PDA

View Full Version : "Fable" Is More Historically Correct



RocketRobin__
01-12-2006, 09:54 PM
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.

Kliest
01-13-2006, 09:02 AM
No way for you to stop it.

SeaFireLIV
01-13-2006, 09:26 AM
Got yo a$$ handed back to you on a plate again I see. Nevermind, eventually you`ll learn. Oh and I tried fable - Rubbish. NWN far better.

jeroen_R90S
01-13-2006, 09:52 AM
What? It didnt? You is wrong, be sure.

Chuck_Older
01-13-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.

yes, WWII was fought by soliders who sat in rooms with the lights off, at a comfortable 70* F, with a snack and soda within easy reach. The war could be paused or logged off of at will, and then the soldiers climbed into their warm beds and driftd off to sleep, ready to fight again the next day after work and dinner. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

has

Lodovik
01-13-2006, 03:41 PM
Chuck_Older here knows the score exactly!
I have been wondering about the realism of these so-called "sims" for a while know. I've been doing a bit of a research and found out an amazing fact:

Many real pilots in WW2 only flew one combat mission! They got shot down, often by an enemy they didn't even see, just like in our online arenas. Why on earth didn't they hit re-fly after that however, I can't fathom. They just stayed dead, the dummies. I really wondered about that until I found out this other amazing and little known fact:

The real pilots couldn't save their careers! They didn't have a "refly" option! Who would have thought of that, now?

Thus, all these so-called "sims" are truly unrealistic.
I really hope that when BoB ships, it will impose some realistic restrictions on the player when he is shot down. I hope that BoB will be complete with a piece of code that uninstalls the whole program from the users machine and adds an undeletable subprogram that prevents the user from re-installing BoB ever again. Better yet, a Steam style download host, where everybody registers, so that when one gets killed in the sim, one can never play again. This way no-one could cheat with installing in multiple machines.

OK, I know there'd be ways around that. So how about a system where the user wears an electrocution device that delivers, say 25 000 volts to the brain when the users AC in the sim is shot down. No more cheating! You make a mistake, thats it! Now that would be something closer to realism (still wouldn't simulate debilitating/disfiguring wounds, though). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

ElAurens
01-13-2006, 05:27 PM
You mean Corsairs didn't engage Yak 9Bs over the Ardennes in winter?

I'm shocked.

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



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.
Hook, line...sinker.

LaGG-3 is a bit of a bugged up plane right now. Just ignore it.

Max.Power
01-14-2006, 01:15 AM
I love this compulsion to flame like hell and not actually say anything worth while. Most of these comments weren't even vaguely logical.

The Russian Pilots called the LaGG-3 Lakirovannii Garantirovanii Grob (playing on the names of the designer, Lavochkin, Gorbonov and Gudkov). It means Guaranteed Varnished Coffin. Even the pilots who flew it thought it was awesome! Everyone should have made planes out of furniture!

SeaFireLIV
01-14-2006, 02:12 AM
Max.Power, you must understand that some of us longer-term users could go into many long-winded reasons as to the pros & cons of the laggs (and most other aircraft), but we`ve explained it so many times just to see some new kid on the block pop up with some `I`ve just been shot down by a 109, lagg, spit that I now must post and whine` that it`s hard not to get jaded.

You say, quote:" not actually say anything worthwhile", but neglect to note that the original poster failed to say anything worthwhile concerning the reasons for his post (ie circumstances that bought him to this comment).

Off the cuff comments with no backup, usually get dried, sarcastic remarks.

73GIAP_Milan
01-14-2006, 10:44 AM
Let's just say that by playing this game you enter a whole new world i'd like to call "Olegs Realism"

That is why i stopped playing this game. It's absolutely not funny anymore and completely out of line in a number of aspects. It might be one of the best looking and best playing ww-2 sims available today, it misses out on a few factors. Which made me decide to leave it for now. I've had it since the 1st day it came out and saw it fall down the past years/patches...

You should choose too.
Either; take the pill and be part of "Olegs Realism" or ship out and go play Pacman, WoW, BF2 and all other games like I do now..

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:51 AM
How Puritanical of you

Max.Power
01-16-2006, 05:57 AM
rocket_robin is not a newcomer to this game or to the world of the history of world war 2 avaition, or the differences between the two of them- and neither am I.

Keep your long winded opinions. I've read plenty of them. None of the published ones that I have read say that the LaGG was a sweet ride.

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-16-2006, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.


Someone got shot by a Lagg-3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
01-16-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
rocket_robin is not a newcomer to this game or to the world of the history of world war 2 avaition, or the differences between the two of them- and neither am I.

Keep your long winded opinions. I've read plenty of them. None of the published ones that I have read say that the LaGG was a sweet ride.


Was this for Seafire, or me? My post was two sentences, Seafire's first was a whopping four, and his second tipped the scales at an incredible three, which is easier to take than his epic four sentence disourse, but it takes up more space.

"Long winded" means rambling and of great length. Nothing in this thread takes more than 30 seconds to read twice over. C'mon now

Max.Power
01-16-2006, 11:04 AM
Read Seafire's post for the relevence of the term 'long winded'. You'll be pleasantly surprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There's nothing wrong with what you were writing. I was simply saying that there is no read to go off on a tyrade about the pros and cons of the LaGG-3, as the possibility was alluded to.

Bearcat99
01-16-2006, 11:23 AM
OYYY Vey............... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-16-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
Read Seafire's post for the relevence of the term 'long winded'. You'll be pleasantly surprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

.

The original poster has said nothing at all, and I made it pretty obvious. If he`s not a new guy then he should have come out with something better than ` If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.` It says nothing and does nothing. Perhaps he could have added something `long-winded` to help us know what his problem was....

But you`re going to fill in for him aren`t you? With nothing at all except hot air. Both of you have managed to say nothing at all, while I`ve actually made a logical, straight-forward point.

There`s another `long-winded` comment for you.

Max.Power
01-16-2006, 05:23 PM
Why? So we can revisit the same discussion had a billion times before? You may do so if you wish. If you're itching for a fight seafire, go for it. I'm not going to invest several hours of my time to parade a fact that we all know as truth. You people in these forums are so caught up with the need to reprove everything to a fraction of an inch every two weeks are just beyond me.

For a convincing argument on the side of rocket_robin's comment, see the search function.

Kthnx.

SeaFireLIV
01-16-2006, 06:32 PM
Let me make it simple:

Thread - poster - state - no -reason - so - get- sarcastic - response. It- is- for - him - to - explain - self.

Clear?

TSmoke
01-16-2006, 07:19 PM
Now I don't say much on the forums, however this thread has been a most enertaining one.

Thanks for the laughs after a craptastic day.

actionhank1786
01-17-2006, 01:07 AM
God****!
I am so cool!

Seriously though, The LAGG's DM has been brought up before, and i'm with the guys when i say the initial poster offered no real substance for anyone to write anything off.
We could have pissed away minutes explaining something just for him to come back and say "that's not what i meant".
A few seconds worth of explanation goes some distance, and it sure as **** wouldn't kill anyone.
Besides...LaGG's did win the war.
P-51s are for sissies

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2006, 10:46 AM
I most enjoy studying the flight sim webboard slogans built aroung The Legend of The Varnished Guaruantee Coffin (LVGC) which started when LaGG-1 and LaGG-3 Newbie pilots were getting killed in accidents in rushed flight training in a hurridly designed heavy, fast, and dangerous to fly aircraft, and not from air combat losses on The Line. Pilot Fear of their own aircraft which killed many friends in training is one reason for combat losses against Luftwaffe pilots who had full confidence in their mounts since 1939 Poland. It is instructive to watch the Frustrated Gamers justify LaGG-3 flight or damage modelling complaints (valid or not) by posting the LVGC flight sim webboard slogan, when they ignore the historical Luftwaffe superiority in training, tactics, and tactical leadership in 1941 ("luftwaffe pilots 10 times better" ~ Oleg).

Although fun to see in action, the Angry Gamer can cripple a flight sim webboard as they cannot hold a discussion about World War 2 pilots' joys and fears -- the real people who went on The Line, like how the Corsair pilots called their ride Ensign Eliminator which also had no relation to any combat "results" with Japanese aircraft, and how the experienced Marine F4F WildCat pilots who were the first assigned to Corsairs did not want it, until they flew it a few times.

Hoatee
01-17-2006, 02:16 PM
Fabeltjes Krant, anyone?

'A fable is more historically correct.' A fable is more likely to be a part of history, kinda like his story, rather than anything to do with accuracy or justification or conformation.

Kuna15
01-17-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Max.Power, you must understand that some of us longer-term users could go into many long-winded reasons as to the pros & cons of the laggs (and most other aircraft), but we`ve explained it so many times just to see some new kid on the block pop up with some `I`ve just been shot down by a 109, lagg, spit that I now must post and whine` that it`s hard not to get jaded.

You say, quote:" not actually say anything worthwhile", but neglect to note that the original poster failed to say anything worthwhile concerning the reasons for his post (ie circumstances that bought him to this comment).

Off the cuff comments with no backup, usually get dried, sarcastic remarks.

100% agree. Overhere majority of folks like to see sources when someone claims something. Even in that cases there can be opposite opinions.


Keep your long winded opinions. I've read plenty of them. None of the published ones that I have read say that the LaGG was a sweet ride.

Mate what are the books where you have read about LaGG-3 fighter?

I am interested about subject and I am unable to find dedicated book about LaGG/LA fighters (I have found only one TBH, Red Star series can be found easily on amazon.com.)

Now the only two I have read something about LaGG-3 fighter are from Osprey. They are quite good source and interesting as there is a lot of pilot accounts (again many here don't like them when we are talking about pure performance - I share their opinion).

jeroen_R90S
01-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
Fabeltjes Krant, anyone?


http://home-1.worldonline.nl/~hcdeboer/images/uilkl.jpg

Topserie!

Kuna, Soviet Fighter Colours 1941-1945 also has a chapter on LaGG-3. From what I remember and as stated here already the first versions were considered heavy and sluggish, but in the hands of a capable pilot it was a decent fighter. One attribute was liked though, it was considered TOUGH.

I'm moving currenty so can't look it up for you now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif It's this book, BTW:
http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/published/book_soviet.jpg

Also lots on La-5 and La-7. IIRC the later LaGG series were considered superior to early La-5!

All from memory though, so I could be wrong.

