PDA

View Full Version : Stalls and spins



AerialTarget
05-23-2005, 04:27 AM
Since most flight simulator people, players and developers alike, seem to believe that warbirds cannot be stalled without spinning, I am posting a few links. These are the official United States Army Air Force training videos, and were shown to the pilots who were to fly these planes in the war. This post has taken several hours to compile; please do not scoff.

About nine minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-38RV956.ram), a P-38 Lightning stalls without dipping a wing. The narrator, a P-38 pilot himself, goes on to say, "Accelerated stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any airplane when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent. This can happen in sharp turns, pullouts, or other severe maneuvers. The Thirty Eight is designed to take the buffeting of the stall, and has no tendency to slip off on either wing at any altitude." It is true that its contrarotating propellers give it an advantage over single engined fighters, however, so here are some more videos.

About thirteen minutes and fifty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47ARV56.ram), a P-47 Thunderbolt performs a perfect example of what I am talking about.

About twenty six minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-39G56.ram), a P-39 Airacobra performs several stalls without dipping a wing. Another beautiful one occurs at about twenty eight minutes and fifty seconds.

About fourteen minutes into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/F4URV1056.ram), it shows several spins and then one stall without a spin. And this is the F-4U Corsair, which is notorious for spinning in a stall. Even the Ensign Eliminator can be stalled without spinning, as this video shows.

The P-40 Warhawk, the F-6 Hellcat, and the P-51 Mustang, at least the models shown in the videos, apparently cannot stall without dipping a wing.

These videos show two things. Firstly, the IL-2 Sturmovik series is wrong about stalls. And secondly, some warbirds can be stalled without dipping a wing, and some cannot. Anyone who says, "old high performance fighters cannot
stall without spinning" is wrong.

anarchy52
05-23-2005, 05:44 AM
Q: How do you train for spin recovery on Corsair?
A: You don't!
Movie shows a nasty stall indeed...
Interesting bit of data from the movie "Do not exceed 7G under any load conditions"

VW-IceFire
05-23-2005, 07:07 AM
Seen some of those videos...I know...but prior to 4.0 there hasn't been provisions for such a stall type. FB's stalls represent the FW190 more than they do the P-38. Soon apparently not anymore! But you already know this don't you?

anarchy52
05-23-2005, 08:16 AM
That Yak-3 in the 4.0 tracks looked like it's doing a 1G stall...looked promising, although there were disturbing rumors on this forum that later beta's FM is somewhat more "casual player friendly" (although more demanding and realistic then our current 3.04).
Needless to say...suspense is killing me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
05-23-2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Since most flight simulator people, players and developers alike, seem to believe that warbirds cannot be stalled without spinning, I am posting a few links. These are the official United States Army Air Force training videos, and were shown to the pilots who were to fly these planes in the war. This post has taken several hours to compile; please do not scoff.

About nine minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-38RV956.ram), a P-38 Lightning stalls without dipping a wing. The narrator, a P-38 pilot himself, goes on to say, "Accelerated stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any airplane when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent. This can happen in sharp turns, pullouts, or other severe maneuvers. The Thirty Eight is designed to take the buffeting of the stall, and has no tendency to slip off on either wing at any altitude." It is true that its contrarotating propellers give it an advantage over single engined fighters, however, so here are some more videos.

About thirteen minutes and fifty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47ARV56.ram), a P-47 Thunderbolt performs a perfect example of what I am talking about.

About twenty six minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-39G56.ram), a P-39 Airacobra performs several stalls without dipping a wing. Another beautiful one occurs at about twenty eight minutes and fifty seconds.

About fourteen minutes into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/F4URV1056.ram), it shows several spins and then one stall without a spin. And this is the F-4U Corsair, which is notorious for spinning in a stall. Even the Ensign Eliminator can be stalled without spinning, as this video shows.

The P-40 Warhawk, the F-6 Hellcat, and the P-51 Mustang, at least the models shown in the videos, apparently cannot stall without dipping a wing.

These videos show two things. Firstly, the IL-2 Sturmovik series is wrong about stalls. And secondly, some warbirds can be stalled without dipping a wing, and some cannot. Anyone who says, "old high performance fighters cannot
stall without spinning" is wrong. Your going to like the patch! At least the P38! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-23-2005, 08:40 AM
doesn`t work?

Well, whatever. Although I want realism for my flight sims, i`m not sure what the point of this is. I`m still going to fly and enjoy FB and not get myself into a tizz because my plane didn`t quite stall out correctly.

There were loads of faults at the start of IL2. The most noticable ones to me were AI behaviour, for example the 109 AI used to always turn fight no matter what. If you flew real low to the ground the AI would never follow you, breaking off too early. When an aircraft`s wing was shot off they never spun like they sometimes do now. Over time these things have been fixed...

I noticed this because I look for fighter AI realism, you look for accurate stalls because that`s your little thing.

These fms over time I`m sure will be fixed as the technology moves on (even if not in 4.0).

My point is Oleg is probably aware of a lot of these things and due to time, money, PC capabilities has not got round to fixing them all.

