thread" to see Red whine being uncorked at a shocking rate). I suspect currently there are more "unjustified" red "winers" then blue...

WWMaxGunz
08-24-2006, 06:04 PM
Exactly. I shudder to think of the uber-sled the P-51 would become if the fanboys could
get their way. As it has been, the move to get super-vator's on the tail coupled with
the COG placement has made it maybe even trickier to sim-fly than real since you can't
feel in your chair what a pilot can in real. Just as with 109's you can't pull with
two arms and some feel impure to use trim to compensate.

Way to go, fan-boy-uz! You can only mess things up more demanding specific fixes. Just
ask for what you really want, that your favorites be easy to fly and no need for doing
everything needed. That rudder and slip business for instance... not when you're
dogfighting and can't be looking at the instruments and whoever heard of spending time
outside arena-play trying to get it down to reflexes? Okay, an hour or two tops, right?
And if you don't have it perfected by then it's not your fault, just drag up quotes from
pilots who spent 100+ hours doing just that in real before any combat. Sheesh.

GR142-Pipper
09-09-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I've talked to a lot of real pilots, some with a LOT of experience, who also fly IL-2. Since I'm not a real pilot, my first question is always, does IL-2 feel real? They have all answered that IL-2 captures the feeling of flight better than any other flight sim they have tried. So, maybe that's why Oleg doesn't want to change the "feel". There are quite a few of us who play this game who don't think that the planes fly correctly at all. There have been countless discussions on the weird affects of how torque was implemented, how aircraft that in real life that were never noted for turning ability can REALLY turn in this game, how the 50's are weak, etc., etc. These aren't small issues. They're major components that go to the heart of the viability of this game. Remember, "better than any other flight sim..." is purely a relative figure of merit and not an absolute one. In short, it's meaningless (to wit: On a scale of 100, 20 is higher than 10). There was a poster (I believe it was Nearmiss) who made the comment regarding the direction of this product....is it graphics-focused or flight model-focused? It's one thing to be a flight game and another to be a COMBAT flight game. As purely a flight game, the aircraft feel is fairly decent; as a COMBAT flight game it's much less so.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
09-10-2006, 07:16 AM
Now i got scared . I read oleg stated that engineis made on different language. Hope they didn't decided to make everything in java so everyone now will need 4GB ram just to take off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WWMaxGunz
09-10-2006, 12:19 PM
Yes Java all the time now. You know everything about every Java COMPILER?
Big change I see is source must be encoded where before it was not.
Also from what I did see the source was not english language but wth that is defines.

Others here do not understand code very much. Or words. They think that best means perfect
or real somehow. They think that stages of project before completion as possible are each
representative of statements of perfect or real for every part, every plane, or at least they
make claims of FM/DM changes as if each release and patch is the finished product as a
statement of perfect or totally real and that is ignorance.

If the initial release was so then there would be no need for patches!
And there is not enough time or money to get every part of every plane just so.
Those are simple facts that anyone who has ever worked a complex project understands.

The closest to right of every version is the last patch of that version. Closest to right
is not perfect or total real but so far every one has beaten all competition.

When I see a big surge of real feeling to some other sim then perhaps things have changed
but on the basis of a few complainers trying to make points of every little thing they can
grasp upon or imagine in any way -- I am sorry you don't get enough love or attention or
your diaper changed, whatever because you will never be happy outside your dreams. Even
there I doubt you are happy at all. If you have silver it should have been gold, if you
have gold it should have been platinum. If you have rubies it should have been diamonds.
In the meantime what you make is only good for enriching soil, if that. Otherwise, where
is the so perfect thing that you have made?

OldMan____
09-11-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes Java all the time now. You know everything about every Java COMPILER?
Big change I see is source must be encoded where before it was not.
Also from what I did see the source was not english language but wth that is defines.

Others here do not understand code very much. Or words. They think that best means perfect
or real somehow. They think that stages of project before completion as possible are each
representative of statements of perfect or real for every part, every plane, or at least they
make claims of FM/DM changes as if each release and patch is the finished product as a
statement of perfect or totally real and that is ignorance.

If the initial release was so then there would be no need for patches!
And there is not enough time or money to get every part of every plane just so.
Those are simple facts that anyone who has ever worked a complex project understands.

The closest to right of every version is the last patch of that version. Closest to right
is not perfect or total real but so far every one has beaten all competition.

When I see a big surge of real feeling to some other sim then perhaps things have changed
but on the basis of a few complainers trying to make points of every little thing they can
grasp upon or imagine in any way -- I am sorry you don't get enough love or attention or
your diaper changed, whatever because you will never be happy outside your dreams. Even
there I doubt you are happy at all. If you have silver it should have been gold, if you
have gold it should have been platinum. If you have rubies it should have been diamonds.
In the meantime what you make is only good for enriching soil, if that. Otherwise, where
is the so perfect thing that you have made?