Jeroen

Max.Power
01-18-2006, 04:51 PM
If his objective was to stimulate discussion, his mission is accomplished with minimal effort.

Regarding responses to posts without cited resources and graphs: How you justify being rude is none of my affair.

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 07:14 PM
He/She did provide another example of computer gamer persona webboard rant, but also offers some Truth...

I can't remember who now, but one 109F pilot outside Moscow heard the news of Ussia getting into the war on 7 Dec with Germany still stuck inside Russia, but he was so busy with the winter all, it was a few weeks later when he had just enough personal time to think that the war was already over, in the winter of 1941.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-18-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by 73GIAP_Milan:
Let's just say that by playing this game you enter a whole new world i'd like to call "Olegs Realism"

That is why i stopped playing this game. It's absolutely not funny anymore and completely out of line in a number of aspects. It might be one of the best looking and best playing ww-2 sims available today, it misses out on a few factors. Which made me decide to leave it for now. I've had it since the 1st day it came out and saw it fall down the past years/patches...

You should choose too.
Either; take the pill and be part of "Olegs Realism" or ship out and go play Pacman, WoW, BF2 and all other games like I do now..

My sentiments exactly. This game bears so little relationship to history or reality anymore, it's not even funny. Yeah, it looks good, but it stinks on ice as a simulation.

I call it "Forgotten Physics". They never did, and seemingly, never will care to get energy bleed right, get the weapons properly sorted out (they keep whipsawing between marshmallow shooters and nuclear tipped warheads), or to do anything to promote realism or historicity. It's truly degenerated into total Airquake.

My final vindication for this theory? Mr. "Got Track?" himself went and did an exhaustive study on roll rates, just one aspect of flight, and found the vast majority of Olegplanes rolled too fast at low speeds, and too slow at high speeds. Across the board. When even your fanbois are finding HUGE problems with your basic flight model, well, something's wrong.

And, the vast majority of sorties I fly in this sim end in ways that can only elicit the response, "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....?". And I've been at this a long time, I know the difference between my poor flying decisions and just poor simulations foisting results on me. It's finally got to the point where it's just not worth the aggravation to even bother logging onto HyperLobby, finding 90% WonderWoman servers, and 10% of servers with "P-38s over the Ukraine" and all of them providing the same bullsh*t results, sortie in and sortie out, no matter how smart or devil-may-care you fly.

Well, the good part about all this is, I still feel I got my money's worth from the sims, it has at times been fun, and best of all: this sim's shortcomings have really put the fire in my belly to contribute to a sim that does more right in the way of physics and weapons modeling and historicity than this one EVER will.

han freak solo
01-18-2006, 08:18 PM
Fly Red Neo...

http://home.lbcc.cc.ca.us/~mlawrence/Splinter_files/red%20pill.jpg

AStotzer
01-18-2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
OYYY Vey............... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

johann63
01-19-2006, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.

yes, WWII was fought by soliders who sat in rooms with the lights off, at a comfortable 70* F, with a snack and soda within easy reach. The war could be paused or logged off of at will, and then the soldiers climbed into their warm beds and driftd off to sleep, ready to fight again the next day after work and dinner. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

has </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I play this game without snack food sometimes, yes I no its intense, and very risky, but my wife says I have to take some risks sometimes

BfHeFwMe
01-19-2006, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Max.Power, you must understand that some of us longer-term users could go into many long-winded reasons as to the pros & cons of the laggs (and most other aircraft), but we`ve explained it so many times just to see some new kid on the block pop up with some `I`ve just been shot down by a 109, lagg, spit that I now must post and whine` that it`s hard not to get jaded.

You say, quote:" not actually say anything worthwhile", but neglect to note that the original poster failed to say anything worthwhile concerning the reasons for his post (ie circumstances that bought him to this comment).

Off the cuff comments with no backup, usually get dried, sarcastic remarks.

That's odd, can you show where he said all that?

Apparently interesting enough for the apple dumpling gang to all respond. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

msalama
01-20-2006, 08:00 AM
While there are things clearly wrong with this sim (like the roll rates mentioned above) there's still one thing EVERYONE always forgets, and it is this: we are flying with BoB beta FMs now, and as works in progress they just CANNOT be anything but incorrect yet. This is something I'd like to see remembered...

Kuna15
01-20-2006, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Also lots on La-5 and La-7. IIRC the later LaGG series were considered superior to early La-5!

I think I have read somewhere that early LA-5s had big fuel tanks (some of which they lost in later variants apparently; they carried less fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). So therefore it is really logical for me to agree with you that indeed late LaGG could be better in performance over early LA-5s.

Of course we may be both wrong about this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Thanks for book reccomendation, I saw it on amazon.com some time ago but didn't paid attention to it.
------------------------------------------------

About how LaGG is tough in game we can all run some offline tests.

Here is my own:
Bf-109f_vs_2xLaGG-3 (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/offline/402__kunabf109f_vs_2xlagg3.zip)

There is a .TRK provided so number of hits can be observed with Arcade=1 line in conf.ini (under [game] section). How tough does it seems?
Test on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
01-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Although fun to see in action, the Angry Gamer can cripple a flight sim webboard as they cannot hold a discussion about World War 2 pilots' joys and fears -- the real people who went on The Line, like how the Corsair pilots called their ride Ensign Eliminator which also had no relation to any combat "results" with Japanese aircraft, and how the experienced Marine F4F WildCat pilots who were the first assigned to Corsairs did not want it, until they flew it a few times.

It's worth noting that because of other issues with the crappy modeling in this sim, you can't gun a Corsair's engine and do a fatal ground loop, like you could in the real Ensign Eliminator. That, for you without your facts straight, was the reason for that particular F4U nickname, not any other handling qualities of it once you got it airborne.

Different plane, different phenomenon, but still based on the same awful flight sim modeling.

And by the way, the LaGG-3's nickname (which I might add is widely known) had just as much to do with its crappy quality as it had to do with the fact that the early VVS pilots were overmatched by the Luftwaffe. You can't just explain away the overachieving nature of the plane in this sim and base it on "angry gamers" and "newbs". Could be a combination of many things, including poor modeling.

Please continue your fanboi apologies, didn't mean to interrupt...

SeaFireLIV
01-20-2006, 04:44 PM
Why does the arguing complainers refuse to note that my message was simply to demonstrate that the original poster did not explain his problem? Why is it that people like you persist in dragging out an argument that basically has not been defined?

I thought you, stigler had vanished to payware targetware land? But I guess you just had to take a quick snipe, eh? Couldn`t resist, especially since you`re such an unbiased Luftwaffe-Ace wannabe flyer - You`re perfect to comment on the lagg toughness. Well, better a fanboy than a totally biased IL2 sturmovik hater. You`ve hated IL2 since its existence like 2 years or so. Anyone who`s been here longer than a year know how much you hate IL2. One can just sense your seething rage at Oleg from the moment you just enter the boards. You`re so unqualified to comment on IL2 it hurts!

But what makes me laugh most of all is that RocketRobin__ came out with a completely unspecified whine, all he mentioned was how it performs and since then you lagg-haters (prob Blue flyers) have simply used it as a platform for your own personal moany whines. It`s nearly 2 weeks and he`s still not even bothered to explain himself.

Talk about arguing on someone`s behalf when you don`t even know what he`s really complaining about!

Better to be a fan-man who actually regularly plays the sim than a moany whiny peeping-tom who pops out of the woodwork for a sneaky sniper shot at every available opportunity!

Sad.

Sad.

Sad.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 05:23 PM
Stirgl::
It's worth noting that because of other issues with the crappy modeling in this sim, you can't gun a Corsair's engine and do a fatal ground loop, like you could in the real Ensign Eliminator. That, for you without your facts straight, was the reason for that particular F4U nickname, not any other handling qualities of it once you got it airborne.
100% Agreed. The Corsair's nickname did not come from combat results, and as you noted, the LaGG's nickname did not come from its flight performance in combat -- it came from accidents in training, unless I missed a source (most likely). Although I thought Ensign Eliminator had something to do with fatal carrier operations which could include engine torque on the decks. SkyChimp may have to fix us up here on that.

SeaFire::
You`ve [ Stirgle ] hated IL2 since its existence like 2 years or so.
Its gonna get alot worse. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif By the time TargetWare gets out of Beta testing, BoB will be releaced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, maybe hehe. And even then, TW will still be a competitor for the old FB/PF. But, I can claim that TW has the ONLY Spanish Civil WAR simulation being developed that I know of, although Oleg has posted that he would personally like to make Spanish Civil WAR. He does his best work when he follows the Forgotten Theme (extending AEP to western europe was his biggest long term mistake, not PF).

Kuna15
01-20-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
100% Agreed. The Corsair's nickname did not come from combat results, and as you noted, the LaGG's nickname did not come from its flight performance in combat -- it came from accidents in training, unless I missed a source (most likely). Although I thought Ensign Eliminator had something to do with fatal carrier operations which could include engine torque on the decks. SkyChimp may have to fix us up here on that.

Specifically about F4U I didn't know that it had such nickname among USN pilots. Anyway my opinion is that most of conclusions (from which planes get their 'nicknames') came from jumping to conclusion type of judgement.

For instance about LaGG I have seen one good sentence in Osprey book "MiG pilots hated it because it was slower plane, I-16 pilots hated it because it couldn't turn fast as Rata, and Yak pilots... Yak pilots hated it because it wasn't Yak." I don't know if I citationed it completely but you guys can get the picture http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. But anyhow some of the VVS pilots liked the type (unsurpisingly they mostly converted to LA types later on) and some even went to become aces on LaGG type.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 08:38 PM
Kuna::
and Yak pilots... Yak pilots hated it because it wasn't Yak."
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

hehe that's good.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-20-2006, 10:51 PM
I thought you, stigler had vanished to payware targetware land? But I guess you just had to take a quick snipe, eh? Couldn`t resist, especially since you`re such an unbiased Luftwaffe-Ace wannabe flyer - You`re perfect to comment on the lagg toughness. Well, better a fanboy than a totally biased IL2 sturmovik hater. You`ve hated IL2 since its existence like 2 years or so. Anyone who`s been here longer than a year know how much you hate IL2. One can just sense your seething rage at Oleg from the moment you just enter the boards. You`re so unqualified to comment on IL2 it hurts!