But he eventually gets round to it. The ultimate fix will probably be in BOB.



Had I been so fussy at the start of 1st version of IL2 as you are with PF I would NEVER have lasted this long with the sim.

AerialTarget
05-23-2005, 11:34 PM
Actually, the reason I posted this was not really to insult the game as much as inform people of how warbirds should stall. I've been getting a lot of flak at the Pacific Fighters forum from a staggeringly large number of people who believe that warbirds have to drop a wing when they stall like in the game.

Also, simulator developers don't seem to know this either. I've never seen a World War Two simulator that does stalls right since Dynamix's early nineties simulators. It's not that the technology hasn't been there; the fact that Dynamix made simulators with both stalls and spins back in the ninties proves that this isn't true. Rather, it seems to me that people are under the impression that warbirds can't be stalled without spinning. The arguments I've been in here confirm that.

zeno303
05-24-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Since most flight simulator people, players and developers alike, seem to believe that warbirds cannot be stalled without spinning, I am posting a few links.....

If I may be allowed a plug, since AerialTarget didn't feel the need to mention it, these clips are all from my site, Zeno's Warbird Video Drive-In (www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com))which also has training films for a bunch of other WW2 aircraft, also available for live on line streaming.

One of the things that has always warmed my turbo over the years is when I discover that my site is being used as ammunition in a flight model debate somewhere on the net --it makes it all worth while. ;-)

RE stalls & spins in flight sims. I've always thought that the stalls & spins are "softened" to varying degrees in flight sims in the interest of "playability." I agree with AerialTarget that the differing effects from plane to plane tend to be over simplified. To really get it right, you have to have a good physics model based on actual aerodynamics --not just "this one stalled harder than that one." IL2 is better than most.

Re: the P-38, The twin engines definately gave the P-38 an advantage over many single engine fighters with a more uniform initial stall, but once into a spin, this big, heavy aircraft could plummet like a stone -- especially the earlier 38s without hydraulic assist in the stearing. That's why the training film says that spins shouldn't be attempted below 10,000 feet. Army ace Tommy McGuire learned that the hard way when he attempted to mix it up with an Oscar in the Phillipines at low altitude, stalled, spun & fatally augered in. The error was compounded because he foolishly didn't drop his tanks. (Wanted plenty of gas left to continue the hunt.)

Re the F4U. The Corsair's tendency to stall at low speed was a result of wing design & the tremendous torgue that could be generated by the 2000hp Pratt turning that big prop. That made carrier landings problematic. To counter act this, later models had a strip added to the leading edge of the wing that significantly counteracted the low speed stall.

Ther's an interesting discussion of the effects of wing design on stalling in the A-26 Invader video, also available on my site.

So if you haven't stopped by to check out the films before,that's http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com

Check six!

Zeno
Zeno's Warbird Video Drive-In

MADP
05-24-2005, 10:23 AM
Being a (one-time) flight instructor, I don't think I've found a flight-sim yet that has accurate stall/spin characteristics. M$ FS 9 comes close, but still fells fake.

The stall/spins in PF is so ridiculous that I turn it off. If it was accurate there would have been no-one left to fight the war...all the pilots would have spun in.

darkhorizon11
05-24-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by MADP:
Being a (one-time) flight instructor, I don't think I've found a flight-sim yet that has accurate stall/spin characteristics. M$ FS 9 comes close, but still fells fake.

The stall/spins in PF is so ridiculous that I turn it off. If it was accurate there would have been no-one left to fight the war...all the pilots would have spun in.


I agree 100%. I'm keeping up my hopes that the new 4.0 FM will attempt to fix this problem.

Where did you flight instruct at? I'm taking my CFI cert. course this Fall.

I haven't played PF in about 3 weeks now since I'm home from college and won't have access to it until June 4th. Could someone humor me and give me a description of what happens when you try to stall the plane with stalls and spins off?

SeaFireLIV
05-24-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

I agree 100%. I'm keeping up my hopes that the new 4.0 FM will attempt to fix this problem.

Where did you flight instruct at? I'm taking my CFI cert. course this Fall.

I haven't played PF in about 3 weeks now since I'm home from college and won't have access to it until June 4th. Could someone humor me and give me a description of what happens when you try to stall the plane with stalls and spins off?

I can tell you. The plane simply doesn`t stall, no matter what you do, you can fly in circles forever without stalling.


Originally posted by MADP:
The stall/spins in PF is so ridiculous that I turn it off. If it was accurate there would have been no-one left to fight the war...all the pilots would have spun in.

I really find this VERY hard to believe. I`ve never flown an aircraft so I don`t really know, but I fly with stalls and spins on all the time, the I16, Spit, P40, Mig, etc and very rarely stall unless I make a very evasive manouever. I could well believe that while stalls may not be totally accurate they would certainly be survivable for trained pilots in real life.

All the pilots would have spun in if real? No, what you say cannot be true.

SeaFireLIV
05-24-2005, 07:04 PM
Man, I spend too much time responding to self-assured egos spouting complete and utter tripe. I gotta go do something more worthwhile...



