PDA

View Full Version : Il2 1946 planes' performance mod



hkfl8087
06-22-2007, 07:03 AM
I think that Oleg should open the source for mod, or at least show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this?

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
I think that Oleg should open the source for mod, or at least show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this?

discussed about a thousand times

read thread here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2851050665

JG54_Lukas
06-23-2007, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

next...

hkfl8087
06-23-2007, 09:07 PM
i wonder if Oleg over-estimated Russian planes and under-estimated Yankee aircraft?Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?

LEXX_Luthor
06-23-2007, 10:24 PM
Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?
I wonder about that too. Lets find out...

(1) http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs/

(2) http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php


Things don't look very "advanced" for the Ussian side right now.

Snuff_Pidgeon
06-24-2007, 02:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2007, 07:14 AM
People still read that US aircraft had great performance, and then assume that means they can be thrown around the sky with no regard for consequences, I see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

US planes of WWII have descriptions like "easy to fly", "Great visibility", "great performance" and so on attached to them, and then an armchair sim pilot hops in one and then complains :

"WTF! These planes are all teh pork!!"

NO aircraft in this sim or any other is modelled correctly. None zip nil nada nope no way sorry charlie

These US planes were "easy to fly" and had "great performance" and so on for real pilots who were trained by real flight schools by real instructors, and these cadet pilots were taught real tactics, real coordinated flight proceedures and who really knew the capabilities of the aircraft they were flying. They studied the planes, studided their traits and features, knew their stall speeds, approach speeds, best turn speeds, best climb speeds, knew what the gauges meant and used them

But a sim pilot who spends 20 hours screwing around in a US plane in whatever undisicplined approach he wallows his way through in whichever willy-nilly fashion he "thinks" might be right then decides "this plane is no good". Riiight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Of course. The untrained undisicplined armchair sim pilot who can't be bothered to learn to do things correctly says the planes are no good, so it is now Internet Fact: the planes are no good

Brilliant! The sad part is that plenty of info is out there, in refefrence books, in libraries and at bookstores, but the only accepted reference material seems to be the Google search engine, and info gleaned from the itnernet is Fact, end of story or as the innerweb faithful know it: nuff said

Want the real story? Ok, here it is: all planes in the sim are only accurate to a certain degree. If you haven't heard by now, it's time to pay attention:

The sim's performance envelope was pushed well past it' designed limits YEARS ago. If you don't know this, it might be a surprise. Also, the sim has been for YEARS now a test bed for Storm of War:Battle of Britain- not an exercise in 100% accurate modelling for THIS sim. This was announced years ago! People online seem to have the shortest and most selective of memories

If you want to find out how the real planes were used in real life, and how they were effective, and how real piltos simply wouldn't allow themselves to fly the planes in a manner in which they were disadvantaged and THEN compare and contrast real world results with those in the sim then great! Hopefully you will help to spread them knoweldge of fact versus fiction

If all you want to do is screw around for 20 hours and then decide you know all there is to know, and the plane is wrong, well then I'm always going to find your credibility as an authority on the aircraft somewhat lacking, shall we say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hawgdog
06-25-2007, 05:40 AM
show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.

Gold, pure Gold

AKA_TAGERT
06-25-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
I think that Oleg should open the source for mod, or at least show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this? I think you new handle is not fooling anyone... cept the ones that want to belive

Daiichidoku
06-25-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I think you new handle is not fooling anyone... cept the ones that want to belive

isnt it amazing? they usually have only just started playing, yet somehow know all about Oleg, or others, or issues that are long settled


too stupid to be stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VVS-Manuc
06-25-2007, 07:51 AM
Even real pilots in real P-51 were shot down or crashed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
06-25-2007, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
i wonder if Oleg over-estimated Russian planes and under-estimated Yankee aircraft?Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?
Nope!

WWSensei
06-25-2007, 10:41 PM
He's casting OK, but his bait stinks.

FritzGryphon
06-26-2007, 02:06 AM
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon2/trole.jpg

avimimus
06-27-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
I think that Oleg should open the source for mod, or at least show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this?

I am a little terrified that when it becomes possible to mod SOW:BOB that all American aircraft will...be ruined by impossible performance.

I think we should petition Oleg to write reviews of all mod aircraft created by the community!

avimimus
06-27-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hkfl8087:
i wonder if Oleg over-estimated Russian planes and under-estimated Yankee aircraft?Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?
Nope! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope to which?

Russia has a variety of more advanced technologies (eg. certainly in making flight sims...)