But what makes me laugh most of all is that RocketRobin__ came out with a completely unspecified whine, all he mentioned was how it performs and since then you lagg-haters (prob Blue flyers) have simply used it as a platform for your own personal moany whines. It`s nearly 2 weeks and he`s still not even bothered to explain himself.

Talk about arguing on someone`s behalf when you don`t even know what he`s really complaining about!

Better to be a fan-man who actually regularly plays the sim than a moany whiny peeping-tom who pops out of the woodwork for a sneaky sniper shot at every available opportunity!

Sad.

Sad.

Sad.

Well, let's pick this apart one point at a time, shall we?

#1, what's stopping me from flying both Targetware and the IL-2 series? Or a few other sims besides? Uh....nothing.

#2, I do play this sim fairly regularly, as often as i can stand the horrid, biased stink of the BS flight models, and I believe I've been around it longer than YOU. I was on the original beta testing team, and have seen EVERY version from v1.0 to the current one. You???

#3, if I am bitter somewhat about what IL-2's become, it's because it was so close to actually being a good sim at one point; the last one being the 4.01 version that they ran screaming from (and whose feel was the closest to Targetware's, I might add). The pigheadedness of Oleg's team has done a LOT to hurt the accuracy of the sim, not to mention its credibility. Five or six different FMs for the same planes can't all have been right, be sure. In many cases, I'd think NONE of them have been very accurate.

#4: Even if a poster's claims aren't well substantiated (or even supported with any facts or "tracks") does not necessesarily mean he doesn't still have a point, does it? Especially when quoting a historical fact that you'd think would have some basis in how things are in a realistic sim. Funny, that's one reason why I think Targetware has it ALL OVER this sim on a flight model level. Much, MUCH more often than not, what you experience in a Targetware module jibes with what you read in history accounts, what tech tables tell you, and what "anecdotes" suggest. For Exhibit One, compare the Zero 2 vs. F4F Wildcat matchup in both sims. I rest my case.

#5: I'm not just a Luftwobble. I can kick a lot of butt in a Zero, in an Oscar, and on the Italian side, I've gotten rather decent at schooling Hurris and the like in a Fiat G-50 of all things (in Targetware, y'know, you can actually see out of those Fiats; helps a lot in combat; oh, and in Target:Tobruk, they're actually making a ****ed good attempt at doing the Med theatre justice; the whole of North Africa isn't compressed into about 60km in :Tobruk, and it has the most complete Italian planeset in any sim anywhere; you can fly a ugly 'ol SM79 there, and now even a Maryland bomber or Swordfish for the Allies).

I don't speak from a "LW planes should always dominate" viewpoint. I speak from a "get it right viewpoint".

ElAurens
01-20-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
For Exhibit One, compare the Zero 2 vs. F4F Hellcat matchup in both sims. I rest my case.


Care to elaborate on this?

My PF experience is that the Hellcat is either too fast at sea level, or the Zero is too slow.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-20-2006, 11:20 PM
Sure. Not to comment on the relative speeds, cuz I'm not a "chart creator" type. I can't quote them off the top of my head. Also, it's almost never about a 'sea level sprint speed'. Any matchup is about many, many combined factors.

However I find that in Targetware, much more so in IL-2, when you have a 1 vs. 1 matchup of the two planes, the F4F is badly "outnumbered". Unless he starts with a big speed AND altitude advantage, or surprise, he has little to NO chance against a Zero. The Zero is about even with it on speed, but vastly outclimbs it, can dive with it at low speeds (until compression sets in) and well outturns it.

The wildcard is in a multiple vs. multiple matchup: in a big confused scrap, the F4Fs can use the Thach Weave to "drag" Zeros on the tails of some F4Fs into the waiting guns of other F4Fs, and then the F4F's advantage in toughness and self-sealing fuel tanks comes into play bigtime. 1 vs. 1, the Hellcat just never gets a shot, so the "fragile" Zero needs only avoid any headon pass, easily get on the 'Cats tail and... cut to end game.

This is PERFECTLY illustrated in Target:Rabaul. I mean, to a TEE. F4Fs work well in packs, or attacking Betties, but that's as far as it goes.

In IL-2, the F4F can stay with a Zeke 1 on 1 for much longer, often long enough to force a HO that's all to his advantage. Fault IL-2's major problem with the combination of energy bleed and acceleration.

The IL-2 Zero is cursed with limited visibility (similar to the issues with the FW190's guns, only applied to the canopy framing) and it's more likely to have one of those squirrely scripted "snapstalls" for no apparent reason. The Zero was much too well harmonized in real life to suffer that kind of handling, especially at low speeds.

It also suffers control stiffness well earlier of accepted parameters (the same way the 109 is singled out for this kind of behavior that affected almost ALL WWII planes to varying degrees). IIRC, someone stated that the IL-2 Zeke begins locking up at a certain speed in KM, when it should be at that speed in MPH. Not sure if that's truly the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were another one of those "Oleg oops-es" that are so common, and so slow to get fixed.

ElAurens
01-21-2006, 08:42 AM
Thanks for the run down.

Yup it seems that your Zero is indeed more accurate than ours is.

Funny, I was going to mention the control stiffness issue, and describe it exactly as you did. It seems our A6 series stiffens up at 250kph instead of 250mph.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-21-2006, 11:25 AM
Another thing... and I have no way of telling how accurate it is...

In Targetware, you really have to manage elevator trim in the Zero. It has a distinct nose up tendency with power applied that has to be trimmed out for combat. I commonly apply half the range for cruise and combat and even climbout (!!), and even more to keep the nose down in an extended dive...

I can take it out if I really need to exploit the vertical...and wow, what a rocket it becomes then.

I haven't read any accounts of that in anything I've read about zeros...but few accounts ever get that far into the minutae of trim settings.

I sure wish that Mark Hanna or one of the living WWII plane experts/test pilots could take a restored Zero on a test spin and see if those issues are really there...

I recently reread an article on flying the I-16 Rata, and it really set the "feel" to paper.

And, jeez...250kph is basically 150 mph. That's WAY too slow for aileron locks and concrete control sticks. If that's true, some red-faced Russian game coder needs to do some editing pronto.

darkhorizon11
01-22-2006, 03:01 AM
Since when has Oleg ever been pigheaded about the sim? Everyone blames him because their favorite plane can't do what they think it can do? I mean he does his best to check up on the performance charts for each aircraft, setting in the FM is more than just a five numbered key stroke for climb rate and rate of turn! He's actually been very open to discussion about every aspect of the sim and what can be done to improve it within reason, look how far we've come since IL2 v1.0!

major_setback
01-22-2006, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Lodovik:


OK, I know there'd be ways around that. So how about a system where the user wears an electrocution device that delivers, say 25 000 volts to the brain when the users AC in the sim is shot down. No more cheating! You make a mistake, thats it! Now that would be something closer to realism (still wouldn't simulate debilitating/disfiguring wounds, though). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Already here: The 'Electro 100' sim chair...as you can see you can still get a coke though, so not real enough!

http://marvin3m.com/singsin2.jpg

73GIAP_Milan
01-22-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Why does the arguing complainers refuse to note that my message was simply to demonstrate that the original poster did not explain his problem? Why is it that people like you persist in dragging out an argument that basically has not been defined?

I thought you, stigler had vanished to payware targetware land? But I guess you just had to take a quick snipe, eh? Couldn`t resist, especially since you`re such an unbiased Luftwaffe-Ace wannabe flyer - You`re perfect to comment on the lagg toughness. Well, better a fanboy than a totally biased IL2 sturmovik hater. You`ve hated IL2 since its existence like 2 years or so. Anyone who`s been here longer than a year know how much you hate IL2. One can just sense your seething rage at Oleg from the moment you just enter the boards. You`re so unqualified to comment on IL2 it hurts!

But what makes me laugh most of all is that RocketRobin__ came out with a completely unspecified whine, all he mentioned was how it performs and since then you lagg-haters (prob Blue flyers) have simply used it as a platform for your own personal moany whines. It`s nearly 2 weeks and he`s still not even bothered to explain himself.

Talk about arguing on someone`s behalf when you don`t even know what he`s really complaining about!

Better to be a fan-man who actually regularly plays the sim than a moany whiny peeping-tom who pops out of the woodwork for a sneaky sniper shot at every available opportunity!

Sad.

Sad.

Sad.
rather sad to see such a reply here from someone i held in quite high regards.

I'm fully with stigler here.
The original poster did explain his problem, but the most of the community here seems to fail to see them. That is what brought Il2 down.
The money was like Stigler said, well spend on it though, and i have flown online with him a few times, so please refrain from calling him a biased (blue) pilot, because he flew BOTH sides.
I do the same, i am not a blue or red flyer, i fly both sides almost as much, so again, please quit that "biased" talk, as it is the most commonly used silly excuse around here.

This sim has a range of fundamental problems hidden behind it's great looking graphical engine. Many requests have been done by more serious players, backed up with tons of data and charts, still the devteam did little about it to solve them.

A bit strange is'nt it?
And it (to use your words) *hurts* to see that most of the community here fails to see all this.
The ones that see the problems (i'm not talking about the occasional fanboy kid which really does'nt know what he is talking about) are even called whiners and posts become locked.

To get back a bit On Topic, the lagg3 might have been tough, but you cannot fool me atleast that it eats lower calibre ammo for breakfast in comparison to a p-47 thunderbolt which goes down even if you sneeze at it.
This being just 1 of the things wrong with the sim. The presented simulated reality is at a whole number of points far off from what historical sources tell.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-22-2006, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Since when has Oleg ever been pigheaded about the sim? Everyone blames him because their favorite plane can't do what they think it can do? I mean he does his best to check up on the performance charts for each aircraft, setting in the FM is more than just a five numbered key stroke for climb rate and rate of turn! He's actually been very open to discussion about every aspect of the sim and what can be done to improve it within reason, look how far we've come since IL2 v1.0!

Exhibit One: the FW190 gunsight. Now that is true stubbornness. Oleg points to his blueprints for the rationale behind the sight's position, but then is mum when asked, "Well, OK, if the sight's in the right position with armored glass refraction taken into account, do something about the refraction".

That's just one issue. To be fair, he HAS responded to many other issues less contentious, but the team has also now started "addresing" issues that are NOT backed up by any real basis other than some player's "gottawin" mentality. For this, I offer you the wild swings of gun effectiveness. They're either spitballs or nuclear warheads. Nobody on Oleg's team seems to think you can be in the middle somewhere and be accurate. They seem to be going more for consensus rather than having numbers to point to, and to hit.