Like artwork.

bolillo_loco
05-24-2005, 07:13 PM
I agree that many planes canbe stalled and they would not depart into a spin, while some a/c may have a tendency to spin when stalled, from what I have heard and read most wont. My major beef has always been the "stick stirring people". I am sure everybody has seen them. you bounce them or are ready to make a shot on them and all they can think of is "full left aileron, full right rudder, and full back on the elevator" with maximum stick throw so that their plane does lovely gymnastic cartwheels across the sky. recovery from this is very simple.........just let go of the stick and presto chango your out of the exercise with out loss of speed or altitude. I would challenge anybody to try this in any ww II fighter at 500 meters and survive. I see people do this that low and survive all the time.

most WWII a/c will spin when they are both stalled and yawed......most simmers who stall their virutal a/c are yawed.......extremely yawed........so where are the spins with loss of 1,000-3,000 meters of altitude?

if you do not think an a/c will enter a spin when it is both stalled and yawed......go ask somebody who has flight time in a heavy, powerful, low winged piston engined a/c or some flight instructer what happens if your stalled and yawed, then ask him what would happen if you use full deflection on all control surfaces at 500 meters altitude and 300 kph IAS.

bring spins to our game and eliminate the "stick stirring people"

BlakJakOfSpades
05-24-2005, 07:24 PM
now i didn't watch the movies, but are they power on or power off stalls, because theres a difference on how it will act, directly related to if/how it will spin, no? and i agree the p-38 is wrong and it should be fixed in the patch...if what i hear is true

knightflyte
05-24-2005, 07:26 PM
Im not an aeronautical engineer, but COULD it be that programing a stall pattern for each aircraft could be so computer intensive that playability would suffer?... causing stutters..and locked frames?

It's been mentioned that the new flight mods and improved AI will consume..(not the right word, but I can't place my fingers on the right word.)... CPU clock cycles. It won't bring systems to it's knees, but it will increase.

Now using that as an example, imagine different stall characteristcs as needed for EACH aircraft. I don't think the "AVERAGE Joe's" computer can handle the increase.

Sure..... a lot of us invest bocoup bucks into our machines so we get the best enjoyment possible. But, we're a minority. A vast minority....especially considering the niche market flight sims are.

regards,
Robert

Just a thought....... I could be wrong......

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
most WWII a/c will spin when they are both stalled and yawed......most simmers who stall their virutal a/c are yawed.......extremely yawed........so where are the spins with loss of 1,000-3,000 meters of altitude?

if you do not think an a/c will enter a spin when it is both stalled and yawed......go ask somebody who has flight time in a heavy, powerful, low winged piston engined a/c or some flight instructer what happens if your stalled and yawed, then ask him what would happen if you use full deflection on all control surfaces at 500 meters altitude and 300 kph IAS.

Ah, most players fly coordinated. It's hard not to; the game doesn't require rudder input except for stall recovery, which is another unrealistic thing. I know that most of my stalls are coordinated and would therefore not result in a wing drop in real life (I fly the P-38).

Blakjakofspades, watch the movies, please. You will not regret doing so, if only because it shows real warbirds doing cool stuff. The different movies show accelerated stalls, slow stalls, spins, power on stalls, power off stalls, clean stalls, and dirty stalls.

MADP
05-25-2005, 08:59 AM
In a real aircraft, you usually have plenty of warning that a plane is near a stall: elevators are buffeting and making a heck of a racket, the postion of the control collumn (you're holding it next to your chest), the lack of wind noise (low speed stall), or you are feeling the high g-loads (high speed stall). If you notice any of these are going on AND your body senses a lateral acceleration (being pushed to the side of the plane) you know you are at great risk of entering a spin. Sitting in my study, in front of my computer, none of these are present.

There is a buffeting sound as you approach a stall, but the inclinometer (the "ball") in the game does not function so there is no way to be sure there is no lateral acc. (required for a spin entry). All pilots can remember hearing their instructor screaming at them "Keep that d@mn ball centered!" or "Step on the ball!".

Here's how it works with me: I'll be trying to tighten a turn just a little bit more to get a shot on someone...I hear the buffeting sound so I know I'm close to the edge. I pull back just a tad more and the plane just rolls over into a spin. OK, in 95% of aircraft just release the controls and it'll fly right out. Not here. Apply proper spin recovervy procedure -- full opposite rudder, stick into the panel, power idle -- 95% of planes will recover after 1-2 turns (I taught spin recovery and aerobatics so I know how many types of planes respond). In PF they just spin all day long. Very fake and very frustrating.

It's for all these reasons that I just turned off spins. The plane just kinda mushes at high alphas now, but remains controllable. Also very fake but it's not as frustrating as a plane that won't recover from a spin and crashes almost every time.

A RL fighter-pilot would have known EXACTLLY how far away he was from a stall/spin situation for the reasons I earlier elucidated. In a GAME, the player does not have a good idea where he stands. This is why I say that if RL were like the game, most pilots would have screwed the pouch in stall/spin accidents.

So to keep the game ENJOYABLE for me, I turned 'em off.

