PDA

View Full Version : There is one aircraft in this sim I will not fly.



mortoma
02-06-2008, 11:29 AM
And that's the Fiat G-50. Oh it flies ok but I don't like to land or take off in it because it affords no view of the runway at all from the pit. Since I like the immersion of taking off and landing, I never will fly that plane either on or offline. And I refuse to fly it temporarily in external view. All other aircraft give you enough of a view to land or take off except fot this one. There are others that only give you a tiny view of the runway and make it hard but the G-50 is ridiculous, giving you none at all.

Crash_Moses
02-06-2008, 11:36 AM
As long as it's not the SBD. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Enforcer572005
02-06-2008, 11:59 AM
I think it's because you are sitting too low in the cockpit. Or maybe Italian pilots were really short, I dunno.

I just estimate where I'm at on the runway and I get airborne with little problem.

The only plane in this I refuse to fly is the Lerche......I don't wanna fly spaceships.

na85
02-06-2008, 12:02 PM
I refuse to fly the lavochkins

mortoma
02-06-2008, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I think it's because you are sitting too low in the cockpit. Or maybe Italian pilots were really short, I dunno.

I just estimate where I'm at on the runway and I get airborne with little problem.

The only plane in this I refuse to fly is the Lerche......I don't wanna fly spaceships. Yeah, I can actually take off in it but I still like to see the runway. And same on landing, yes I can land it but it's too unrealistic to not see the runway at all once I get down to the flare. I just think that whoever made the pit did so from an improperly low angle. Other than that, the pit itself looks great.

Metatron_123
02-06-2008, 01:02 PM
The irony of this is that the characteristic hump of the Fiat, is due to a requirement that it had the best possible visibility for the pilot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

It's also well known that early Fiats had enclosed canopies, that the traditionalist Italian pilots objected to.

I'm guessing a real pilot could look over the side of the cockpit while taxying.

Breeze147
02-06-2008, 01:05 PM
I refuse to fly the B-26.

JG51_Rudel
02-06-2008, 01:09 PM
I refuse to fly the Lerche also. Its like a flying football.

M_Gunz
02-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Some planes, I have to look out front-side and watch the edge of the runway between fuselage
and wing. If it gets smaller I am going toward the edge. Corsair is easy example.

Once I get the tail up, life gets easier.

Really, having view a bit to one side at least in sims makes height close to ground easier
to judge, horizon and surroundings raising or dropping helps judge rate of those, adds visual
element cue that your mind translates to 'feel'.

It's funny how our minds do fill in. BB King and midi was the subject of one Amiga magazine
and he talked about using Amiga and midi to try out melodies. It wouldn't do as many voices
as he wanted so he'd leave out what IIRC he called 'the major' because 'the ear fills that in
if it's missing'. Anyone who has gotten into new or old radio shows should know how much their
mind fills in, given release to. So it is we can get some 'feel' in non-moving PC sim from
interpretation of what we see and hear. But what feel depends on how much you know of both
the sim and the real, and how much attention you pay absorbing and processing the sim play.

For example it's really nice to know why you're spinning instead of just that you're spinning.

JtD
02-06-2008, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
And that's the Fiat G-50. Oh it flies ok but I can't land or take off in it because it affords no view of the runway at all from the pit.

I don't get it. Why don't you firewall and pray?

idonno
02-06-2008, 01:34 PM
As far as landings go, if you can't see the runway on final approach it just means that you are too slow or your glide path is too shallow, or both. You should be doing between 150 and 200 kph with full flaps. With the right glide angle, that speed and configuration will give you an excellent view of the runway. Land on the main wheels only (a wheel landing), then use forward pressure on the stick to keep the tail up as long as possible. You'll be able to see the runway in front of you until you get quite slow.

For take off, get lined up with the runway by making sure that the wing tip stays the same distance from the side of the runway as you roll slowly forward, lock the tail wheel and keep watching the wing tip to stay in the center of the runway as you apply full power. With a little forward pressure you can get the tail up pretty quickly (in about five seconds), then you'll be able to see the runway. This is not an unrealistic technique.

You can't see down the runway in any of the tail dragges, it's a little worse in the G.50, but it's just a matter of degree.

HayateAce
02-06-2008, 04:23 PM
109G2.

Modeled 300+ lbs too light....on purpose.