Oh, yes...numbers: there's Exhibit Two. It's really hard to have an earnest, honest debate about the numbers the sim's based on, when, at any time, Oleg retreats behind his "super-secret, can't-reveal-my-sources, classified data" excuse. I can wave my papers around, and all I hear is, "those are biased Western sources; mine say different, be sure". OK......so post them and then we can debate that... but as it stands now, we have to "take their word for it" that they've got better sources than us poor, unwashed (but fairly intelligent and resourceful) hobbyists.
Gotta call b*llsh*t on that; you agree?

As for how far IL-2 has come from 1.0....well, I say see how far it's fallen. Still looks great...but it's an AWFUL simulation.

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 07:19 PM
FB VVS planes, or light planes in general, used to have artificially restricted dive speeds. That was changed at some point not too long ago...late FB/AEP or early PF I don't recall.

Last year at the TargetWare forum, the Zero had large FM issues or a large FM issue on the boards (I looked at the TW boards). That was probably taken care of by now, and Oleg's is also a work in progress. That's why I don't worry so much about FM...flight modelling is a kind of flight simming cult, but I guess for good reason, and I'm NOT a member. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Game design issues are another thing, like Dots.

Dots...I used to think -- selfishly I am finding out recently -- that the "online" players were behind the invisible Dots but it turns out Oleg made his Dot Decision on the Russian market where I beleive, in general, lower resolution video cards are in use. Stiglr I know your theory is that Oleg's Dots are "biased" against BnZ planes but I think the Dots are being held down for older video cards -- which does cripple BnZ simming at higher resolutions when not using Text Icons. Why not make them well configurable like in Patch 3.01 I don't know. Oleg did say real pilots tested the 3.02 New Dots, and they said the tiny Dots were more realistic, but I submit that they tested at 1024x768 where the Dots do work very well indeed, at least for me, but not at higher resolutions.

MercilessFatBoy
01-22-2006, 07:28 PM
i am realy sick of ppl using the phrase.... "these so called sim isnt real"..... are you mentaly challenged or something??? in reality u did not have a refly buton.... of curse in reality u did not ******.... thats why it is called a simulator! you are not in a freaking training day back at ur base flying real planes using real amo... so on... people please open your dictionary and look for the word sim

besides the lagg was considered a tough plane... it would absorbe alot of damage... but it was heavy and the engine vulnerable like all liquid cooled.... but,... i dont know who in here would have problem wiht a lagg in combat... not me... they dont seem to have a chance realy...... if u cant bring it down is because u cant aim.... a single machinegun bullet wont bring any plane down... not like the mk!

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 08:13 PM
Fats::
i am realy sick of ppl using the phrase.... "these so called sim isnt real"
Mee Too, but some you can talk to -- if you take enough time, and I did NOT do that with Aymar, but kept dragging past discussions up. I was "sick" of seeing that stuff too but after my recent exchanges with Aymar -- a new Offline player here -- I think I forgot how to enjoy simming, and I forgot how to enjoy *new* flight simmers.

btw Stiglr, or Nguyen, good job over at simhq on the subject of Newbies asking questions.

Fats::
i dont know who in here would have problem wiht a lagg in combat... not me... they dont seem to have a chance realy
Two years ago, there was a Blue Squad with a website joyfully displaying screenshots of LaGGs burning, blowing up, falling apart, through the skill of the Squad members. So, it is possible (or, it was). Some know how to have Fun, some forget how, like me (I don't fly FB/PF much anymore that may be why). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
01-22-2006, 09:19 PM
Lexx Luthor wrote:

Stiglr I know your theory is that Oleg's Dots are "biased" against BnZ planes but I think the Dots are being held down for older video cards -- which does cripple BnZ simming at higher resolutions when not using Text Icons

Well, I'm sorry; but a decent designer is going to make sure that a STANDARD, COMMON resolution like 1024 x 768 works for people who play his game. It isn't like I'm trying to make some oddball, bleeding edge res nobody's ever heard of work. And, the dots at that res do NOT work properly. On some maps (Normandy/summer, any dark blue Pacific ocean map), they might as well not even be there.

Just another example of the poor design decisions that are rife in this "sim". (Gotta put quotes around it these days).

As for Targetware, sure, the same FM controversies happen there as here, as in any sim. Difference is, having a few facts and figures doesn't get you some derivative of, "You is wrong, be sure". Stuff just gets fixed. People step up: we have a big Kiwi P-40 fan who took all the variants of the P-40 and just scoured them until they shone. And even if a plane doesn't get modelled well, or is neglected, any player can run his own server, with a "fixed" version of the FM, and invite others to see for themselves.

Normally, that isn't necessary, because by and large, people agree with the accuracy of most of the models. The planes hit the numbers by and large AND they reflect a lot of anecdotal evidence and pilot accounts. All with half the drama that goes on in here.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-22-2006, 09:37 PM
More examples of how what some call "whining" turns into proper action at Targetware...

Not too long ago, Target:Tobruk introduced several marks of the Hurricane, including the Hispano-armed Hurricane IIC.

I ended up facing them in my little Fiat G-50, and noticed the Hispanos were, like in some versions of IL-2, way too effective. Any ping and the Fiat was DONE. Now, I'd expect not to last more than a second under those powerful guns, but even glancing, fleeting, lucky strikes were destroying the wings EVERY TIME. It just couldn't be right, I thought.

Well, after a particularly suspicious headon pass which I lost, not to sink to whining, and knowing it might be possible that I soaked up a big burst of 20-mike, I went into my Targetware log file, which you can access at any time, and see exactly what happened, down to bullet strikes, penetration and damage to individual parts.

What did I find? Yep, sure enough, the lucky HO death I suffered took out my entire outer wing with ONE HIT. Not one burst, ONE single 20mm shell. And I had proof, not just "whining".

So, I posted the log file entries on the Targetware site, it was looked into, and action was taken. The Hurricane "authors" looked into the possibilities that the Hispanos were too strong, and that the Fiat wings were too weak. Turns out it was the former, and changes were made.

Now, a IIC can take your wing out with one hit, sometimes, but not every time, like clockwork. Yeah, that sounds about right.

So, no secret data, no agendas, no bullsh*t. Just good, sound modeling.

LEXX_Luthor
01-23-2006, 10:18 PM
Stiglr::
And I had proof, not just "whining".
Aussom! You are a Great and truly honored TargetWare developer, and you made a great contribution to a collaborative effort among other TargetWare developers. Well Done! Two years ago, flight simmers robban and I got together and tested La-7 max climb rates and posted it here for Oleg who looked at it, and he took it from (sea level climb) 30m/s to 27.5m/s which was a move toward a better Hristoical match (25m/s). robban and I presented our ideas in a professional manner (as best we could), and Oleg stopped what he was doing and looked at what we were doing. Awssum!

Philipscdrw
01-24-2006, 01:28 PM
So what's wrong with the LaGG-3 then? I fly offline, DGen mainly, and the LaGG seems OK to me. It's annoying to die when a Ju-88 gunner puts a pistol round through your face, it's annoying to have the wings come off at 700kmph or so, or when a BF-109 pilot starts urinating on the wood with his machine-guns, but it doesn't strike me as being over-tough or under-roll-rated or anything like that.

Offline, other things are important. Things like altitude, where your wingmen are, how close the bombers you're intercepting are to their target. The things that real airmen used to worry about, y'know?

Stigler_9_JG52
01-24-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
So what's wrong with the LaGG-3 then? I fly offline, DGen mainly, and the LaGG seems OK to me. It's annoying to die when a Ju-88 gunner puts a pistol round through your face, it's annoying to have the wings come off at 700kmph or so, or when a BF-109 pilot starts urinating on the wood with his machine-guns, but it doesn't strike me as being over-tough or under-roll-rated or anything like that.

Offline, other things are important. Things like altitude, where your wingmen are, how close the bombers you're intercepting are to their target. The things that real airmen used to worry about, y'know?

You're mixing situations here. But, I'll tell ya, it would sure tick me off to have wingmen, use tactics, get a good position behind a LaGG-3 (as I did many, many times when I flew with my squad) and have the LaGG soak up your entire load of MG ammo (and often cannon) into the wingroots and not even develop any aerodynamic problems.

It's a different problem that Oleg's OTTO gunners put a round into either your face or your engine block with the very first round... but it's really the same thing: POOR MODELING.

So, what's wrong with the LaGG. Simply put, the wood in the wings are overmodelled for toughness. In many other respects, it's honestly modelled: it turns well, can't climb for ****, doesn't roll particularly well, and has nice guns. And yes, with the "craftsmanship" used to build it, it wouldn't surprise me if the wings would shed sometimes at 700KPH. But the damage thing really skews the results you get with and against it.

How's that?

msalama
01-25-2006, 01:26 PM
OK, downloading TW as we speak so's to see what's what at the moment. Tried it ages ago once, but it looked too much like pixel vomit then to be immersive at all (which OTOH might've also been because of my then-c**ppy computer / display adapter).

But hey Stiglr, why don't you just _quit_ flying IL-2 altogether if you're so bitter about the way things have turned? No offence meant, but I sure would've ages ago if were you, noticing that you never have anything but negative things to say... So why the h**l do you DO something that only causes you PAIN, huh?

msalama
01-25-2006, 03:12 PM
OK, tested it for a wee bit - DL'd the game engine and Target Tobruk & flew the Hurri IIc & the CR.42 for a while. The FMs are OK, but pretty much everything else isn't, even after all these ruddy years in beta -> check back in a millenium or so OK?

Meanwhile, just gotta suffer this oooh-so-c**ppy Russian POS toy sim for some good times, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. Are you guys EVER gonna get it finished, BTW?

SeaFireLIV
01-25-2006, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
PS. Are you guys EVER gonna get it finished, BTW?

Nah. They haven`t finished their whinefest kick IL2 to death - orgasm yet. Leave `em to it, keeps `em outta trouble. The rest of us have better things to do.

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2006, 03:37 PM
Well, TargetWare does offer a 100% Pure flight model un-disturbed by any lesser aspects of air warfare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That said, if you want to be part of a community *creating* an Online sim with outlook far beyond WW2, its worth a look at the TW forums.

Hoatee
01-25-2006, 04:03 PM
I'd rather play, ty.