It was the Russian space program that invented the zero-g pencil after all! There were even a number of studies on the possibility of having a complete mixed farming operation (ie. chickens and cows) on a mars mission. I don't know how much work NASA has done on this but I doubt it is up to par http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for performance it seems that the late war aircraft tend to have better handling. This is the only trend which there seems to be enough evidence for. It is a nice way to placate both the cr@p planes crowd and the 1945 mk-108 vs. p-51d crowd: Both fly their own planes, in their own years, and ignore the other aircraft and how they are moddelled.

RamsteinUSA
06-27-2007, 12:33 PM
The Russians ripped off our (USA) Tang (orange drink for astronauts) and mixed it with cheap voka for space flights..


Originally posted by avimimus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hkfl8087:
i wonder if Oleg over-estimated Russian planes and under-estimated Yankee aircraft?Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?
Nope! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope to which?

Russia has a variety of more advanced technologies (eg. certainly in making flight sims...)

It was the Russian space program that invented the zero-g pencil after all! There were even a number of studies on the possibility of having a complete mixed farming operation (ie. chickens and cows) on a mars mission. I don't know how much work NASA has done on this but I doubt it is up to par http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for performance it seems that the late war aircraft tend to have better handling. This is the only trend which there seems to be enough evidence for. It is a nice way to placate both the cr@p planes crowd and the 1945 mk-108 vs. p-51d crowd: Both fly their own planes, in their own years, and ignore the other aircraft and how they are moddelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RamsteinUSA
06-27-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
The Russians ripped off our (USA) Tang (orange drink for astronauts) and mixed it with cheap vodka for space flights..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avimimus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hkfl8087:
i wonder if Oleg over-estimated Russian planes and under-estimated Yankee aircraft?Does Russian have more advanced technology than the US?
Nope! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope to which?

Russia has a variety of more advanced technologies (eg. certainly in making flight sims...)

It was the Russian space program that invented the zero-g pencil after all! There were even a number of studies on the possibility of having a complete mixed farming operation (ie. chickens and cows) on a mars mission. I don't know how much work NASA has done on this but I doubt it is up to par http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for performance it seems that the late war aircraft tend to have better handling. This is the only trend which there seems to be enough evidence for. It is a nice way to placate both the cr@p planes crowd and the 1945 mk-108 vs. p-51d crowd: Both fly their own planes, in their own years, and ignore the other aircraft and how they are moddelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov1986
06-27-2007, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
Even real pilots in real P-51 were shot down or crashed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It still w0n t3h w4r.

RamsteinUSA
06-27-2007, 01:29 PM
The Commies and Nazis refuse to let the axis planes fly as they did for real.. it's a lost cause to get the corrections...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Stuntie
06-27-2007, 03:31 PM
When certain planes like the LA7 are almost impossible to spin, but others like the P-51 spin instantly you do suspect somethings are wrong.

Quick comparisson - QMB with the LA7. Roll left and pull full back and track the horizon with the nose. Judder judder judder but it keeps on turning. 360 deg no problem.

Try again with P-51. Roll left and track the horizon. You can watch the P-51 start to roll and spin immediately. Not half way round a turn or 10 seconds later, but immediately as you pull it will start to depart controlled flight. Not good.

Same initial setup both times but dramatically different handling. You could understand if if one of them was considered a beast with dangerous characteristics, but neither plane is notorious for their handling, like say the F4U Corsair.

You can talk about P-51s being more prone to depart, or having bad spin characteristics all you like, but the handling characteristics of the P-51 as they stand fall into the dangerous category. And the P-51 was not considered a dangerous airplane to fly. There is a world of difference between being energy based, and thus not a great turner, and being too dangerous to even turn, which the P-51 is right now. 'Prone to spin' is way removed from 'treat with kid gloves or it will spin'.

How many of those that pop up exclaming how well they do in the P-51 for instance have manged to learn how to control the plane that is in the sim, and not the plane as it should be?

No we are not, as folk so often point out, trained to WW2 standards with 200+ hours in the cockpit. But you don't need 200 hours and a desk full of charts to be able to draw conclusions about some of these planes. If you can fly some aircraft fine but others are difficult then there is a issue with the planes as your pilots skills are not the difference at that point, but the planes performance is (unless the manouver is known to be difficult in that plane, like carrier landing a corsair). Longer time in the cockpit only confirms the issue, or teaches you how to get around it.