Look it up.

fabianfred
02-06-2008, 04:27 PM
I also hate the lerche....but the big planes are the most fun for me.....B25's, 24, PE-8, Blenheims, B29,'Emily',MBR,...should I go on.....

leitmotiv
02-06-2008, 04:31 PM
There are a lot of airplanes which bore me senseless because of the heavy loading in favor of mid-late war fighters in IL-2 46 (and the glut of fantasywaffe in 46) which ceased to excite me very fast. I love the G-50, but Hurricanes usually blow me out of the sky so I rarely land.

JG52Uther
02-06-2008, 04:37 PM
I love the G50,and have no problems taking off and landing in it.Strange really as I struggle in a lot of the other planes.

mortoma
02-06-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
I love the G50,and have no problems taking off and landing in it.Strange really as I struggle in a lot of the other planes. I never said I had a problem taking off in it, just said I didn't like to take off in it. This reminds me of the scene in "Quigley, down under" when that dude shoots those guys up really bad with a pistol and he tells them, "I said I had no use for pistols, never said I didn't know how to shoot one." Or at least something to that effect. They assumed that he could not shoot them just because he favored his rifle.

mortoma
02-06-2008, 04:48 PM
Some did not read my posts well, I can take off in the thing, just like to see the runway. And in real tail-draggers, you can at least lean your head to one side to get a better view. As long as you can still touch the throttle anyway.

mortoma
02-06-2008, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
As far as landings go, if you can't see the runway on final approach it just means that you are too slow or your glide path is too shallow, or both. You should be doing between 150 and 200 kph with full flaps. With the right glide angle, that speed and configuration will give you an excellent view of the runway. Land on the main wheels only (a wheel landing), then use forward pressure on the stick to keep the tail up as long as possible. You'll be able to see the runway in front of you until you get quite slow.

For take off, get lined up with the runway by making sure that the wing tip stays the same distance from the side of the runway as you roll slowly forward, lock the tail wheel and keep watching the wing tip to stay in the center of the runway as you apply full power. With a little forward pressure you can get the tail up pretty quickly (in about five seconds), then you'll be able to see the runway. This is not an unrealistic technique.

You can't see down the runway in any of the tail dragges, it's a little worse in the G.50, but it's just a matter of degree. But you can see the edge of the runway in all the other T-Ds to some extent. G-50 is the only plane that affords you no view at all of the runway. Never said I couldn't land it. But I do have a tendency to like three point landings, so I'll try coming in a little hotter and up on two mains.

M_Gunz
02-06-2008, 06:20 PM
If you note the pitch of the plane before you take off and contrive to touch down at the
same or a little less pitch, you might get the 3-point or close.

M_Gunz
02-06-2008, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
I love the G50,and have no problems taking off and landing in it.Strange really as I struggle in a lot of the other planes.

So how do you see where you're going while in-cockpit and tail-down?

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-06-2008, 07:33 PM
I fly every bird in this sim.

Know thine enemy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
02-06-2008, 08:45 PM
What I really don't understand are people who will only fly one type.

I was hosting once long ago and some JG something or other guy comes in and is very upset that I don't have a 190D9 in the set.

The time frame of the map I did was early war, and I told him that, "But I only fly the D9!" he insisted.

"Sorry about your luck". *Player KICK*.

What an idiot.

M2morris
02-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Yea I agree to fly everything in the sim and I have done that almost. I like having a good biplane fight once in a while.
I was a 190 flyer for a long time and then 109, but I have been flying the F4U in PF for the last year and a half or so. I just now flew that G50 for the first time and I agree with morto that it does suck for vis. I wish I knew of a way to raise my seat, but the visibility would still be too crappy but it is doable. I took off and landed okay. Note to self:
mortoma was right, the G50 sucks for on-ground visibility.

tagTaken2
02-07-2008, 12:49 AM
I don't get why people loathe the Lerche so much. Don't like it? Don't fly it.

If people don't like the inclusion of 'pretend' aircraft, they should quit gaming altogether, because we're all pretending.

If you weren't, you'd be a fighter/bomber pilot.
(Apologies to actual fighter and bomber pilots who fool around in their spare time)

I for one enjoy the fantasy element, and one of the other games I've really been looking forward to is Turning Point, unfortunately not on PC yet. If you think 'alternate history' is anymore unrealistic than 'flying' a monitor, you're delusional.