Treetop64
01-25-2006, 04:12 PM
Jeee - sus, man...

My ex-wife was never this consistently critical of anything during our turbulent marraige. And she was just about the most nit-picky nag anyone could ever wish on their worst enemy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stigler, you're proving your unenvious reputation as well-earned.

No offense - seriously, but dude:
Why have you posted literally hundreds of messages picking apart the IL-2 franchise like some overzealous political campaigner, out on some personal vendetta? Is it really all that bad? Not even in the same continent as you try to place it...

Bro, take a FAT chill-pill (preferably a dose of prozac), and submit a post that says something, anything, substantially positive about the IL-2 franchise - of which there are a great abundance of examples to choose from.

This is your challenge. Good luck with it...

Stigler_9_JG52
01-25-2006, 09:55 PM
First off, I could give a toss what others think, and of my "reputation". I'm not here to be popular, I'm here to get as much enjoyment out of flight simming as I can get, no matter who I get that fix from.

IL-2, just by dint of its graphics, has the potential to be "all that" for my flight simming fix. And, I've bought every single one of them, plus served on the first player test group for the original IL-2. So, I have as much, or MORE stake in it than you do.

So, you're dang skippy I'm going to point out things like how OFF energy bleed is, the fact that Oleg's team is PIGHEADED and WRONG on the FW gunsight (or, rather gunblindness) issue, how awful deadeye-otto is, etc., etc., etc. There is still a LOT WRONG about this system and its modeling, under all the pretty graphics and pseudo history. And I've paid for the same right to be critical as everyone else. And, to be fair, they've paid for the right to be fanbois, if that's where their heart lies.

And, if you read back through my posts, you'll find I do say positive things about the system, too, when they're warranted. But, as someone who demands fidelity, craves accuracy, I find more to criticize than to laud at the moment. Do some independent thinking, and you might start to see it yourself.

Treetop64
01-25-2006, 11:59 PM
It's honourable that you served on the test group, honestly, and I wish I could have done the same. But you've had some rather virulent personal rashes thrown about on your feelings for the dev team and their product, and this has gone on for more than a year now that I've seen. It leaves one to wonder the motivation behind your persistent criticism of Oleg, his team, and their product.

Don't assume that just because one isn't as critical of something as others, means that they are not applying any independent thought of analysis. Everything is taken and digested within a certain, reasonable context. If I felt as equally fustrated as you advertise in your posts, I would have simply stopped using the product long ago. Period.

If the system is so broken in your veiw, find your way onboard the development team and help fix everthing you find wrong with the dev team's pigheadedness and their work. We can all benefit from that.

I know the aircraft's behavior is not as accurate in the sim as it was in reality. Most can comprehend that using their own faculties. So what?! The sim is merely an approximation of representation of the dynamics of aerial combat in WWII, and in that I think the system, with some exceptions, is expertly carried out. Especially when one considers the sheer number of aircraft modeled in the sim, the mathematics involved in modeling specific flight dynamics for each unit, and putting it all together. Moreover, all this was (and still is) accomplished in a team environment where differences of opinion and pressure inevitably apply themselves. It's quite a difficult task.

I dunno...
Maybe I'm a bit sensitive about all this. However, I can appreciate the work that goes into these things, and personally I think it's cheap and shameless to stomp around and forever point out, over countless posts, absolutely everything I think is wrong with it.
Nothing's wrong with criticism. Indeed, constructive criticism is healty, but "moderation" is in order, me thinks...

msalama
01-26-2006, 12:45 AM
Well, some first impressions and opinions of TW are in order amongst all these IL-2 whines, no?

As I said, I DL'd TW 0.63 & patched it to 0.64 (I think?) and then DL'd Target Tobruk. I then proceeded in getting the basic flight controls mapped and subsequently test flew 2 planes, namely the Hurricane IIc Trop & the Fiat CR.42 and also kept my ears and eyes open to the environment in general...

* The FMs of said planes are OK. There's a fair bit of torque, but it's not excessive by any means if one uses rudder trim and a bit of aileron during takeoffs.

* The graphical quality of the game is laughable, as are the sounds. C'mon guys - excessive eye/ear candy isn't by any means necessary, but it's STILL 2006 we're talking about here...

* Some cockpits I looked into just look like c**p, same as in many FS2004 AC. This is a major put-off in terms of immersion!

* The Hurri is in general a nice model. The turn-and-slip incicator, OTOH, seems to be badly out of whack.

* Some say the landings and takeoffs in TW are hard. Well I don't, because you can leave and re-enter the Earth wherever you feel like since there's no topography / collision modelling at ALL...

* They've seemingly gotten rid of the slippery ground the game had like 2 years ago, making taxiing impossible, but I honestly can't see ANY other improvements having been done during these years. One therefore wonders whether this sim EVER gets finished!? Talking about snail's pace there, oh boy...

Well that's it, more or less. But hey, gotta check back in another 2 years or so to see if anything's improved! Meanwhile, one just has to enjoy this POS c**ppy Russian toy sim for some serious _feeling_ of flight, be the FMs wrong or right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: some my-bads removed

NonWonderDog
01-26-2006, 01:00 AM
It's funny to see your elevator trim tab moving down when you trim upwards, and the same thing with the rudder tab too - moves to left when you trim right and vice versa...


This is correct behavior!

Most trim tabs are *incapable* of changing the attitude of your plane by theirselves. All the tab does is apply a torque to the control surface, thereby deflecting it into the airflow. In order to do this, it moves opposite the direction you're trimming to. The control surface itself is what holds your plane in trim, the trim tab just holds the control surface in place.

Incidentally, some trim tabs are large enough to provide secondary control should the control surface itself fail. It's vital, if you ever find yourself in this unlikely situation, to realise that up trim will move the plane *down* if the control surface is frozen.

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 01:22 AM
mslama::
and also kept my ears and eyes open to the environment in general...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
You were not supposed to do that. As of now, TargetWare is a high fidelity flight model simulator. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

That said, you may wish to try flying humoid vs humoid with the TW folks in beta combat missions. Who knows you may be surprised although I have no idea if it all works more or less smoothly than FB/PF Online. Also, there is a *terrific* Spanish team working a Spanish Civil WAR "mod" called Target Spain who also enjoy FB. They have a thread under the TargetX forum at the TW boards. Czech it out. Don't let Stiglr fool ya like our FB Online community was made a Squad of Fools by RBJ. Stiglr loves FB enough to raise a Rump.

msalama
01-26-2006, 01:26 AM
This is correct behavior!

OK, true, my bad. I've been explained all this before, but have of course forgotten... so regarding this, well, I stand corrected http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But all in all, the tragedy of TW is that the FMs are good, but pretty much everything else is substandard. And things're probably _staying_ that way too, taking into account the pace the development is - or rather isn't - moving http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ElAurens
01-26-2006, 05:45 AM
Does it look like those screenshots on their web site?

I was shocked when I took a look over there the other day.

Looks like a permanent state of beta.

SeaFireLIV
01-26-2006, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Does it look like those screenshots on their web site?

I was shocked when I took a look over there the other day.

Looks like a permanent state of beta.

Probably why Stiglr can`t stop panning IL2 all these years, even with all its improvements. Probably thinks if he somehow destroys IL2 and its community, Targetware might actually start getting somewhere...

Stigler_9_JG52
01-26-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
But you've had some rather virulent personal rashes thrown about on your feelings for the dev team and their product, and this has gone on for more than a year now that I've seen. It leaves one to wonder the motivation behind your persistent criticism of Oleg, his team, and their product.
The point is not whether you LIKE my carping, but whether I have a point or not, n'est ce pas? Open any of those debates again at your own peril...



Don't assume that just because one isn't as critical of something as others, means that they are not applying any independent thought of analysis.

Waiting to hear ANY of yours. You still seem to just be complaining that I'm not fawning over the product, but pointing out problems with it.



If the system is so broken in your veiw, find your way onboard the development team and help fix everthing you find wrong with the dev team's pigheadedness and their work. We can all benefit from that.

Yeah, we could, I suppose; I have had some influence on the dev team, early on. If you can dig back far enough, you'll discover you can thank me for icons that are harder to see in the sun, for muzzle flashes that don't look like dragon's breath, for the cleaning up of a few planes' perspex and a few other things that I had to whine for long and loud before anything got done about them.


The sim is merely an approximation of representation of the dynamics of aerial combat in WWII, and in that I think the system, with some exceptions, is expertly carried out.

I disagree. Energy bleed and its balance with accleration are LAUGHABLY bad. Elevator forces are applied with a vengeance towards the 109, but other planes get a pass on it. That's just off the top of my head.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-26-2006, 11:28 AM
As to my "personal agenda":

Most people here know I am helping develop Targetware; I make no secret of that.

But here's where it sits: I like good flight sims, don't care WHO makes 'em. There was a time when I would split my time evenly between Targetware and IL-2, and that was great: I could get my nut either way. But, this system has gotten so bad over the last years, the results so unbelievable, the modeling so decrepit, that now it's more frustrating to fly than fun. With all its warts and slow dev time, Targetware still delivers better, more believable results, and supports history, much better than IL-2 does. That's my opinion, of course, one has to make up his own mind on that.

But, if IL-2 were as good a simulation (rather than a pretty video display) as I believe Targetware is in beta, I'd spend more of my time here.

I know that campaigning for change in this community does sometimes work, and that's why I continue to post and attempt to influence the dev team. Yes, I have many detractors here who don't like it, but I also have supporters; some support me in these forums and agree, others don't like to rock the boat, but send me PMs and emails saying privately they support what I say. I'd rather they voice their opinions in public, but well, they're gonna do what they're gonna do.

Anyway, I don't have any "agenda" other than wanting to fly great sims. This one is still the only one that deals with the war in Russia, so I have a vested interest in its being a decent representation of that.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-26-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Well, some first impressions and opinions of TW are in order amongst all these IL-2 whines, no?

That's more than fair!



* The FMs of said planes are OK. There's a fair bit of torque, but it's not excessive by any means if one uses rudder trim and a bit of aileron during takeoffs.

"OK"? I think you're being a bit less complimentary than you should. And it takes more than a few 5-minute hops to see how much better the FMs are. In time, you'll see how certain matchups play out in TW just like in real life accounts you read. But that's not evident in just a few touch-and-gos around an airfield. I have many hours on planes that appear in both sims, to where I can see and feel the differences.