Finally, phrases used by vetrens such as 'easy to fly' mean just that. They are making comparisons for other pilots, not boasting that it was easy for them becuase they are so skilled. They are saying that if you were also a pilot you too would find it easy to fly.
When planes have foibles they mention them in the same way too. As they would if talking to a fellow pilot.

anarchy52
06-27-2007, 04:36 PM
Take FW-190 for a spin. You'll feel much better in a P-51 after that.

slappedsilly
06-27-2007, 05:33 PM
BBB462cid,

Excellent post. It seems us Americans liked altitude as an advantage in WW2. The p51 and p47 are excellent if flown correctly in the sim.

joeap
06-28-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
The Commies and Nazis refuse to let the axis planes fly as they did for real.. it's a lost cause to get the corrections...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Commies and Nazis? I thought those guys were on the trash heap of history? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Unless you're saying our fellow Il2 players or Oleg and team are Reds or Brownshirts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

msalama
06-29-2007, 05:34 AM
Judder judder judder but it keeps on turning.

Well, some planes are almost impossible to speed-stall / spin by design. But I've never heard of a WWII warbird belonging to that category myself...

über wing slat modelling perhaps? And if so, how are the other wing-slatted birds in v4.08?

Brain32
06-29-2007, 08:00 AM
über wing slat modelling perhaps? And if so, how are the other wing-slatted birds in v4.08?
Well La5FN can make endless loops with full stick deflection, with La7 I managed to make a full stick deflection pull at 5000m at 190IAS and keep it that way until I got bored. Me109's will ofcourse rapidly loose speed and stall and spin. What else has slats?

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2007, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by avimimus:

It was the Russian space program that invented the zero-g pencil after all! There were even a number of studies on the possibility of having a complete mixed farming operation (ie. chickens and cows) on a mars mission. I don't know how much work NASA has done on this but I doubt it is up to par http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
.

That whole "Silly old NASA developed a space pen at fantastic cost, while the more clever Cosmonuats just used common sense and used pencils" thing is a complete myth. I had thought this urban legend had died years ago

Rjel
06-29-2007, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That whole "Silly old NASA developed a space pen at fantastic cost, while the more clever Cosmonuats just used common sense and used pencils" thing is a complete myth. I had thought this urban legend had died years ago

If there is one thing we Americans do better than most nationalities, we simply love to beat ourselves up. We'll build up a person to heroic stature or make them impossibly famous for little or no talent, just so we can tear them down.

R_Target
06-29-2007, 08:21 PM
Space Pen Myth (http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp)

msalama
07-02-2007, 08:39 AM
OK, some quick'n'dirty tests for you:

La-7 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/La-7_SPIN.ntrk)

* Got her into a spin from a right turn w/ full elevator deflection.
* Recovery straightforward.

Bf109G-2 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/Bf109G-2_SPIN.ntrk)

* Right turn w/ full elevator deflection - did not spin.
* Left - spun, recovery straightforward.

La-5FN (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/La-5FN_SPIN.ntrk)

* Did not spin.

CONDITIONS -

MAP: Smolensk
WEATHER: Good
ALTITUDE: 2000m AGL
AC CONFIG: Trimmed for level flight @ full power

NOTES -

* Just a quickie, i.e. pretty unscientific stuff indeed.
* Will do more AC later on if time permits.

Blondeknght
07-02-2007, 12:35 PM
At the end of the day ... it's about marketing and money wrapped up in the illusion of being historically correct FM's. If the planes were historically modeled... sales IMHO would be affected depending on WHERE your selling the product.
Real life cannot be dupicated from a numbers stand point in this sim. US industrialzation helped to overwhelm the Axis powers as a general overview.
Point being that some superior aircraft were met by overwhelming numbers at different periods of time in WWII that led to their ultimate destruction.
I believe there is a some what fair attempt- Depending on the Patch- to have some balance in the aircraft capabilities within this game. Which I also find frustrating as well.

I would love to have a verifiable, true to life flight sim that you could enjoy as close as possible the feeling of flying that peticular aircraft. So far no one's done it or the one that appears to be closest -again let politics- affect their decision making and you simply can't dogfight or shoot each other down... ala Wings of Power etc..

Are there planes "Hacked" in this sim? .. it's an irrefutable, yes. Is Oleg or anyone willing to do something about it... No. If it was going to be corrected.. after what now 4-5 years on the market the changes would have legitmately been made, based on where Oleg's heart is... it's in the pocket book not the history book. Which it's his sim and he can do so at his will.

I may not be recalling it correctly... but, Bud Anderson said words to the effect that.. Il2 is a nice game but, it's not realistic.
For guy who's been there DONE THAT... it ices it for me. There's not much time left to get the real pilots of WWII to eval improvements or the next generation of HISTORICAL sims? Eventually, we'll be left with stat sheets and graphs.. and everyone's opinion on numbers void of the true imput from the guys who were there... full real and FOR REAL!
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/183486/df95cc3008fc2d0727b23831ba2c2baf.gif

joeap
07-02-2007, 02:22 PM
Where do these people with low postcounts who joined a long time come out of the woodwork???