I know how it works. I worked developing compilers, worked in game developing using java, and now work developing flight sims. And I am NOT deceived by Fake sun propaganda. Java hae features that cannot mathematicaly be implemented without loosing performance and mainly wihtout using lots more memory.

If BOB wil be in Java I am done for it. Not going to buy it just to have to buy extra 1 GB f ram just to have the same amount of planes. And also having stutters that all "real time" java system will always have.

LEXX_Luthor
09-12-2006, 02:33 PM
Interesting. One of the reasons the Gennadich Team dumped the IL-2 engine for use in their WW1 sim was they didn't like Java. They are using a combination of newer game engines, most notably the D-strict engine that was originally to be used in D-strict's WW1 Eastern Front combat flight sim "Sikorsky." They had an Eastern Front back then too, and that's where the 4 engine heavy bomber got started.

LEXX_Luthor
09-12-2006, 02:37 PM
Pipper::
It's one thing to be a flight game and another to be a COMBAT flight game. As purely a flight game, the aircraft feel is fairly decent; as a COMBAT flight game it's much less so.
Pipper got shot down again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


When they score a kill, its a Sim. When they get shot down, its just a Game.

WWMaxGunz
09-12-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know how it works. I worked developing compilers, worked in game developing using java, and now work developing flight sims. And I am NOT deceived by Fake sun propaganda. Java hae features that cannot mathematicaly be implemented without loosing performance and mainly wihtout using lots more memory.

If BOB wil be in Java I am done for it. Not going to buy it just to have to buy extra 1 GB f ram just to have the same amount of planes. And also having stutters that all "real time" java system will always have.

Then you might even know that something that uses Java doesn't have to be completely Java.

What sims are you working on? Or sim addons?

OldMan____
09-13-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know how it works. I worked developing compilers, worked in game developing using java, and now work developing flight sims. And I am NOT deceived by Fake sun propaganda. Java hae features that cannot mathematicaly be implemented without loosing performance and mainly wihtout using lots more memory.

If BOB wil be in Java I am done for it. Not going to buy it just to have to buy extra 1 GB f ram just to have the same amount of planes. And also having stutters that all "real time" java system will always have.

Then you might even know that something that uses Java doesn't have to be completely Java.

What sims are you working on? Or sim addons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jet Thunder (www.thunder-works.com), although we are alittle bit stoped due to some greater force issues.

My fear is that there are rumors about it (BOB) being completely written in Java. That is my fear!

WWMaxGunz
09-13-2006, 07:15 AM
Rumors.

WOLFMondo
09-13-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Exactly. I shudder to think of the uber-sled the P-51 would become if the fanboys could
get their way.

Coming to a new open source sim near you in 2007.

GR142-Pipper
09-23-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
....Oleg is probably tired of all the demands from us.... Honestly and with no disrespect intended, Maddox has himself to blame for a great deal of this. The constant introduction of new planes when the existing aircraft weren't even close to flight/damage/weapons modeling accuracy grew his problem exponentially. We have too many aircraft in this game as it is and the situation has in effect become unsupportable given the available resources.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-24-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pipper::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's one thing to be a flight game and another to be a COMBAT flight game. As purely a flight game, the aircraft feel is fairly decent; as a COMBAT flight game it's much less so.
Pipper got shot down again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good grief, Lexx. Is this the best you can do? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

GR142-Pipper

TheGozr
09-24-2006, 02:28 AM
Swiched for Mig-29 for now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mbabbs
09-25-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know how it works. I worked developing compilers, worked in game developing using java, and now work developing flight sims. And I am NOT deceived by Fake sun propaganda. Java hae features that cannot mathematicaly be implemented without loosing performance and mainly wihtout using lots more memory.

If BOB wil be in Java I am done for it. Not going to buy it just to have to buy extra 1 GB f ram just to have the same amount of planes. And also having stutters that all "real time" java system will always have.

Then you might even know that something that uses Java doesn't have to be completely Java.

What sims are you working on? Or sim addons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jet Thunder (www.thunder-works.com), although we are alittle bit stoped due to some greater force issues.

My fear is that there are rumors about it (BOB) being completely written in Java. That is my fear! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I am aware Java doesn't have all the API's available in order to completely write the game. Having said that I'm not a games programmer so I can't say for sure.

WWMaxGunz
09-25-2006, 12:19 PM
It depends on the compiler and how much machine code and DX calls are made.
Java like anything can access libraries written in... whatever.

It's funny to read what people who work with or for the competition make of everything.
Esp competition that has lost part of the market share they believe they should dominate.
Perhaps if they really supported anything they made they wouldn't have had to drop a whole
product line but that don't fit their business plan. Whose fault is that?