SeaFireLIV
05-25-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by MADP:
Here's how it works with me: I'll be trying to tighten a turn just a little bit more to get a shot on someone...I hear the buffeting sound so I know I'm close to the edge. I pull back just a tad more and the plane just rolls over into a spin.... (I taught spin recovery and aerobatics so I know how many types of planes respond). In PF they just spin all day long. Very fake and very frustrating.

It's for all these reasons that I just turned off spins. The plane just kinda mushes at high alphas now, but remains controllable. Also very fake but it's not as frustrating as a plane that won't recover from a spin and crashes almost every time.

So to keep the game ENJOYABLE for me, I turned 'em off.

Ok, I understand what you`re saying, but I suspect you`re experiences/training are dealing with civilian aircraft flying under generally safe rules and conditions.

I say that you should temper your own personal experience with the difference of a warplane. War planes in general are `twitchy`, the F16 is one example is what gives it its manoueverability.

Now let`s go to Fighter aircraft circa 1940 technology. You have twitchy aircraft under combat conditions - you`re going to get stalls and not every stall is going to warn you first. Some WWII aircraft had vicious stalls that killed their pilots at low level.

I respect that you find flying with no spins/stalls better than stalls/spins on. For me, I`m so used to stalls/spins on it`s as if I`m flying with them off. Personally, I just don`t think you`ve given it time to get used to them and I doubt 4.0 will be any easier.


Perhaps one day i`ll get the chance to fly passenger (or even pilot) in a trainer Spitfire and be thrown around in simulated manouevers to see when and how a plane stalls, but until then spins and stalls stay because it feels real to me and matches some of what I`ve read.

But all to their own prefs.

NonWonderDog
05-25-2005, 01:36 PM
By the way, not every plane stalls into a spin the same way in the sim; try flying the IL-2 for a bit. You know, that plane the sim is named after?

Pull back on the stick at low speed and you get a whole lot of buffeting and creaking, keep pulling back and the nose just drops straight down. *Keep* pulling back and you'll eventually drop the left wing and fall earthward.

It's still not perfect; I'm not at all qualified to say this but the stall speed seems a bit lower than I'd think and the plane is all but impossible to put into a spin. Nevertheless, it's better than any other sim I've tried.

The P-38 should probably do much the same thing, actually...

LilHorse
05-25-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Since most flight simulator people, players and developers alike, seem to believe that warbirds cannot be stalled without spinning, I am posting a few links. These are the official United States Army Air Force training videos, and were shown to the pilots who were to fly these planes in the war. This post has taken several hours to compile; please do not scoff.

About nine minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-38RV956.ram), a P-38 Lightning stalls without dipping a wing. The narrator, a P-38 pilot himself, goes on to say, "Accelerated stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any airplane when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent. This can happen in sharp turns, pullouts, or other severe maneuvers. The Thirty Eight is designed to take the buffeting of the stall, and has no tendency to slip off on either wing at any altitude." It is true that its contrarotating propellers give it an advantage over single engined fighters, however, so here are some more videos.

About thirteen minutes and fifty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47ARV56.ram), a P-47 Thunderbolt performs a perfect example of what I am talking about.

About twenty six minutes and forty seconds into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-39G56.ram), a P-39 Airacobra performs several stalls without dipping a wing. Another beautiful one occurs at about twenty eight minutes and fifty seconds.

About fourteen minutes into this film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/F4URV1056.ram), it shows several spins and then one stall without a spin. And this is the F-4U Corsair, which is notorious for spinning in a stall. Even the Ensign Eliminator can be stalled without spinning, as this video shows.

The P-40 Warhawk, the F-6 Hellcat, and the P-51 Mustang, at least the models shown in the videos, apparently cannot stall without dipping a wing.

These videos show two things. Firstly, the IL-2 Sturmovik series is wrong about stalls. And secondly, some warbirds can be stalled without dipping a wing, and some cannot. Anyone who says, "old high performance fighters cannot
stall without spinning" is wrong.

This is all pretty old news. This has been discussed to Nth before. Pretty much everybody knows that the stall modelling is flawed. People just put up with it.

Hopefully, 4.0 will fix that.

AerialTarget
05-25-2005, 02:40 PM
How many of us want to fly that boat, the IL-2, around all day? I seriously wonder what makes simulator developers program their games around obscure Russian ground attack aircraft, because they always realize in the middle of developement that no one will buy the simulator if they don't include some fighters quick smart.

First Maddox Games, and then Eagle Dynamics...

LilHorse
05-25-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
How many of us want to fly that boat, the IL-2, around all day? I seriously wonder what makes simulator developers program their games around obscure Russian ground attack aircraft, because they always realize in the middle of developement that no one will buy the simulator if they don't include some fighters quick smart.

First Maddox Games, and then Eagle Dynamics...

"Obscure"? What planet have you been living on? You ever tried ground pounding in it? That thing brings the hammer down like no other plane in the game.

And the game always had fighters in it. 109s, 190s, Yaks, La's, LaGGs, MiGs.

At the time the game came out there already were plenty of sims that dealt with Western front a/c and Pacific a/c.

