PDA

View Full Version : What's more important real FM or appropriate FM?



XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:42 AM
What i mean is; Is it important to have real life accurate flight modelling or is it more important that the advantages/disadvantages are compared to all other aircraft in the game ie me-262 highest top speed, I-153 most maneuveurable etc, P-47 best dive etc..

I can see arguments for both sides, yes i would like to have a completely accurate "flight sim" so to speak, but would we be just as happy if the planes were modelled against each other.

What thoughts on this (i'm having trouble explaining it i feel, though i think you'll know what i mean)?

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:42 AM
What i mean is; Is it important to have real life accurate flight modelling or is it more important that the advantages/disadvantages are compared to all other aircraft in the game ie me-262 highest top speed, I-153 most maneuveurable etc, P-47 best dive etc..

I can see arguments for both sides, yes i would like to have a completely accurate "flight sim" so to speak, but would we be just as happy if the planes were modelled against each other.

What thoughts on this (i'm having trouble explaining it i feel, though i think you'll know what i mean)?

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:49 AM
If we had REAL Fm for ALL the planes then the second alternative you offer would occur naturally.
The thing is, there just isn't the data available for ALL the planes.
How would I know how accurate the FM is anyway having never flown a real aircraft?

As far as I'm concerned the feeling of relative balance between the planes is enough to make it seem realistic.

S! Simon.
<center>


<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font>
http://extremeone.4t.com/images/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:55 AM
Extreme_One wrote:
- If we had REAL Fm for ALL the planes then the second
- alternative you offer would occur naturally.
- The thing is, there just isn't the data available
- for ALL the planes.
- How would I know how accurate the FM is anyway
- having never flown a real aircraft?
-
- As far as I'm concerned the feeling of relative
- balance between the planes is enough to make it seem
- realistic.
-
- S! Simon.

Absolutely agree in every sense.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 12:02 PM
I think the problem here is that the computer required to accurately model a 100% authentic FM is some way off. Coupled with the variety of aircraft we have now come to expect in one box (or should that be on one cd), I think that an appropriate FM is the best we can hope for at this present time.

Perhaps in the near future a sim will arrive with just one flyable 'plane in it - but which one do you go for? As you've no doubt seen here, most people have their favourite - be it Spitfire, 109, 190, Yak 3, P-51 or dare I even mention Whirlwind; a marketing nightmare.(The choice that is, not the Whirlwind).

Then, with an appropriate FM, you ain't gonna please everybody, as these very boards will testify. The thing to remember is how far flight sims have come in how short a time - and how much more powerful the average PC has become.

Picture yourself with your favourite game/sim a couple of years ago - now imagine yourself a couple of years into the future, assuming that similar advances have been made. Nice, ain't it?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/FaintWhirly.jpg?0.014428488517455151 </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:46 PM
I doubt this would ever happen but I would love to see an industry standard for WW2 aircraft FMs. Sorta like the POSIX standard for flight models. A committee would agree on the specs and game manufacturers would write the game to adhere to those specs. They would advertise that their game was WW2FMI (WW2 Flight Model Interface) compliant. This would pretty much relieve the game manufacturer the burden of satisfying the customers that it's set of aircraft are modeled accurately. Of course the arguments would switch from "aircraft X is not modeled correctly" to "aircraft X does not meet the WW2FMI standard". Oh well, there might be some improvement there.

I've always felt the viewing system is another area where standardization would reduce th level of arguing and bickering. Fat chance of that ever happening either.

One of the best online flight combat games (IMVHO) was RedBaron II. Fantastic online play. Way ahead of it's time. [It wouldn't surprise me to hear that those guys are still playing that game!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ] BUT, there was this constant fight over the FM and the viewing system. It was ridiculous! There were about five different flight model patches done by several well-meaning groups of people so that when you went on-line, you would choose an arena based on whatever flight model you agreed with. There were interface tools written that allowed you to quickly and easily change your flight models. I just couldn't handle it and quit. It was an amazing thing to watch. Similar battles were taking place over padlocking, eternal views, etc. (the viewing system)

I have been in and out of online play beginning with Fighter Duel (around 1994) to a little Air Warrior and Warbirds to RB2, and most recently (that is before FB) Aces High. The FM and viewing issues are the main sticking points in addition to this underlying notion that "I would have had that kill if I had a faster processor or my network connection had been better"... blah, blah, blah. Most of this is sour grapes of course because we're not as good a pilots as we think we are. Nonetheless, these things are factors. It amazes me that after all these years, the problems are exactly the same: FM, viewing system, hardware.

The challenges are great in creating an online game of this nature. I kept up with the issues a lot when the Fighter Duel 2 team were putting things together before they realized the mountain was just too high and dropped out.

My hat's off to Oleg, Hitech, and anyone else who has the stomach for attacking this very fragile and fickle genre.

Sorry for rambling on and on here. As you can probably see, this is a real passion of mine.

===
-mark
Bo.Deenamah

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:44 PM
I think the question you're asking is: which is more important, realism or playability? Obviously, both are, but I want to again re-iterate why I think the push for "max realism" is ultimately futile in this situation.

Nobody is flying any of these planes for real in IL-2:FB, nor are the actual cockpit, controls, and instrumentation present when 'flying' the plane. Even with a force feedback joystick, it doesn't mimic the particular effect that occurred on the given aircraft, and therefore it is an entirely different experience from flying the real thing. And, given that the physics model of the game has technological limitations that all physics models do (especially since it's a realtime model), we can never approach the degree of accuracy for individual planes that people beg for. You'd have to write an entirely different physics engine for each plane.