Lerche.
Ftw.

Copperhead311th
02-07-2008, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
And that's the Fiat G-50. Oh it flies ok but I don't like to land or take off in it because it affords no view of the runway at all from the pit. Since I like the immersion of taking off and landing, I never will fly that plane either on or offline. And I refuse to fly it temporarily in external view. All other aircraft give you enough of a view to land or take off except fot this one. There are others that only give you a tiny view of the runway and make it hard but the G-50 is ridiculous, giving you none at all.

Try kicking rudder left and right durring take off. weaving back and forth across the runway as your excelirating to take off speed.
this always seems to help me a bit.

R_Target
02-07-2008, 01:31 AM
There's no plane I wouldn't fly on principle, that seems kind of silly to me. There are plenty that I'll probably never get around to because they just don't interest me. The "46" content I find especially tedious.

However, the new N. Africa and Slovakia maps make it worth it for me. It takes a bit of the sting out of paying for Pe-2 twice.

LEBillfish
02-07-2008, 04:26 AM
Tgough unfortunately over the entire life of the sim having probably only flown 1/3rd of the aircraft available, there are very few that I really cannot stand flying....

109Z
109K's
190D's
TA-152's
Spitfire IX's

Some of the 1946 stuff is awesome especially the prop/jet hybrids and all the jets....Never knew most existedm fascinating stuff. Have yet to fly the Lerch yet need to one day.

All in all though, give me a 1930's to 1943 ride and I'm happy.

F19_Orheim
02-07-2008, 04:35 AM
All in all though, give me a 1930's to 1943 ride and I'm happy.

Amen...1!!


- There aren't really any planes I do not fly on principle, if it flies I'll fly it,

- ...there are of course planes I PREFER to fly(!),

- and.... there are planes I rarely get to fly because I fly online only and these planes are rarely on servers... such as named G50 (love a good challenge) or P11 (oh how sweet is is to take down a 109 in one of those)

SeaFireLIV
02-07-2008, 04:38 AM
The only planes I will not fly are the stupid planes like the 109Z and the Lerche. I`m not against trying out planes I don`t usually fly since even Allied pilots test flew a lot of enemy aircraft.

Fighterduck
02-07-2008, 05:16 AM
uhm..i fly anything..i just choose the one i prefear in each map rotation. But if there is a plane i dont like is the Lagg..dont saying i dont fly it..but i just dont like them ^^

MEGILE
02-07-2008, 06:26 AM
I'm a 1945 only guy.

Infact, gimme a Dora and I'm happy.

Ratsack
02-07-2008, 07:31 AM
Only if it comes with Kinderwurst!

Ratsack

JG53Frankyboy
02-07-2008, 07:40 AM
early northern africa missions with CR.42, G.50, Hurricane I, J8A , Blenheim are one of my favorite scenarios http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and to fight soviet I-153M62, Hurricane II, SB2, TB-3 in a finnish G.50 can be fun - I-16Typ18 are a challange .....

and about starting , once you have lined up to the runway - just try to keep the heading.......

Aaron_GT
02-07-2008, 08:09 AM
109G2.

Modeled 300+ lbs too light....on purpose.

AFAIK it was by accident, and changed. Wasn't it just a transposition of two digits that was the problem, and when they were changed in the data tables it was back to the proper weight? Something like should have been 3850kg and was put in as 3580kg?

DKoor
02-07-2008, 08:19 AM
I fly everything.

Fakt.

Krt_Bong
02-07-2008, 08:37 AM
While there are planes that if it's the planeset the server is using might be cause for a groan but, even the fantasy aircraft have their place. Think of it, during the course of development (in wartime) many aircraft were tested and flown to determine how such development would continue. Sure these aircraft may not have seen the light of day or been but one or two prototypes but even the Lerche has it's real world counterparts in Post-war testing (the Pogo Fighter comes to mind) flying it is a true test of piloting skill kind of like Neil Armstrong and the Flying Bedstead. So many people post here with these I'll never do this or This is Not the Way X should be, and we all know 'cos we were all there weren't we? This is after all a game, a form of entertainment, and lastly a flight sim which wouldn't really teach anyone to fly except in the most rudimentary means, so lighten up and fly right. Try a new plane you've never flown and then say you don't care for flying it or maybe discover that this is indeed a real bargain to have all this variety in one package before Boo-Hooing whats wrong with it.