Finally there was a sim that dealt with the most brutal theater (and many would argue the most important theater) of the war.

The sim won rave reviews and was concidered the best combat flight sim ever made. All that with an "obscure" Russian attack plane for it's title.

darkhorizon11
05-25-2005, 08:22 PM
PCgamer listed FB #15 I think in all time best games saying "FB stands at the zenith of the genre". Although CFS 3 isn't too far behind in popularity.

AerialTarget
05-25-2005, 10:35 PM
My point is that both IL-2 Sturmovik and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were originally intended to feature only an obscure Russian ground attack plane. You see, IL-2 Sturmovik was originally meant to only have the named plane flyable.

blakduk
05-25-2005, 10:54 PM
MADP- what rig are you using?
If you're not using a FFB stick i can understand why stalls are surprising you in the game, otherwise stop trying to impose real-world experiences into a game that can only simulate visual and auditory sensations.
Learn to 'play the game' rather than get frustrated with what you know not being replicated 100%.
You have to be more gentle with the controls in this game, accept that.
BTW- a lot of pilots in WW2 were lost to spins!

Jaws2002
05-25-2005, 11:48 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AerialTarget:
My point is that both IL-2 Sturmovik and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were originally intended to feature only an obscure Russian ground attack plane. You see, IL-2 Sturmovik was originally meant to only have the named plane flyable. [QUOTE]


IL-2 obscure???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
what kind of history do you read?
Il-2 was the most produced plane in ww2. Over 36000 were produced. Is considered by many to be the best all around ground attack aircraft of the Second World War.
You think the war was fought only by spits and 109's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

roboas
05-26-2005, 12:05 AM
I played this game before I started pilot training, and I am hesitant to pull to the buffet because IL2 has ingrained in me that everytime I get into the buffet, I'm going to snap off into a spin. In reality, its hard to spin most aircraft out there, and the ones that spin easily have computers that prevent you from doing them.

msalama
05-26-2005, 12:19 AM
...obscure Russian ground attack aircraft

Obscure?

You say you do know about aircraft and flying. Fair enough, I believe you. But as regards history, maybe you should just take your head out of your a** and STFU because you obviously don't have a f**king clue???

And yes, I for one just love to fly that "obscure boat" around all day. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Aero_Shodanjo
05-26-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AerialTarget:
My point is that both IL-2 Sturmovik and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were originally intended to feature only an obscure Russian ground attack plane. You see, IL-2 Sturmovik was originally meant to only have the named plane flyable. [QUOTE]

IL-2 obscure???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
what kind of history do you read?
Il-2 was the most produced plane in ww2. Over 36000 were produced. Is considered by many to be the best all around ground attack aircraft of the Second World War.
You think the war was fought only by spits and 109's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oh, it's obscure alright. It didnt fight the Luftwaffe over the channel in 1940, nowhere to be found above Normandy during D-day, wasnt the plane that sank Yamato and certainly not the one that dropped A-bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Seriously though, I admit I knew almost nothing about IL-2 and about the Russian front in WWII until I came to this sim. The libraries and bookstores were filled with such books that glorified the allied forces in western and pacific theaters that hardly mentioned anything about the war on the "other side". And can you tell me a good movie about air warfare in the eastern front?

But this sim made me learn more about WWII in general - on all fronts - that now I can say for sure that IL-2 and other Russian WWII warplanes weren't less important than Mustang, Tempest and anything else that the "west" flew.

Thanks Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

msalama
05-26-2005, 12:30 AM
what kind of history do you read?

He obviously hasn't read any, as is the way of idiots. C'mon, the man jumps on the sim after he has admitted that he doesn't even OWN the latest version, after which he blames 1C of porking all American planes because they're American, after which he calls IL-2 an "obscure plane", completely disregarding 1) WWII history and 2) the fact that IL-2 was originally an Eastern Front combat simulator.

Now, all this points to one fact and one fact only - regardless of his possible knowledge of things aviational - and the fact is this: the man is a f**king moron, clear and simple.

Old_Canuck
05-26-2005, 12:59 AM
http://www.bandtc.co.uk/template/images/fishlogo.gif

msalama
05-26-2005, 01:07 AM
Ok, fair enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But sometimes you just CAN'T help getting a wee bit provocated...

SeaFireLIV
05-26-2005, 04:17 AM
I suspect AerialTarget been here before under another name. He sounds very familiar. But yes, he speaks as if he knows what he`s talking about, but it`s obvious he doesn`t. Most of what he says is extremely biased using evidence that only suits his personal view and disregarding everything else as Rubbish. Oh, and you can taste his resentment that IL2/PF is made by a Russian...

irR4tiOn4L
05-26-2005, 04:30 AM
what a load of cr@p guys. Im with aerialtarget. Obscure doesnt mean it wasnt the best plane of WWII - it just means few people are aware of its existence/role. Go ask people down the street to name all the WWII aircraft they know - think back and ask yourself whether you were aware of the existence/role of the IL-2 before this sim - I wasnt, aerialtarget wasnt, most people are not. Just because you may have been does not mean it is not obscure. Use some logic and stop abusing people for stating nothing more than the observable.