It gets to be tiresome hearing the whining about how "this doesn't fly like the real thing did." Usually when I ask what authority they're basing that question on, I get "well, I saw a few documentaries on it."

As I've said before...I fly in real life. But I'm willing to admit my ignorance about these particular airplanes, as I've never flown one myself. And until I do, I am going to admit that I do not have the authority to tell the dev team how to build their flight model.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:41 PM
Very, VERY good points made in this thread. Bumping it so FM complainers have a better chance to read it.

"Remember, that's war. We're all in one boat. He who thinks only of himself will destroy himself too. Such selfishness will not be tolerated!"


Kambei Shimada, Seven Samurai

http://www.filmsondisc.com/images/7samurai4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:07 PM
If they are real - wouldn´t they be real in comparison too?

S!

M0NS



"Blow up the outside world"

http://www.flugwerk.de/images/01k.jpg
My garage!

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:48 PM
Despite the online community accounting for 5% (apparently) of the user base I think the feedback on plane-v-plane is both the most useful and troublesome guide to a developer who wants to be as historically accurate as reasonably possible. (Comparing a human's performance against the A.I. is fairly worthless).

At the moment we appear to be getting different FMs per every new patch. A lot of this is down to the more vocal members of the community shouting from the rafters when something that shouldn't happen in real life (plane A catches plane B in a climb etc...etc.) happens online. Some of these accounts, if not the majority, will be down to the virtual pilot's lack of skill, judgement or he had a bad night at HL. But when enough similar reports come through then an investigation is warranted.

This however goes against everything Oleg has tried to achieve with IL-2 by using technical data (classified or otherwise) to reproduce the published figures in a virtual environment, rather than use first hand accounts as a guide.

And there's the rub. A conflict between cold objective data and the subjective war stories of the people flying the aircraft. WW2 was no doubt similar. Pilots coming back from a mission "Bloody hell, Ginger, we were pwnzed today, what?...never knew a Messer could do that!"


Hopefully the FMs will soon reach their final state so they can be mastered, warts and all....and hopefully they will satisfy the majority of players. With as many flyable aircraft as there are in FB it will take some doing to tune them all correctly (IMHO there are too many) but aside from a few discrepancies here and there it isn't that far off being bang on.



Lixma,

Blitzpig.


Message Edited on 09/08/0310:50PM by Lixma

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:08 PM
With the mind of a down-to-earth-philospher, Nige_Reconman wrote:



"What i mean is; Is it important to have real life accurate flight modelling or is it more important that the advantages/disadvantages are compared to all other aircraft in the game ie me-262 highest top speed, I-153 most maneuveurable etc, P-47 best dive etc..

I can see arguments for both sides, yes i would like to have a completely accurate "flight sim" so to speak, but would we be just as happy if the planes were modelled against each other.

What thoughts on this (i'm having trouble explaining it i feel, though i think you'll know what i mean)? "





I know EXACTLY what you mean. This is what I`ve been trying to communicate to some of those people going on about exact to real-life specifications, measuring on a stopwatch whether a simulated aircraft in FB turns, rolls, shoots exactly in the time of the real thing.

All those documents are good to give us a GENERAL IDEA of how planes should fly comparitively to each other, but it`s foolishness to adhere strictly to the numbers in so called `Official` documents, especially when we have only some documents for some aircraft.

As long as the planes fly reasonably accurately with eachother, the rest is unimportant.

This really ought to be made a sticky. Perhaps it would bring back some sanity.

A couple of excellent posts today and this one is the best. Well done! Dunno, where this common sense is coming from? It must be the moon or Mars being closer or something! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:39 PM
- Is it important to have real life
- accurate flight modelling

You won´t have accurate flight modelling in FB, or any other game for that matter.

============================
The important thing in [tactics] is to suppress the enemys useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai and Philosopher
(More than 60 Victories in Hand-to-Hand combat.)

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:08 AM
None of us flew in WW2. We don't have any favourite planes based on any compelling reasons. If you ask the average simmer why he likes a particular plane, it's usually because of certain notions(maybe mistaken) that he holds about the plane, it's armament and it's engine. This suggests that ultimately, the logical thing to do is to pick a plane that suits you and then to learn it's ins and outs until you're good at flying it. What bars this from happening is the constantly changing FM. Just when I had the Me262 in the 1.0 version mastered, the 1.1b version changed the model completely, Now I've to relearn the 262 for the 1.11 version. It's very exasperating.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:33 AM
Its my opinion that the problem is Oleg Maddox himself. I say that because he now set the standard and raised the realism bar in IL2.

The other problem is just simple human behavior. Were allways striving to raise the standards improve and make things better. Thank god or I still might be hand cranking a moddle T ford in -40 Canadian winter.

When a game such as this calibre comes out it brings all kinds out of the wood work. Perfectionalist,critics,history buffs,WWII aircraft fanatics,whinners and cry babies,arcade I wanna just win types,all kinds.

Maybe ten or fifteen years from now some 14 year old kid will find FB in a 2$ bin,take it home and install it on his 10ghz computer and go "yaaaack".

Not only IL2,but in other types,exsample Total War and other games,folks are screaming for human AI and realism. Peaple want to be challanged and want realism at its closest or best. Its my opinion that the arcade crowd will eventualy be pushed to the side lines and told by the rest "if you want to play then get real" The people making games today are putting more realism into there games as the technology becomes avalable.

Not yet but sooner or later it will come when it gets as close as it gets.

IL2 is not a finished product by a long shot.

Go out and get a flight sim that is about 15 years old,install it and compare. If you still have IL2 15 years from now,install it and compare to the flight sim you have than.

The other problem with human behavior is were allways in a g##d#m hurry.