And yep, I think the torque effects are quite good, ones that were in IL-2 4.0 and 4.01, but they ran screaming from because they challenged people too much, I guess. Also, what did you think of the engine management. Much better than here, even though it's still a little "simplified".


* The graphical quality of the game is laughable, as are the sounds. C'mon guys - excessive eye/ear candy isn't by any means necessary, but it's STILL 2006 we're talking about here...

Yes, graphics are the #1 weakpoint, and the small cadre of graphics guys over there, and sound guys, are badly overworked and have a to-do list that's as wide as Russia!!! But, that said: I'd rather the graphics be "laughable" than the flight models. I find the sortie-by-sortie results I get in Targetware to be FAR more believable than the laughable results I get 90% of the time in IL-2, such as: AI gunners hitting your engine or your forehead almost EVERY time with the first burst of gunfire, nuclear tipped cannon that ALWAYS cause engine oil leaks,...


* Some cockpits I looked into just look like c**p, same as in many FS2004 AC. This is a major put-off in terms of immersion!

Yep, some are definitely better than others, but see above...



* The Hurri is in general a nice model. The turn-and-slip incicator, OTOH, seems to be badly out of whack.


I agree the Hurri's very nice. The indicator can (and likely will) be fixed by anyone in the community who can easily get into the .acm file and effect the change; I myself have fixed a few out-of-alignment gunsights and such. The system's flexible enough to permit the community to do this, and still keep the sim 'fair' and 'hacker-free' at the same time.


* Some say the landings and takeoffs in TW are hard. Well I don't, because you can leave and re-enter the Earth wherever you feel like since there's no topography / collision modelling at ALL...

Hear, hear, the ground collision model should be much higher on the list of things to whip into shape, I often pipe up on this on the TW boards. This shouldn't be left unfinished, because it's one of the things people see very quickly that erodes their respect for the realism that pervades most other parts of the modeling; ditto for working sea and torpedos.. (which don't work here, either)!!!!

That being said, there IS some very basic ground collision. You can and do "crash" or damage gear by impacting the ground. However, trees, buildings, vehicles and such can be "run through" still, because the ground handling is still too squirrely, and would cause an annoying number of ground accidents if given their proper mass. I want to see that firmed up YESTERDAY.


* They've seemingly gotten rid of the slippery ground the game had like 2 years ago

Actually, no they haven't; it's an artifact of the same ground/sea collision model that hasn't gotten out of alpha yet. The change you noticed is the improvement of the propwash and torque effects. The ground is still, unfortunately in alpha.

So, you can see, I can debate the warts of Targetware, too... it's far from perfect, but overall, still delivers better than this one does.

If you're over at the Targetware site, you'll find me engaging in many debates and discussions there, too. And I don't just join the fanboi clique, either: I call foul when I see it.

Philipscdrw
01-26-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The point is not whether you LIKE my carping, but whether I have a point or not, n'est ce pas? Open any of those debates again at your own peril...

There's a good and a bad way to make a point though. Constantly complaining and complaining and complaining gets people annoyed. I notice this in my family. One of my brothers, if he thinks he deserves something, he will just DEMAND that it be done RIGHT NOW, and the undiplomatic and arrogant way he comes across puts people's backs up and they say 'No!' before even thinking about what he's asking for. Even if he's right, because of the way he asks, people side against him. Then they're trapped, because it's awkward to say to this arrogant ranting chap 'OK, you actually were right' and a huge stinking row blows up. Brother gets very frustrated because no-one's listening to his arguments, and everyone else gets frustrated because he's still moaning and stomping. If he'd asked nicely, even if what he had been asking for was by all rights his anyway, then there would never have been a problem.

Nice run-on paragraph there. I should take extra language classes perhaps.

msalama
01-26-2006, 01:42 PM
Hmmm... OK, here's my very hasty and incomplete take on IL-2 vs. TW. Not that I've got any real experience of the latter yet... but what the hey, here we go nevertheless and be d4mned with the consequences http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

IL-2 - A good package. The *feeling* of flying is very realistic and the environment varied, making for an excellent overall experience if you don't mind a flaw or two (or 1x10^6, depending on whom you ask).

TW - no real experience yet, but as regards FMs I really like what I see so far. Pretty much everything else is, OTOH, still VERY alpha - and after all these bloody years too! - making any comprehensive comparisons between the two impossible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

And that's _exactly_ the main problem of TW right there: either the devs get their a**es moving, or the sim WILL fall by wayside, because it doesn't compete with _anyone_ in its current state! And that's a pity, too, because I'm sure there's an excellent aerial combat simulator buried in there somewhere...

So get it finished pronto and then see how it does against the competition, or just forget about it is what I'm saying!

Stigler_9_JG52
01-26-2006, 04:13 PM
Well, if I personally could crack the whip, I'd do so...but I can't, so it does no good to go any further along that line of logic...

However, I will say, slow pace and all, many of us are having a BALL over there with the "ugly beta". And, because we also have the opportunity to steer the ship in many ways, there's that to keep us busy while the core code slowly wends its way along to some kind of "gold" status.

There's a commnunity group in Japan that run historical missions at set times (too early for me to get up for most times, but it rewards me every few months or so to drag my sorry **** out of bed and attend); and these compare favorably on a mission to mission basis with any online war here. The "war scope" part isn't comparable, but the "brown ring twitch" feeling of importance to each mission, the planning on the fly, all that is there in spades.

Also, Target:Tobruk is the very first Mediterranean flight sim done properly. No "N. Africa on a 120km wide postage stamp map" fantasy stuff there! They also have the most complete Italian planeset anywhere in existence. I've had the experience of dodging pommygun fire over the Valetta fortress and Grand Harbor, and mixing it in CR-42s, and G-50s against Gladiators (British ones, not Finnish exports!) and escorting ugly SM79 bombers. I've tried to defend Pantelleria and Sicily from the mid-war Allied planes, too. Closest I'd come to that prior was reading Steinhoff's Messerschmitts Over Sicily and wishing my flight sim could show that theatre to me.

Another facet of this is that TW seems to be free of ANY dev pressure to get boxes on shelves or make any publishing exec forget his first-person-shooter titles. It's a true labor of love by likeminded sim-fans who want a quality simulation... so, like fine wine, it's maturing at its own pace.

@ Phillips: I gave up a looooong time ago on the "kissing butt and asking nicely" stuff. It doesn't necessarily improve the chances of getting what you want. Anyway, if the facts support that something needs addressing, that should be all it requires. Doesn't matter if I'm gruff, sweet, sarcastic, pleading, cajoling, whatever; if the point I make is apt and correct, it ought to be looked at, at least.

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 06:34 PM
TargetWare--I found this, and its a MUST read for ALL players of ANY sim and especially for sim DEVELOPERS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Canopy Glass under Target Tobruk forum...
http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=P...ile=viewtopic&t=9344 (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=9344)


http://www.targetware.net/modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/9998297953f30363d78a4b.jpg
<span class="ev_code_yellow">jedi</span>::
Be that as it may, IMHO glass reflection is highly overemphasized in sims. In 20+ years of professional flying, I NEVER had a reflection from the glass actually obscure or distort my view of the outside world. If you wanted to focus ON the reflection, yes, you could, but if you focus "beyond" the reflection at a distant object, the reflection becomes effectively invisible. It certainly would never "impede" vision in any way. The sun is a different story, but we don't have the sun to contend with yet.

So if you're modeling reflective glass that actually negatively impacts your vision outside the cockpit, you're doing it wrong. It may look good, but it's not a realistic effect. (And yes, I am saying that Falcon4, IL-2, LOMAC, and ALL the other sims that model this are unrealistic in this area, insofar as they "block" the outside view to some extent with the way they implement reflections).

I also find it somewhat inconsistent that (most) people favor the inclusion of semi-transparent canopy frames to simulate binocular vision and prevent cons from being hidden by the canopy, yet they want to have their vision unrealistically impeded by eye-candy glass reflections... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif jedi::

:
:
At any rate, it's up to the mod leader to decide what the standard will be for semi-transparent canopy frames, glass parts, and reflections. There is a tradeoff between <span class="ev_code_yellow">so-called</span> "immersion" based on what people inexperienced with real aircraft think they should see and the impact on realistic vision that results from adding those immersion features. For instance, 90% of the reflections and lens flare you see in cockpit videos on TV/movies is totally invisible in a real plane. Yet there it is, in almost every "state of the art" sim out there. Looks cool, but costs you frame rate and obscures vision you SHOULD have. If the cool points are worth the negatives, then by all means put it in there. As long as it's the same for everyone in a given mod, it's just "rules of the game" at that point. Of course, there will still be heated discussions about it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
footnote (*) It does NOT look cool, and to enable "reflections" brighter than the glass, the Developers (of ALL sims) must DARKEN the entire canopy glass and then the outside world appears darkened, and this can kill twilight and night operations which already have low light level conditions. However, I found the dynamic canopy scratches shining in the real LOMAC sun very well done, as they did not require darkening the glass. But these were not the traditional static (never moving) flight sim canopy "reflections" but dynamic canopy scratches independently shining far brighter than the outside environment when the sun hits them properly.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-26-2006, 08:51 PM
Yep, these are the sorts of design decisions that give you clues as to what a sim is really about. Is it about eye candy, or about simulation? Do we have a properly located FW190 Revi gunsight, but fail to factor in refraction? Do we have pinpoint perfect Zero canopy bars, yet make the virtual pilot feel he's looking out of a tank hull rather than a nice canopy that offered good view all around (by all accounts, this was true of the Zero)? My vote is, you stay as accurate as possible until that starts to have deleterious effects on what should be perceived by the players, then adjust so that you get the right balance. It's likely no good to be dogged for either game effect or accuracy; it has to be a balance of both in many cases, like in visual issues where we're experiencing our game world through small, low-resolution monitors with compressed fields of view.