I do however disagree with Aerialtarget that the IL-2 is a 'boat' and it is a bad design decision to base a sim on it - i personally am very glad a sim adressed my ignorance of this subject matter.

msalama
05-26-2005, 04:56 AM
"Few people"? Like some ka-zillion Russians for example?

Yeah, go ask people down the street in _Moscow_ for example whether they think IL-2 is "obscure" and _then_ talk about logic and abuse all you want. Because y'see, the world DOESN'T end in your backyard!

dadada1
05-26-2005, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
what a load of cr@p guys. Im with aerialtarget. Obscure doesnt mean it wasnt the best plane of WWII - it just means few people are aware of its existence/role. Go ask people down the street to name all the WWII aircraft they know - think back and ask yourself whether you were aware of the existence/role of the IL-2 before this sim - I wasnt, aerialtarget wasnt, most people are not. Just because you may have been does not mean it is not obscure. Use some logic and stop abusing people for stating nothing more than the observable.

I do however disagree with Aerialtarget that the IL-2 is a 'boat' and it is a bad design decision to base a sim on it - i personally am very glad a sim adressed my ignorance of this subject matter.

Would'nt "asking someone in the street" depend on the street/country?

karost
05-26-2005, 07:58 AM
Stalls and spins again...! Oh not again... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hey I have a bad idea...! why not prove it ?

just take a real 10 planes of p-51 or p-47 or p-40 and find voluntee FB 10 pilots who have 500 hrs for play this game , then let them take off and show us how to recover stalls and spins under 2000 meters and landing.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So what do you think how many people will surview after this real test....

for me .... sure all 10 die...!

( Oops in the real plane don't have refly button .. )

https://www.stallion51.com/images/flightops/unusual%20attitude_uat01.jpg
S!

Old_Canuck
05-26-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Ok, fair enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But sometimes you just CAN'T help getting a wee bit provocated...

The bait and tackle sign was not a response to you, Msalma, but to the "agent provocateur" who originated this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LilHorse
05-26-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
what a load of cr@p guys. Im with aerialtarget. Obscure doesnt mean it wasnt the best plane of WWII - it just means few people are aware of its existence/role. Go ask people down the street to name all the WWII aircraft they know - think back and ask yourself whether you were aware of the existence/role of the IL-2 before this sim - I wasnt, aerialtarget wasnt, most people are not. Just because you may have been does not mean it is not obscure. Use some logic and stop abusing people for stating nothing more than the observable.

I do however disagree with Aerialtarget that the IL-2 is a 'boat' and it is a bad design decision to base a sim on it - i personally am very glad a sim adressed my ignorance of this subject matter.

This sim isn't exactly aimed toward "the people down the street". This is a sim that is geared toward ppl who not only know a bit more than them about WWII but about how these a/c should behave, what damage they can take, and the kind of damage that their weapons can dish out.

Your average American probably couldn't even tell you who's side the Russians were on in the war.

allmenroder
05-26-2005, 09:23 AM
Some stall info on the AT-6 "Texan/SNJ/Harvard" used to train tens of thousands of allied pilots in WW2. Note the accelerated stall description.


Which brings me to the airplane‚‚ā¨ôs stall characteristics. Most Texans will (except when at low speed and skidding left) always stall right wing first. And when the wing is loaded (read ‚‚ā¨Ňďaccelerated stall‚‚ā¨¬Ě) the plane will depart dramatically to the right. When pulling a tight 4 G combat turn if you let the airspeed drop below 120 mph you get very little warning before the Texan breaks into a right snap roll entry. Recovery is immediate when you release the backpressure, but if you were in a steep right turn when this happened a prompt recovery from the departure leaves you inverted... guaranteed to get your attention.

SeaFireLIV
05-26-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by LilHorse:

This sim isn't exactly aimed toward "the people down the street". This is a sim that is geared toward ppl who not only know a bit more than them about WWII but about how these a/c should behave, what damage they can take, and the kind of damage that their weapons can dish out.



I would also add that the sim is also aimed towards people who may have no real knowledge of WWII aircraft, but are interested and open-minded enough to try the sim and then learn more, as I did. Not fly the sim for a week then post with rubbish about what he`s seen on a movie or stuff that he `thinks` `should` happen because all of the Aces he heard about could do it.

IL2 helped me in that I actually started reading books on WWII and collecting them, this way, I`d really have some idea of what I was talking about.

LilHorse
05-26-2005, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:

This sim isn't exactly aimed toward "the people down the street". This is a sim that is geared toward ppl who not only know a bit more than them about WWII but about how these a/c should behave, what damage they can take, and the kind of damage that their weapons can dish out.



I would also add that the sim is also aimed towards people who may have no real knowledge of WWII aircraft, but are interested and open-minded enough to try the sim and then learn more, as I did. Not fly the sim for a week then post with rubbish about what he`s seen on a movie or stuff that he `thinks` `should` happen because all of the Aces he heard about could do it.

IL2 helped me in that I actually started reading books on WWII and collecting them, this way, I`d really have some idea of what I was talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. Bravo for you on how you approached the sim. Others would do well to follow your example.