Boldknight what "irrefutable" evidence are you talking about?? What "balance"?

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-02-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by hkfl8087:
I think that Oleg should open the source for mod, or at least show us the way to adjust aircraft's performance.I think that in this game some US planes such as p51D and F4U is less powerful, less maneuverable than in the real life.So how do you guys think about this?

You think. But you are wrong. And Oleg will never ever release the source code to the public. Wrong sim buddy.

Blondeknght
07-03-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Where do these people with low postcounts who joined a long time come out of the woodwork???

Boldknight what "irrefutable" evidence are you talking about?? What "balance"?

Excuse me, Sir, explain {for us all} how my post count has relivence to or for that matter, longevity with this site, and/is supposed to have any nexus as to the credability/content in my post?
Secondly, based on your innuendo, is it simply by your name calling "Boldknight" you're attempting to be solidifying the soundness of your position?

Respectfully,

Blondeknght

LEXX_Luthor
07-03-2007, 12:38 PM
That's a good point Blonde -- soon WW2 pilots won't be able to tell us its "a game." The only interest I have in combat sims is the simulation of air warfare, and "realistic" competition Sport Online shooter dogfight flight modelling is only a small portion of air warfare. Most kills were never seen coming. To paraquote Yeager...its the player, not the flight model.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I think you new handle is not fooling anyone... cept the ones that want to belive

isnt it amazing? they usually have only just started playing, yet somehow know all about Oleg, or others, or issues that are long settled


too stupid to be stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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


Well spotted! I didnt notice this till you pointed it out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
07-03-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Blondeknght:
, Bud Anderson said words to the effect that.. Il2 is a nice game but, it's not realistic.



Where did he say this?

And what aspects was he talking about? Did he actually say that the P51 was not like its real counterpart?

I htink it was Eric Brown (Test pilot of more types of plane than most peopole have heard of) Said that it very realistic. Just the stick settings are a bit sensitive and needed toning down.


There is no more realistic WW2 combat sim in the world right now. Il2 is about as realistic as you can get on 2000mhz computers with todays technology and the planes are extrememly well modelled. You only have to do your historical research and find out what the planes were actually like in order to find that out.

I am gathering that your complaints are about the P51.

Comparing the La7 with the P51 is just daft. The La7 has slats (much better low speed handling, stop the plane spinning when turning hard) and the P51 has laminar flow wings (built for high speed not manouverability, will go into a spin if pulled too hard) There can be no doubt that the La7 is going to be a better dogfighter than the P51.

Maggi_4
07-04-2007, 10:56 AM
I don't see whats your problem to requesting a better performance for the Mustang, and other yankee planes. You know I found much harder to fight at the easternfront in this game (I fly as OKL), cause the only plane that you couldnt kill in a turnfight there is the Spit (with an Fw190) and I think this is not very realistic. Poor Yankees they always get better .050 cals but never a realistic performance for Thunderbolt and Mustang!

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2007, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Maggi_4:
I don't see whats your problem to requesting a better performance for the Mustang, and other yankee planes. You know I found much harder to fight at the easternfront in this game (I fly as OKL), cause the only plane that you couldnt kill in a turnfight there is the Spit (with an Fw190) and I think this is not very realistic. Poor Yankees they always get better .050 cals but never a realistic performance for Thunderbolt and Mustang!

Just because somebody insists on X Y and Z, that doesn't mean something needs to be changed

many many players of this sim fly the planes the way they think the planes should be flown, and no force in Heaven or Earth will make them change it, because THEY once read online that somethign was like this, so that trumps the world

Sorry, wrong answer!

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you couldn't be more wrong

Maggi_4
07-05-2007, 04:31 AM
Well, I think that such a great plane like Mustang shouldnt't be known as a **** plane because in a good sim (what is not perfcect of course, and never be) not modelled correctly, and forgetting that the game (try to) simulate the reality, and not inverted!
There are millions of books what writes the Mustang was better at almost all aspects than 109G and 190A.
Please don't come with fly Mustang correctly, Im not writing this here cause I couldnt outturn a Zero with it.
Sorry for **** English

VVS-Manuc
07-05-2007, 06:40 AM
There is a small glitch with the "1946" code. Oleg created a realistic P-51 FM, based on all the reliable sources and anecdotes around, but it is connected to the 3D-model of the Heinkel "Lerche" by mistake. So if you want to have the realistic P-51 feeling just fly the "Lerche"

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

HayateAce
07-05-2007, 09:15 AM
Mustang will never be right as long as Olegster has anyting to do with the game.