M_Gunz
02-07-2008, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I'm a 1945 only guy.

Infact, gimme a Dora and I'm happy.

So which cheerleader there is Dora?

cawimmer430
02-07-2008, 09:19 AM
I love flying the Lerche! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

R_Target
02-07-2008, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I'm a 1945 only guy.

Infact, gimme a Dora and I'm happy.

Done.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31uzXPF7TZL._AA255_.jpg

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-07-2008, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
I love the G50,and have no problems taking off and landing in it.Strange really as I struggle in a lot of the other planes.

So how do you see where you're going while in-cockpit and tail-down? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He leans to the left, lol.

idonno
02-07-2008, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I'm a 1945 only guy.

Infact, gimme a Dora and I'm happy.

I'm a big fan of the Dora myself, but you are missing out on so much when you don't fly the rest of the planes. The old expression "Variety is the spice of life" is just as true when you're talking about your virtual life as a combat pilot.

Do yourself a favor and fly a plane you don't like until you learn to appreciate it's strengths.

I do have to admit though, there are two airplanes I won't fly. The Spit and the Ki-84. Not because I don't like them, but because I'd rather deserve any kills I get. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Skarphol
02-07-2008, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It's also well known that early Fiats had enclosed canopies, that the traditionalist Italian pilots objected to.


I've read that they disliked the enclosed canopy because the perspex produced by the italians at that time (3o'ies) was of such poor quality that it rapidly became less transparent.
I read in the same article that when the russians pilotsgot their first Aeracobras they were very pleased with having planes with perspex they could actually see through, and radios that actually did work.

Skarphol

Metatron_123
02-07-2008, 02:01 PM
This explains why the Aircobra, perhaps not a spectacular performer, was liked so much by the Soviets.

It's a bit like how one appreciates a car with a comfortable interior that is a pleasure to drive, regardless of how fast it will go.

I'd like an Aircobra if I had previously been flying an I-16 freezing my arse off.
The working radio is also a big bonus.

I read an interview with Saburo Sakae where he said japanese radios were useless, but that in battle they were not so important anyway.
I thought this was ironic when comparing to how important the radio was to a western flyer.

And finally I agree with those that say take it easy, don't take your virtual flying too seriously, and have a Lerche ride.

I_KG100_Prien
02-07-2008, 02:03 PM
Ya know, some folks love to fire up the flamethrower against the '46 stuff.. For the purists thats understandable. But I found, that every so often it's good to let go of it and just fly something BECAUSE it's absurd.

I'm a full switch guy when it comes to online play. But last week I decided to go into a server that ran a '46 plane set and allowed the dreaded wonder woman view, plus had map icons ETC.. In other words very relaxed difficulty setting.

I took to the skies in a LERCHE and had a blast. It was fun to just go up and slug it out. It was a relaxing change of pace. So, some of y'all should remove the purist stick from your kiesters and relax from time to time. It'll do ya good.

JG53Frankyboy
02-07-2008, 04:49 PM
i belive the complaining about stuff like the Lerche is not because of the LErche itself - sure, its fun to fly it, to use its rockets, to land it............

it was more because the answer from the game Developer when asked about some more serious stuff (yes for the purists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) the answer was mostly "no time" ..........

VW-IceFire
02-07-2008, 05:06 PM
Yeah but we were asking Oleg who really did have no time. RRG had the time...its too bad they didn't spend it on some other aircraft I agree. But...its already been done....

ElAurens
02-07-2008, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
I do have to admit though, there are two airplanes I won't fly. The Spit and the Ki-84. Not because I don't like them, but because I'd rather deserve any kills I get.

Total rubbish.

PhantomKira
02-07-2008, 06:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Megile:
I'm a 1945 only guy.

Infact, gimme a Dora and I'm happy.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31uzXPF7TZL._AA255_.jpg

Done.





Awsome! Glad to see someone has a sense of humor.

I tend to stay away from the Japanese stuff. Not on principle, I just like to be able to decode my instruments! That said, my current staple is the 109.

Oh, and in the real world, when you fly tailwheel aircraft, you have to be very active on the rudder, swinging the nose back and forth, so you can see what's in front of you. No, you don't look drunk, it's expected.

josephs1959
02-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for.

mortoma
02-07-2008, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
This explains why the Aircobra, perhaps not a spectacular performer, was liked so much by the Soviets.