AerialTarget
05-26-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by karost:
Stalls and spins again...! Oh not again...

Hey I have a bad idea...! why not prove it ?

just take a real 10 planes of p-51 or p-47 or p-40 and find voluntee FB 10 pilots who have 500 hrs for play this game , then let them take off and show us how to recover stalls and spins under 2000 meters and landing....

So what do you think how many people will surview after this real test....


Originally posted by allmenroder:
Some stall info on the AT-6 "Texan/SNJ/Harvard" used to train tens of thousands of allied pilots in WW2. Note the accelerated stall description.


You didn't watch the videos I posted, did you? In fact, not very many people in this thread did, judging from the replies.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I would also add that the sim is also aimed towards people who may have no real knowledge of WWII aircraft, but are interested and open-minded enough to try the sim and then learn more, as I did. Not fly the sim for a week then post with rubbish about what he`s seen on a movie or stuff that he `thinks` `should` happen because all of the Aces he heard about could do it.

You didn't watch the movies either, obviously. And I'd like you to know that I haven't been playing this game "for a week." It's been years.

None of you are entitled to say that I am wrong about stalls, because you have not watched the movies from which I am getting my information (that which I have not gotten from real life experience). And the reason you are not watching the movies is because they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right on the stall issue. These movies are not uninformed Hollywood balogna, whatever Seafire implies. These are official wartime training videos, made by the men who built and flew these airplanes! You are foolish indeed if you think you know more than them.

I've read literally hundreds of thousands of pages about World War Two aircraft. I may be ignorant of Russian history, but that doesn't make the IL-2 Sturmovik not obscure, at least where I live. Regardless, it was a good excuse for some of you to draw attention away from my original post, which none of you can refute if you actually watch the videos that the post was all about.

LilHorse
05-26-2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karost:
Stalls and spins again...! Oh not again...

Hey I have a bad idea...! why not prove it ?

just take a real 10 planes of p-51 or p-47 or p-40 and find voluntee FB 10 pilots who have 500 hrs for play this game , then let them take off and show us how to recover stalls and spins under 2000 meters and landing....

So what do you think how many people will surview after this real test....


Originally posted by allmenroder:
Some stall info on the AT-6 "Texan/SNJ/Harvard" used to train tens of thousands of allied pilots in WW2. Note the accelerated stall description.


You didn't watch the videos I posted, did you? In fact, not very many people in this thread did, judging from the still-ignorant replies. I suppose it's just too hard to resist arguing with the guy who knows what a stall is.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I would also add that the sim is also aimed towards people who may have no real knowledge of WWII aircraft, but are interested and open-minded enough to try the sim and then learn more, as I did. Not fly the sim for a week then post with rubbish about what he`s seen on a movie or stuff that he `thinks` `should` happen because all of the Aces he heard about could do it.

You didn't watch the movies either, obviously. And I'd like you to know that I haven't been playing this game "for a week." It's been years.

None of you are entitled to say that I am wrong, because you have not watched the movies. And the reason you are not watching the movies is because the prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right on the stall issue. These movies are not some tasteless Hollywood confection. These are official wartime training videos, made by the men who built and flew these airplanes! You are foolish indeed if you think you know more than them.

I've read literally hundreds of thousands of pages about World War Two aircraft. I may be ignorant of Russian history, but that doesn't make the IL-2 Sturmovik not obscure, at least where I live. Regardless, it was a good excuse for some of you to draw attention away from my original post, which none of you can refute if you actually watched the videos that the post was all about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so what exactly is the point of your original post? That some planes dip a wing in a stall and others don't. Here's a little bit of info for ya....we all knew that. Yes, and the sim's modelling of stalls isn't correct. We all knew that too. And, yes, I've watched several of those films before. So what.

Didn't you read the my post on the first page? This issue has been trodden over in about 50 friggin' threads. So I'll ask the actors question. What's your motivaion?

"Since most flight simulator people, players and developers alike, seem to believe that warbirds cannot be stalled without spinning, I am posting a few links."

Are you just operating on this assumption so as to have the opportunity to edjumacate ussuns?
What exactly makes you assume that "most" people believe that?

How many ppl responded saying that you were wrong? Nobody. Why? Cause we already know all this ****. The stall model is flawed. We've lived with it. As mentioned before hopefully 4.0 will be better.

karost
05-26-2005, 07:20 PM
LilHorse ,http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
you right..!
"How many ppl responded saying that you were wrong? Nobody. Why? Cause we already know all this ****. The stall model is flawed. We've lived with it. As mentioned before hopefully 4.0 will be better."

that why I said "Oh not again... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif" it mean we knowed it already... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

btw most ppl hope 4.0 will bring a big change for us in a batter dimension but to expect too much 4.0 may not easy make all friends happy imho

S~

AerialTarget
05-26-2005, 08:58 PM
Actually, although only Seafire said that I was wrong in this thread ("fly the sim for a week then post with rubbish about what he's seen on a movie"), in the various threads in which I've pointed out the stalls, I've gotten a rather high disagreement to agreement ratio. It seems that most people really don't know this, or else are pretending that they don't because they have a personal problem with me and want to argue.