Period.

On the other hand, look at the E and FMs of the La5FN and La7.

This is how Mr Oleg wants it.

Brain32
07-05-2007, 10:38 AM
The only thing that can make P51 "correct" is giving it Spitfires turn rate. Oh wait, not exactly...give it a second less, so the P51 fliers can feel "manly" and to also give them a reason too look down on that "Brits in sissy Spits" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I say go ahead and do it Oleg...afterall the Allies won, so if you model them winning at any cost you are modelling it correct right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
07-05-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
The only thing that can make P51 "correct" is giving it Spitfires turn rate. Oh wait, not exactly...give it a second less, so the P51 fliers can feel "manly" and to also give them a reason too look down on that "Brits in sissy Spits" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I say go ahead and do it Oleg...afterall the Allies won, so if you model them winning at any cost you are modelling it correct right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Ummm yes, how about modelling 10 poorly trained pilots with 5 experten vs. 50 average, but trained pilots.

Losers only allowed full fuel for half the planes.

Planes can keep historical specifications (1944).

Oh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2007, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Maggi_4:
Well, I think that such a great plane like Mustang shouldnt't be known as a **** plane because in a good sim (what is not perfcect of course, and never be) not modelled correctly, and forgetting that the game (try to) simulate the reality, and not inverted!
There are millions of books what writes the Mustang was better at almost all aspects than 109G and 190A.
Please don't come with fly Mustang correctly, Im not writing this here cause I couldnt outturn a Zero with it.
Sorry for **** English

Hi

I never said "learn to fly" or that you think the plane should out turn a Zero.

FritzGryphon
07-06-2007, 10:39 AM
I think we're all very lucky that MG has enough integrity to base their game on WWII, rather than 21st century western documentaries.

No one benefits if the developer panders to the ignorance and laziness of the game's most childish players. We all improve our skills and learn interesting things when confronted with the real tactical challenges of air combat.

joeap
07-06-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I think we're all very lucky that MG has enough integrity to base their game on WWII, rather than 21st century western documentaries.

No one benefits if the developer panders to the ignorance and laziness of the game's most childish players. We all improve our skills and learn interesting things when confronted with the real tactical challenges of air combat.

+1

JG54_Lukas
07-07-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Mustang will never be right as long as Olegster has anyting to do with the game.

Period.

On the other hand, look at the E and FMs of the La5FN and La7.

This is how Mr Oleg wants it.

(yawn)

And the accusations of conspiracy go on!

Bearcat99
07-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Official Aircraft Mod Tool for 1C Maddox SIMS (http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/stfu.GIF)

Not for nothing but this has been discussed ad nauseum maximus.... Whatever you think of the FMs in this sim time and practice will alter that perception.

alert_1
07-09-2007, 05:37 AM
Fact is taht there is no VVS fighter that might be considered as "undermodeled" and is very transparent that oleg favoured Polikarpov/Lavotchkin fighters (try I16, LaGGs, La5/7, I185)

carguy_
07-10-2007, 05:22 AM
Oleg might be a bit biased when it comes to VVS planes modelling.In their own class they are all very good,even the yaks.Oleg never commented on the La5F Rechlin tests AFAIK which blurrs his honesty.Not much captured VVS planes floating around which leaves him with one type of source.

About western front fighters I think that Oleg lacks bias completely.For all those plance I`d say that Oleg`s attitude towards them is sceptical.That is the right road.
We`ve seen many variations of the P51 and many agree that now it is as accurate as ever been in IL2.Most also agree that models B and C do more than just stand a fight against the Gustav even at low altitude.Which brings me to the question why when ppl are complaining the only Pony that is about is the D model??!

Even P51D has advantages over FW190 A and good chance against the D.
So why am I every online day seeing P51 pilots waste their alt advantage and go buuzling into low speed T&B with my Gustav?

A quick analisys reveals that only the P38 has problems with turning performance.P47,P40,P39,Hawks,Hellcats and Corsairs are all fine except the typical FM problems with correct E retention modelling.
In light of this it`s very weird why the Spitfire is teh UFO in this game?Maybe it was close to this in real life?

When I fly the P51 I stay out of 109`s best areas and attack them with surprise with a difference that coming back to my nominal altitude does not pose problems that big which appear in a FW190.The P51 after a B&Z attack zooms nearly to the alt I was before the attack.
Why are some P51 drivers doing great anyway?

I also want to express my view on the open FM modelling for online gaming.


NONE ON YOUR LAME N00B PONY FANBOY LIFE!

WOLFMondo
07-10-2007, 07:07 AM
Leadspitter, is that you?!:P