It's a bit like how one appreciates a car with a comfortable interior that is a pleasure to drive, regardless of how fast it will go.

I'd like an Aircobra if I had previously been flying an I-16 freezing my arse off.
The working radio is also a big bonus.

I read an interview with Saburo Sakae where he said japanese radios were useless, but that in battle they were not so important anyway.
I thought this was ironic when comparing to how important the radio was to a western flyer.

And finally I agree with those that say take it easy, don't take your virtual flying too seriously, and have a Lerche ride. Actually the Airacobra was a very good performer ( for the Soviets ) because they stripped a lot of weight off of it and ran the engines harder than they were supposed to. They had to rebuild/replace a lot of engines but they were able to get the planes to do well while the engines lasted.

It was a bad plane to be in if hit by enemy fire though. Little chance of survival.

M_Gunz
02-07-2008, 10:50 PM
They worked hand in hand with Bell to get P-39 from D as in Dog to N as in Neat and Q as in
somewhere in the Q's the prop and throttle got tied into one lever as in Questionable Value.
Hey sometimes you don't want prop speed to match throttle, I question the value of linked so...

Ugly_Kid
02-08-2008, 12:38 AM
Fiat also p1sses me off, it had a great rep. among Finns (then on the other hand almost every AC had, except the Hurricane). It was very slick in dive leaving anything Soviet easily behind and it was sweet on controls, not the best turner but also not bad. Of course weapons were not that hot but I recall that there were several examples of multiple kills on one mission. Something that is a bit difficult in the game...

It does not really turn and is quite edgy on the stall department - yes the visibility, but what is the most irritating bit is the aileron cables getting cut anytime even when a lone Soviet POW camp guard farts in Siberia...

Strong contender for give me anything but a Fiat is the other one that I positively hated in online wars: IARs (with maybe an exception towards positive with the cannon one...)

na85
02-08-2008, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for.

I'll never understand this attitude. It's just a game.

Copperhead311th
02-08-2008, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yeah but we were asking Oleg who really did have no time. RRG had the time...its too bad they didn't spend it on some other aircraft I agree. But...its already been done....

That's whatpissed me off about the whole 46 add on. no time for any western aircraft. yet we get every wonder plane napkin drawing that the LW & VVS ever dreamed up. I think Illya (i.e. RRG) was working on the VVS stuff for 46. and when some of the 3rd partuy modelers were asked about why they didn't devote some time to add say a Whirlwind, or a P-55 or a convert the yp-80 to the P-80A...they replied that they had no intrest in them. lol ok fine that's fair enough i supose. it's thier time. but i felt like the guys like myslef who prefer the western allied planes got the shaft.

I felt like if your going to do a 1946 add on add a few planes from all sides in the sim as it stood. it's just a coincidence that most of the theird party guys who worked on 46 had a JG tag in front of thier name.

Which i'm sure the lack of 46 USAAF planes thrilled most of the LW community as most of them never wanted them in the sim to begin with.

Copperhead311th
02-08-2008, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for.


WTF? non sensible reasons. are you nucking futs?
are you stuck on stupid.
ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?
OMG somebody ban this Sh*thead before i have a F*cking stroke.

foxyboy1964
02-08-2008, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
WTF? non sensible reasons. are you nucking futs?
are you stuck on stupid.
ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?
OMG somebody ban this Sh*thead before i have a F*cking stroke.

Yeah, ban that other 5hithead, I agree with you on that.

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2008, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I do have to admit though, there are two airplanes I won't fly. The Spit and the Ki-84. Not because I don't like them, but because I'd rather deserve any kills I get.

Total rubbish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree completely.

Ratsack
02-08-2008, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for.


...
OMG somebody ban this Sh*thead before i have a F*cking stroke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

...but can we wait until after your stroke?

Ratsack

josephs1959
02-08-2008, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for.

I'll never understand this attitude. It's just a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent response na85 your right on the button. It IS just a game, My sense of humor is a bit too sarcastic at times and it gets lost, especially here in print.So to be serious my answer would be trying to fly any plane that flys more like a bus.

mynameisroland
02-08-2008, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
109G2.

Modeled 300+ lbs too light....on purpose.

Look it up.