And, this kind of thing gets bandied about in all communities. Recently, we found that the glass effect in Target:Tobruk really looked nice..but they still have that "external, inner reflection"...and as we see here, it should reflect the cockpit, if anything. So, it's being looked into. I think I'd favor eliminating it altogether and letting a small amount of opacity serve as an "indicator" that glass is there. Certainly, I wouldn't put "yellowing" on a canopy, reflecting 60 years of sitting in a museum after the fact, and call it a "historical Erla Haube". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 10:57 PM
Stiglr::
I think I'd favor eliminating it altogether and letting a small amount of opacity serve as an "indicator" that glass is there.
Uniform opacity across the entire canopy? mmm, that may not work as an indicator of glass, since you have no "clear" glass to compare it to. You will never know the opacity is there unless you cycle the aircraft cockpit ON and OFF and watch the terrain and sky change in brightness and change in colour contrast. Or you can cycle between cockpit view and external view to see the differences. But stay inside the cockpit, and you will never "see" the glass, but you will have a darker and washed out terrain and sky in your simulation. Best to not even bother modelling canopy glass, with the possible exception of LOMAC's tiny dynamic canopy scratches glinting bright in sunlight which do not require a "dark" or "hazy" canopy to work.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-27-2006, 08:34 AM
I'll put it to you this way:

If you were to put such a perspex in one panel, and not in the other, you'd be able to see the difference. In a completely enclosed plane with no open outlets, the effect would be subtle just because there would be nothing to compare it to, granted. Further, curved glass sections also exhibit some odd behavior vs. straight-on viewed panels...

You'd be able to tell it was there. Just minus the 'eye candy' distractions.

Chiefly, in a plane like a G-50. In :Tobruk, it has an open pit, but some glass panes low on the sides of the canopy. And, these panes have thickness. You'd see the difference between a "through glass" view and the view to the open sky.

Kuna15
01-27-2006, 02:51 PM
Hey Stig is Targetware better sim that FB 402m? What is your opinion... last time I have played Targetware they were really impressive at number of theatres and flyables/models but that sim was inferior to the FB in graphical aspect. I can't say more since I have very little TW experience.
Since that game was (is?) WiP, has something done in that direction in the meantime (bringing it more to FB graphical standards)?

LEXX_Luthor
01-27-2006, 05:11 PM
Stiglr::
Chiefly, in a plane like a G-50. In :Tobruk, it has an open pit, but some glass panes low on the sides of the canopy. And, these panes have thickness. You'd see the difference between a "through glass" view and the view to the open sky.
To do that, you have to reduce the light level coming through the glass and this will also wash out the colours coming through the glass. Real glass that is not tinted does not work like that (super thick armour glass maybe?), unless aged yellow over 60 years like you said last page. What you can do is outline the edge of the G.50 side glass panels, but leave the glass sheet totally clear, as it should be. Or, you can just make the panel sheet glass just barely visible -- which means not noticable unless you stop and LOOK for it. Flight sims go way overboard in the tinting and hazing. Ask jedi.

um...perhaps that's what you meant by favouring just a "little" amount of opacity. Make sure its little enough so you never see it, unless you stop flying the plane and then carefully look for the effect. What that means, is that any *realistic* amount of opacity will have Zero = 0.00 effect in the sim. You will never notice it, unless you STOP flying the sim, and look carefully. Best, leave it out.

Basically, any use of tinting or hazing the canopy to "model" glass is to be avoided like a Plague on flight sims.

LEXX_Luthor
01-27-2006, 05:35 PM
BUT...

Oleg uses a sweet dynamic reflection that does not require darkened or hazy glass. Bf-110G cockpit has glass panels that turn bright in relation to the panel orientation and the sun (some say too bright -- possibly). I was assuming that TargetWare did not use this, but like StrikeFighters, depends on dark tinting and fuzzy hazing of the glass to produce STATIC never changing "reflection" images. Oleg's method works fine, since it does not require artificial darkening or "opacity" of the glass.

Treetop64
01-27-2006, 06:42 PM
Mmm, ok, I guess I'll bite...


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

The point is not whether you LIKE my carping, but whether I have a point or not, n'est ce pas? Open any of those debates again at your own peril...

Yeah, I agree. However, you've made your point many, many times over a very, very long period of time now. I think we got it...


Waiting to hear ANY of yours. You still seem to just be complaining that I'm not fawning over the product, but pointing out problems with it.

Sorry. I could give a "toss" whether or not you, or anyone else, "fawns" over the product. There are tactful ways of making a complaint, however, a concept of which you've apparently moved far beyond the borders of.

Secondly, whatever ill's I've had with the IL-2 series have been made already; I'm not about to qualify myself, and re-open old wounds, for you.


Yeah, we could, I suppose; I have had some influence on the dev team, early on. If you can dig back far enough, you'll discover you can thank me for icons that are harder to see in the sun, for muzzle flashes that don't look like dragon's breath, for the cleaning up of a few planes' perspex and a few other things that I had to whine for long and loud before anything got done about them.

...And we all sincerely thank you for those inputs! Unfortunately, you're proving yourself adept at blotting your copybook by demonizing the other aspects that did not reflect whatever inputs you may have offered.

Sit back and think, though, that the reason you had to bark so long and loud for those changes to be implemented, is precisely because you were barking so long and loud for them...


I disagree. Energy bleed and its balance with accleration are LAUGHABLY bad. Elevator forces are applied with a vengeance towards the 109, but other planes get a pass on it. That's just off the top of my head.

"LAUGHABLY bad" by who's perception? Yours? Are you some resident expert on fluid dynamics, and implementing a degree of that into a game developers overall design philosiphy? That of which differed, obviously, from what you think it should be.

I find it surprising that someone who is intelligent enough to upstart their own version of an air combat simulator (as I, admittedly, have limited understanding of what TW is, how it's coming about, and your involvement with it), would stoop low enough to similtaneously, and perpetually, blast another developer's similar product. If the other wiget is so bad, let your wiget speak for you, and prove just how horrible the other wiget is. You, and your wiget, will look all the better for it!

Stigler_9_JG52
01-27-2006, 06:44 PM
Oleg's glass, for the most part, *is* good... except for that "pissed on" one he foists on certain planes, an effect so bad that it totally screws up any vision against the ground or in less than CAVU/noon lighting conditions.

Check out the Late 109 G6 for the worst of this phenomenon.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-27-2006, 06:48 PM
demonizing the other aspects that did not reflect whatever inputs you may have offered.

The other inputs I made were done the same way: I pointed out something was wrong, or could have done better, backed it up with some facts or historical information, and the change was made... or not.

As for criticizing Oleg's work, listen: anyone who puts work out there for all to see, and especially to buy, is open to criticism. My work at Targetware is also subject to that same criticism. But, I don't take it personal. I make mistakes and screw up just like the rest of us. But, if the criticism is fair, or is based on a correct supposition or facts or history...well, if my position is indefensible, I figure I have no choice but to change it (or offer a plausible explanation for why it can't be changed). Otherwise I'd be being.... pigheaded, is the word that comes to mind.

Also, do note that the things I carp on most about this particular sim's shortcomings, like energy bleed, AI gunner "super aim", weapons disparities, physics departures from reality, and last but certainly not least the WILD changes to planes between versions, while all the time it's supposed to be accurate at all times.... these are all MAJOR faults. You'll notice I don't waste a lot of time pointing out little errors on skins, and little inconsequential blemishes.

LEXX_Luthor
01-27-2006, 07:23 PM
Stiglr::
Oleg's glass, for the most part, *is* good... except for that "pissed on" one he foists on certain planes, an effect so bad that it totally screws up any vision against the ground or in less than CAVU/noon lighting conditions.

Check out the Late 109 G6 for the worst of this phenomenon.

Ya, the older glass, I "forgot" that. La-7 and Hellcat are bad too, or was the Hellcat windexed in a Patch?

Another thing about the old FB/PF static "reflections" that require darkened glass -- when you fly at night, the "reflections" light up the terrain!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif What is going on here in flight sim design?

LEXX_Luthor
01-27-2006, 08:39 PM
TreeTop::
However, you've [Stiglr] made your point many, many times over a very, very long period of time now.
Maybe the harsh critique made many of us afraid to talk to Stiglr. I used to think Stig was jealous competition from TargetWare, but the last year I saw more flight simmer buried deep inside. Stiglr is usually right, but not always -- icons and canopy opacity for examples http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, and he/she *is* willing to talk about the current limits in the TargetWare sim -- if pressed. It took mslama's observations of TargetWare grafix and environment to bring Stiglr to talk about it, and Stiglr came through. A little pre-warning to mslama about what TW lacks would have been nice!

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, Stiglr loves surprises.

~ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes

Perhaps FB/PF is "beta" in flight modelling, and TargetWare is "beta" in grafix and environment. As we know, our current FB/PF flight modeling is supposed to be beta for BoB And Beyond. As for the previous Olde FM, csThor has posted at the simhq that Oleg has admitted the FM's are a problem because of the number of flyable aircraft -- a tradeoff which I fully accept! I have always said, make ALL the combat aircraft flyable under a "passable" flight model engine, THEN you are in a logical and powerful position to ramp up the flight modelling. If you "wait" to add flyable aircraft until the flight modelling and 3D modelling is "Advanced," then you will wait forever as programming and 3D modelling will never stop advancing. Also, flight model is not as important as simulation content, but this comes from an Offline player viewpoint, where a lack of large scale AI battlefield environment can make a Perfect Flight Model and Perfect Cockpit go un-played and gather dust on the shelf. That's the biggest problem with FB/PF success as a shipping software title, not the flight model. Stiglr is an Online player, where the flight model holds a central role.

Anyways, there are enough combat flight sims out there for flight simmers to stop the back biting, as my recent *sorry* shortsighted behavior here with Offline player Aymar showed me I have forgotten how to enjoy simming and other simmers. Even better, its my observation on the different sim boards that the combat flight sim Devs don't bash each other. In fact, they seem to admire each other. Dunno.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-27-2006, 09:24 PM
Well, thanks for at least being fair, Luthor. I too remember when you'd join some of these others in "killing the messenger" rather than just debate the validity of what I was saying, but you have changed, and for the better I think.

Yep, you are right, I am a true simmer. For me, the flight model is the thing, and graphics are a very distant third, behind good game design. And while I don't exactly trumpet the notion that Targetware's graphics are not its strong suit (although, there are some areas where it really does look GOOD, just not compared to IL-2), I don't dodge the issue, either. The way I see it, the graphics are a manifestation of the priority to have a flight model before pretty pictures. That, and to be honest, a real lack of resources...I wish I could push pixels with the likes of some of the good artists out there.