Anyway, no one has ever posted a thread which points out how each plane should stall, complete with links to videos which demonstrate, as this one does. For that matter, I've never seen anyone here mention that stalls have any problem at all until I made this thread. All I hear, everywhere, is gushing about how this game is "just about perfect," as if stalls were completely irrelevent to flight.

By the way, I must apologize to Zeno for not giving him credit for hosting the videos. I didn't think of it until he pointed it out, which was blockheaded of me.

msalama
05-27-2005, 12:46 AM
...because they have a personal problem with me and want to argue.

Neither with you, nor with your technical knowledge (which I think you've plenty of). It's your arrogant BS opinion base, combined with a lack of historical knowledge, that makes an average geezer like meself a bit cheeky. Here're some examples:

1) The claim that Ilyushin IL-2 is "obscure". Yeah, sure - it's only one of the most famous ground attack AC ever, so definitely it's "obscure"...

2) The claim that all U.S. planes are categorically porked. Oh yeah, now how's THAT for a conspiracy theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well maybe they _are_ to someone who's as xenophobically paranoid as you are, but they definitely seem OK enough to us Euro-commie-pot-smoking-tree-hugger liberal untermenschen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

So y'see - if you act like a d**khead, you get treated like one and that's all there's to it! Plain and simple...

SeaFireLIV
05-27-2005, 01:30 AM
msalama pretty much has it in a nutshell.

AerialTarget
05-27-2005, 01:44 AM
Ah! That is a different story.

As for that, I cannot say much. The Il-2 is indeed obscure where I come from. In fact, I do not know a single person who has ever heard of this airplane other than people at this board. And most people at this board, I think, only know it from the game. As a matter of fact, most ground attack aircraft are obscure. Why, the only well-known fixed-wing ground attack aircraft in the United States is the A-10.

I think that the second point speaks for itself in the game. There's just no reason to fly any of the American planes, except for the P-51 Mustang, other than for their good looks. If you watch enough footage of these planes in action, you'll start to notice things that aren't quite right in the game. And the official data certainly doesn't match the data from the game.

I am glad we are in accord on the issue of stalls. I only wish that we both felt that they are as important in the game as they are in real life.

TX-EcoDragon
05-27-2005, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I've never seen anyone here mention that stalls have any problem at all until I made this thread. All I hear, everywhere, is gushing about how this game is "just about perfect," as if stalls were completely irrelevent to flight..

Then you need to look a little harder. . . I only have 900 some posts, but I'd bet about 30% of them are about stalls or spins!

msalama
05-27-2005, 03:31 AM
OK, fair enough & burying the war-axe for now -

As for U.S. aircraft: it might very well be that they're (or some of them are) somewhat off, but I personally find it hard to believe that 1C had an _explicit_intention_ of undermodelling them (if that indeed was what you were implying in the first place). IMO it's more likely that their technical source data for the types was incorrect and/or non-applicable, OR that the "aerophysics" engine of the sim implicitly favors some aerodynamical designs over others.

Or it could be anything at all, of course, but to blame 1C for _categorically_ porking aircraft of nationality X/Y/Z is not IMO valid.

As for IL-2: none of us knows everything, and I myself didn't have a clue of what, say, a Douglas A-20 looked like before I saw one in this game. But that's exactly why I personally refrain from giving definite opinions over matters I've only a vague (or non-existent) knowledge of! I mean, how would _you_ react to someone calling an A-20 obscure?

As for your technical criticisms: I find most of them valid, and there's definitely nothing wrong in making them heard. And YES, the stalls are incorrect, you're absolutely right about that. Some people might object to your raising the point once again, though, because the subject has been extensively discussed on this board already - but hey, that's their problem!

And that's it from me, as regards your person/opinions/knowledge/whatever. I mean, surely there's no need to flog a tired horse to death, is there?

PS. "Tired horse" of course referring to the subject in hand, NOT to your person http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bolillo_loco
05-27-2005, 01:01 PM
I have seen all of the videos you speak of during the summer of 1999. I have watched them several times and I agree that a/c can be stalled and will not spin. however with the way people mishandle a/c here they should enter spins all the time because they are stalled and yawed at very low speed and a high angle of attack. I hope that the next fm makes it much much easier to spin an a/c because I am tired of watching people use max aileron, rudder, and elevator to make their plane cartwheel across the sky to make you miss and they do not enter a spin as a result of this.

OldMan____
05-28-2005, 07:08 AM
Does people realize that summulating a proper stall would be more CPU intensive than simmulating the whole fire barrage from a fleet of 5 carriers and 6 Battleships ?

Discreete time Simmulation have issues wiht numeric stability, there are tehcniques to solve this but the type of system involved ina stall simmulation is so unstabe that to keep it working properly you would need a second CPU only for that. So ANY STALL simmulation you will see in today or next 10 years will be crude approaches, based on a compromisse to leave some CPU to other stuff. From all thing that could be wrong in game this is the most IRRELEVANT one on its cost/bennefit ratio.