Wow, 300 lb, the weight of one morbidly obese person. Im sure that in the grand scheme of things having the Bf 109 G2 300lb underweight is a small price to pay instead of having a Bf 109 G2 running at 1.42 ATA If IL2 had that you'd poo your rubber pants Hayate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

josephs1959
02-08-2008, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Any "red plane", The thought of flying for the Non sensible reasons that the Allies had makes me feel ill. I need to have a Good reason/feeling of what I'm doing whatever for. The below response is a perfect example, Copperhead311th: calm down you obviously misunderstood me and thats quite reasonable considering that you don't know me, fine I'll accept that, but to have stroke over this? To attach any strong reasons to this game instaed of just playing for fun and abandonment of present day troubles is, I believe a waste of money and time and of course aggravation. I always try to have fun. Heck, just the fact that I can communicate and cooperate with someone from halfway across the world and probably never meet is to me a more intersting aspect of the game, I mean who wants to play by themselves? I never understood guys who I fly with online and who get so upset at getting shot down that they quit the game or start to swear. In reality you would have a different atitude as your plane burns to the ground and your life is about to end without any escape. In the game there's always another chance.


WTF? non sensible reasons. are you nucking futs?
are you stuck on stupid.
ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?
OMG somebody ban this Sh*thead before i have a F*cking stroke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hawgdog
02-08-2008, 06:19 AM
Dont be hatin' the Gee-fiddy...its fantastic!!
Easier than taking off in a 190.
Great plane in maps that match up correctly, its no plane to fly against 1942 planes

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/g50/g50-1.jpg

DKoor
02-08-2008, 06:30 AM
While we're at it, I enjoy G.50 as well.

One of my favs.

Unfortunately yes, it suffers from some kind of blind spots while taxiing.... but I can somehow live with that.
MCs aren't much better either.

Online some people get caught when they see how maneuverable that crapster is.

Choctaw111
02-08-2008, 09:33 AM
I thought this was going to be another thread about the "Lurche"...

PhantomKira
02-08-2008, 11:01 AM
ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?


Um, you might want to review your history.

The USSR under Joseph Stalin was just as bad, and more than likely actually worse (numbers wise), than Nazi Germany in the killing jews and other "undersireables" department. This was partially due to the fact that the USSR simply had a larger population, which meant more people to kill. The same crimes against humanity that happened in Nazi Germany happened in Stalin's USSR, just to a larger scale. (Example: of the 91,000 Germans taken prisoner after the battle of Stalingrad, less than 6,000 lived to see Germany again. Oh, and most of these guys weren't released until 1955. It's worth saying that again: 1955.) The only difference was the Allies chose to support Stalin instead of Hitler.

They were both totalitarian dictatorships.
They were both bent on world domination.

The only solid reason the Allies supported the USSR was Roosevelt's misguided ideas that Stalin was a reasonable man and could be treated as an equal, when in fact, at Teharan, Yalta, and very possibly Potsdam, Stalin outsmarted and outmanuvered all the other Allies.

Churchhill never trusted Stalin, and had it not been for Roosevelt, the West vs East war that we had avoided during the course of the Cold War would have happened in the immediate aftermath of WWII courtesy of a re-armed, ex-Nazi Germany. I have read proposals for just such a rearmament of Germany for the purpose of invading the USSR... written by none other than Winston Churchill.

I guess in the end, it's a choice of pick your battles. The Allies sided with one evil dictator against another, and in all likelihood were spared being over-run by the Marxist hordes by the slimmest of margins.

Kapteeni
02-08-2008, 01:37 PM
OMG HAWgDOG. That videoclip is so sick!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
02-08-2008, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?


Um, you might want to review your history.

The USSR under Joseph Stalin was just as bad, and more than likely actually worse (numbers wise), than Nazi Germany in the killing jews and other "undersireables" department. This was partially due to the fact that the USSR simply had a larger population, which meant more people to kill. The same crimes against humanity that happened in Nazi Germany happened in Stalin's USSR, just to a larger scale. (Example: of the 91,000 Germans taken prisoner after the battle of Stalingrad, less than 6,000 lived to see Germany again. Oh, and most of these guys weren't released until 1955. It's worth saying that again: 1955.) The only difference was the Allies chose to support Stalin instead of Hitler.

They were both totalitarian dictatorships.
They were both bent on world domination.

The only solid reason the Allies supported the USSR was Roosevelt's misguided ideas that Stalin was a reasonable man and could be treated as an equal, when in fact, at Teharan, Yalta, and very possibly Potsdam, Stalin outsmarted and outmanuvered all the other Allies.

Churchhill never trusted Stalin, and had it not been for Roosevelt, the West vs East war that we had avoided during the course of the Cold War would have happened in the immediate aftermath of WWII courtesy of a re-armed, ex-Nazi Germany. I have read proposals for just such a rearmament of Germany for the purpose of invading the USSR... written by none other than Winston Churchill.

I guess in the end, it's a choice of pick your battles. The Allies sided with one evil dictator against another, and in all likelihood were spared being over-run by the Marxist hordes by the slimmest of margins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to revise your history. Recent research has shown that far fewer died in the Soviet purges and collectivisation than previously. Look up Mark Tauger, J. Arch Getty, R.W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft's work on the matter.

Churchill, who was the essential man of the hour in 1940, came up with some bad and bizzare ideas as well. Sending the R battleships into the Baltic on a raid? Gallipoli? Maybe even Italy the soft underbelly of Europe.

PhantomKira
02-08-2008, 03:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Really? Hum. Well, then I suppose some revision of the previous statement is in order then...

M_Gunz
02-08-2008, 06:11 PM
ok so the compleate anilation of eruope by nazi tyrany, the liberation of france from under the jackboot, keeping the UK free, and stoping the deaths of millions of inocent jewish ppl and preventing an all out genocide was not a sensible reason?
OMG somebody ban this Sh*thead before i have a F*cking stroke.

Am I reading too much into this or has someone gotten a little *-too-* serious about a game?
Maybe just step back and spend some time outside?

CUJO_1970
02-09-2008, 07:31 AM
I love the G-50.

MAILMAN------
02-09-2008, 09:32 AM
If Oleg made it so you could map keys to slide/lean your head sideways in the cockpit and/or worked with Natural Point to use the 6 DOF for TrakIr (as is the case with other flight sims) this would not be a problem. You could see more of the runway by leaning/tilting your head right or left. You would also be able to lean and look around the pilot seat and through the fuselage cutouts for slightly better rear vision. I think that it is reprehensible that you can see better to the rear in some of the framed canopy planes (you can actually see the rudder) than with bubble top canopies (armored seat blocks the view) where you can clearly see there is room to look around the headrest between it and the canopy. Hop into a P-51D or P-47D-27 and then check out some of the other planes to see the difference.

crucislancer
02-09-2008, 10:05 AM
I have a huge list of aircraft that I prefer to fly, and a few that I don't care for, but in the end I'll fly anything that's given to me. I don't care if it's a biplane or a wonderplane.

As it is, when I picked up Il-2 1946, I decided that I needed to take each and every flyable up in the QMB and see what it was about, not full on testing, just give it a go and see how it handles, and maybe a 1 on 1 as needed. I've got a couple to go.

M2morris
02-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by MAILMAN------:
If Oleg made it so you could map keys to slide/lean your head sideways in the cockpit and/or worked with Natural Point to use the 6 DOF for TrakIr (as is the case with other flight sims) this would not be a problem. You could see more of the runway by leaning/tilting your head right or left. You would also be able to lean and look around the pilot seat and through the fuselage cutouts for slightly better rear vision. I think that it is reprehensible that you can see better to the rear in some of the framed canopy planes (you can actually see the rudder) than with bubble top canopies (armored seat blocks the view) where you can clearly see there is room to look around the headrest between it and the canopy. Hop into a P-51D or P-47D-27 and then check out some of the other planes to see the difference.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Man that would be great if I could just lean over and look, especially when I'm landing my corsair on a carrier. It would definatley be a good thing to have alright.

249th_Maico
02-09-2008, 11:45 AM
FLY THEM ALL (except the stupid Lerche) Weave left and right to see the runway. IMO the P-40 is no better to see the runway on. And use the little MG's to help your accuracy. I like popping the engines in the Hurricanes with em. They light like torches cause they just cant outturn you. Here is a contemporary opponent. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1363/1426609212_010ab2cee9_b.jpg

Xiolablu3
02-09-2008, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Hawgdog:
Great plane in maps that match up correctly,

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

And there, folks, is the core reason for most of the whining on this board.

All planes are great fun to fly, as long as its in a well balanced, well designed map, and on a server which has sensible rules which promote fair and honorable play.

If the map makers/planeset designers for the server are good/great, then your games will be good/great.

Classic mathups that produce great games include :-

1940 - Hurricane vs 109E

1941 - Spitfire Vb/Hurricane vs 109F4/Me110

1942 - La5F/Yak9 vs 109G2/Fw190A4

1942 - Zero vs Wildcat

1942 - Mosquito/Spit V vs Me110/109F

1943 - 109G6/Fw190A5 vs P51B/P47

1943 - Seafire LF/Corsair/Hellcat vs 109G6 /Fw190A5/ Macchi

1943 - Spitfire IX/P51C vs 109G2/Fw190A6

1944 - SPitfire IX/Tempest vs Fw190D/Me109G10

1945 - Spitfire 25lbs/Tempest/P51D/P38/P47D Late vs Bf109K4/Me262/Fw190D/Do335 (Meteor would be a great addition to this planeset)


Obviously more planes are needed to make a good map, but as the 'core dogfight' then the matchups above result in fantastic games. Add in some great targets for bombers, and other planes for variety and you cannot really fail to get a good map.

On the other hand, when you put a Bf109G6 vs a Tempest, or a Spitfire Vb vs a Fw190A6, then obviously people are going to complain, and one side will empty very quickly.

Its up to the map makers/Server admins/Coop runners to have sensible, well balanced planesets which produce a great game.

If you do this, then you can use any plane in the game and have a great night...

fabianfred
02-09-2008, 05:42 PM
I just flew the Mc-200-7 for the first time the other day...on the new Malta map..
It was fun...and outflew the hurricanes which came up to get us...but the guns sucked big-time.....such a slow muzzle velocity....the gladiator pilots could see the bullets coming and dodge them...lol

many planes I have yet to fly...butin the right situation...they can be refreshing.....at least we have the choice

M_Gunz
02-10-2008, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by MAILMAN------:
If Oleg made it so you could map keys to slide/lean your head sideways in the cockpit and/or worked with Natural Point to use the 6 DOF for TrakIr (as is the case with other flight sims) this would not be a problem. You could see more of the runway by leaning/tilting your head right or left. You would also be able to lean and look around the pilot seat and through the fuselage cutouts for slightly better rear vision. I think that it is reprehensible that you can see better to the rear in some of the framed canopy planes (you can actually see the rudder) than with bubble top canopies (armored seat blocks the view) where you can clearly see there is room to look around the headrest between it and the canopy. Hop into a P-51D or P-47D-27 and then check out some of the other planes to see the difference.

It was explained perhaps 5 years or so ago that IL2 cockpits do not have textures except on
places that can be seen from limited head positions, just two. No backs or sides to deal with
in renders that way. That system ran smooth on gaming hardware even less than 1Gz CPU, if you
lowered the detail it would run on a 500mz P-III with a Voodoo3 card for one guy I knew.

If you could move your head, you'd see cracked and broken VR behind texture edges.

mortoma
02-11-2008, 10:03 AM
I knew this would happen. Whiney people coming in here acting like I'm insulting one of their favorite planes. And others acting like I stated I "can't" fly it, so they can act like superior pilots because they can. There are none of you that can fly better than I can.

Then some people act like my thread on the subject is whining in itself?? Huh?? It's simply stating a fact that I don't like something, that is not whining, only making a point. Not like I'm expecting Oleg to fix the view for the G-50!!

Apparently people can't read!! I love the plane I just don't like to land it or take it off. But I CAN take off and land in it just as well as any of you can. Have been flying sim planes for almost 17 years, plus real planes too.

I just don't like to land it or take off in it. Never said I didn't like it as a whole, never said I was incapable of flying it in any way. It's just that in real life, you can lean your head to one side and see the edge of the runway while the G-50 affords no view at all no matter what you do, excepting external view.

And the guy who said the P-40 view of the runway is just as bad is nuts. I have no trouble seeing the runway flying the P-40 at all and it's better than half of the planes in the sim as far as runway view!!! Very easy to take off and land in. P-40 is actually in the top half of all the aircraft in the sim for outside view of the runways, taxiways.

Then there was a dude who stated I should swerve from side to side to get a better view!! On take off??? Yeah right!!