As for "number of planes" being an excuse for poor models...I'm not with that. Let me do a quick count of WWII era planes at Targetware to date... 49, at a quick count, perhaps 60% of IL-2's roster, and I could hazard a guess that ALL of them that have a IL-2 counterpart have better flight models. It's not the individual modelling, I don't think...it's the core flight model and physics modeling systems underneath everything. All planes are subject to the same laws of physics, thus they'll all be affected to some degree if those "laws" aren't all modelled well. Things like poor energy bleed, scripted snapstalls, torque (or lack of it) over-accurate otto gunners and AAA, over-simplified 'complex' engine management, these are all "across-the-board" issues; then on top of that you have your plane-specific and weapon-specific faults. It all adds up to a very pretty turd, I'm afraid.

Flight model not as important as simulation content? Huh???? So, in other words, if you have a "fun" game system, with all kinds of bells and whistles and you use, say WWI flight models for WWII planes (to use a obvious exaggeration)...then it's all good? No. I'd say game design and structure is a close second behind the modeling. And even on that count, I feel IL-2 disappoints because there isn't enough structure (or guidance for would-be scenario authors and server hosts) built into it; you can see it anytime you're online and you're more likely to see P-38s and Jugs and P-51s over Kursk than you are a Yak, a LaGG or even an IL-2(!). Fantasy stuff's OK for a diversion, or a good what-if, but when the overwhelming majority of the action consists of the wrong planes over the wrong geographies, in the wrong years, in the wrong matchups, doing the wrong things...well, again, you don't have much of a sim; or a game design, for that matter. The players can't be expected to create that environment; the designer has some responsibility, I think, to design it so that you get historical matchups, missions, and such, and perhaps leave room for fantasy, what-if's and such. IL-2 doesn't do much to facilitate that, and does more to make the usual "ueberplane gottawin furball" pretty much a fait accompli.

By comparison, Targetware's current setup fosters the design of scenarios where the planeset is limited in each scenario; yet the overall system actually allows for every bit as much "what-if idiocy", if the players go so far as to create it; the distinction is, that it's designed on purpose so that you're far more likely to find a historical situation, matchup, etc. in your everyday Targtwrae session as you are to find "just a furball" with all planes from all countries available.

LEXX_Luthor
01-27-2006, 10:21 PM
Thanks, I'm trying to undergo a Behavior Mod of my own.

Stiglr::
Flight model not as important as simulation content? Huh???? So, in other words, if you have a "fun" game system, with all kinds of bells and whistles and you use,...
Both are important, but I'll try to be more clear. When I posted "large scale AI battlefield environment," I mean simulating air warfare on as large an operational scale that a computer can calculate in real time, with the player taking on a small role within his/her cockpit. Of course, this will have to include simplified AI ground/sea units as well.

I could post that focusing *first* on flight model will create a "fun" game system with all the "dogfight" bells and whistles -- correct wing drop during initial post stall behavior, precise airspeed/stick pull before buffet onset -- that has no visible impact on the air war except on the scale of the simple dogfight.

But I won't post that (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), because you are correct for Online play such as TargetWare and much of FB/PF...
I'd say game design and structure is a close second behind the modeling.
The Online community of humoid players can collectively become the game design and structure, provided there are sufficient numbers of players online at the needed time. Offline players need the AI first, flight model second, by definition, or they have a no-warfare simulation. As we play different arenas, Online vs Offline, we depart paths at this point, but to rejoin when the two arenas share a common need, which is very often.


Stiglr::
It's not the individual modelling, I don't think...it's the core flight model and physics modeling systems underneath everything. All planes are subject to the same laws of physics, thus they'll all be affected to some degree if those "laws" aren't all modelled well.
It may be the individual flight model modelling. There may not be a clearly identifiable "core" flight model here. You and I would need to see the computer source code to see what they are doing. There has been some discussion about this -- Oleg's FM may not be handled like StrikeFighters or (I assume) TargetWare. SF uses a single text file for a specific plane's flight model, although a very long text file, and it can be tweaked to quite realistic behavior if the time is spent.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-28-2006, 09:16 AM
We agree on more than you think.

I do see your point about using the game environment to "create the bigger picture" with AI, so the player can enjoy his small role in just one of the planes. But, it helps if that AI is done well enough so that it doesn't "climb out faster than the player can", or "is immune from blackout effects" or "can pick a horsefly off a pair of flight goggles while his ship pulls 3Gs and porpoises". Even if it has to use a modified model than the players use, it still has to be believable.

And, in this case, I think the dev has to point the way to make it more likely that a designer of an offline campaign will design and investigate a historical action, something a bit more ambitious than, "Where can I shoehorn my Mustang in this time?" And that applies ONLINE, too, certainly for co-ops. Even a dogfight server can be made historical, engaging and more than just a furball. IL-2, I think, doesn't go far enough to make that more likely

LEXX_Luthor
01-28-2006, 06:46 PM
Right, all Offline combat flight sims have errors in AI modelling, here or there, and total lack of AI features -- AI never losing any vision at night has been a flight sim disaster for 20 years. Recall the cancelled flight sim Target For Tonight (RAF vs Reich Defense), I wonder how that AI would have been programmed. Certainly far different than the 12:00 high noon dogfight AI of all other sims. Radar usage is another AI issue for RAF vs Reich Defense.

What you said above --- "close second behind..." made me think today...

I recall Yeager claiming "its the pilot, not the plane." But, I am sure he said this *only* because of the larger social community having shortsighed attention focused on the plane, and Yeager had to "balance" that focus by making a technically false claim in the opposite direction. Truthfully, its the pilot AND the plane, together -- or the aces would still be flying Fokker Eindeckers today.

What I mean, is that perhaps both game design and flight modelling have equivalent importance, who knows about equal, it doesn't matter. The flight sim community today focuses on "flight model" as do most flight sim developers (but not all!!). This needs balancing, so that's why I cried about game design being more important. Both are needed. That's all I can say.

In fact, the Nieuport 11 and DH-2 overcoming the Fokker E-I showed the importance of the plane *and* the pilot, together. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

And then along came the Albatross -- a plane!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
01-28-2006, 08:29 PM
The flight sim community today focuses on "flight model" as do most flight sim developers (but not all!!)

That's incorrect, too. Overwhelmingly the flight sim community today focuses on "graphics" above EVERYTHING else, and most developers bend over backwards to give them what they want; and that's why we have so many crappy simulators.

Ever notice when a sim is in development, about the only "news" you get is screenshots? Hardly any news on how historical (or fun, or whatever) the game design is going to be? No, it's all about "how it looks". And many people who post here think immersion lives and dies by the "eye candy".

I'm not with that. I remember flying Warbirds back when it was 256 colors...but because it was, for that time, the best flight model I'd seen, I could look past that and concentrate on the results of what I did and what others did in the air.

By comparison, yeah it looks real purty in IL-2, but when you know that the results you're getting are pure bullsh*t, you concentrate on THAT. At least, I do.

LEXX_Luthor
01-28-2006, 09:28 PM
Stiglr::
That's incorrect, too. Overwhelmingly the flight sim community today focuses on "graphics" above EVERYTHING else
Yes that's correct, I was only thinking of the two subjects of FM and game design. I "forgot" about the industry's reliance on screenshot review magazines. How silly of me.

You won't like this, but now that you made me think about it, grafix is just as important as FM and, for Offline play, game design -- the grafix has to match the air war battlefield environment, and that means weather, large towering cumulus clouds and not the industry standard "flight sim" cloud puffs, but we are not seeing this air-combat focus on combat flight sim grafix.

Stiglr, ask the TW Devs -- especially regarding Target Rabaul -- about making very basic super large cumulus clouds, put them close together in lines, and you have the Pacific weather which dominated and dictated the South Pacific air engagements. For pure Online play, these large clouds don't need AI programming obviously, which is why I think sim Devs have only ever offered the tiny "flight sim" white flak puff cumulus clouds. They are small enough that AI pilots seeing through the small clouds won't cripple the sim as when the cumulus clouds are several miles wide and several miles high. Its this type of environment that will someday make a real advance in air war simulation. Surprisingly, these types of clouds have not appeared in Online play where there is generally no issue with AI seeing the clouds, there is no AI.

Don't let the TW programming Devs put you off, we see TargetWare as low grafix already, so don't let them say very large towering cumulus clouds are not possible with today's grafix, as these clouds can be made even with a limited number of "polygons" or "detail." They may not look Perfect photo realistic, but this could add new dimensions to TW Online air warfare and navigation, especially if the TW Devs can someday add turbulence inside the super large cumulus grafix, thus making you take your formation around the clouds, or over if you have the performance, and does the fighter escort have the range to go around the weather? This type of grafix welded to functional game design would be central to a true air warfare simulation, and interests me as much or possibly even more than the flight models.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-28-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's incorrect, too. Overwhelmingly the flight sim community today focuses on "graphics" above EVERYTHING else
Yes that's correct, I was only thinking of the two subjects of FM and game design. I "forgot" about the industry's reliance on screenshot review magazines. How silly of me.

You won't like this, but now that you made me think about it, grafix is just as important as FM and, for Offline play, game design -- the grafix has to match the air war battlefield environment, and that means weather, large towering cumulus clouds and not the industry standard "flight sim" cloud puffs, but we are not seeing this air-combat focus on combat flight sim grafix.

Stiglr, ask the TW Devs -- especially regarding Target Rabaul -- about making very basic super large cumulus clouds, put them close together in lines, and you have the Pacific weather which dominated and dictated the South Pacific air engagements. For pure Online play, these large clouds don't need AI programming obviously, which is why I think sim Devs have only ever offered the tiny "flight sim" white flak puff cumulus clouds. They are small enough that AI pilots seeing through the small clouds won't cripple the sim as when the cumulus clouds are several miles wide and several miles high. Its this type of environment that will someday make a real advance in air war simulation. Surprisingly, these types of clouds have not appeared in Online play where there is generally no issue with AI seeing the clouds, there is no AI.

Don't let the TW programming Devs put you off, we see TargetWare as low grafix already, so don't let them say very large towering cumulus clouds are not possible with today's grafix, as these clouds can be made even with a limited number of "polygons" or "detail." They may not look Perfect photo realistic, but this could add new dimensions to TW Online air warfare and navigation, especially if the TW Devs can someday add turbulence inside the super large cumulus grafix, thus making you take your formation around the clouds, or over if you have the performance, and does the fighter escort have the range to go around the weather? This type of grafix welded to functional game design would be central to a true air warfare simulation, and interests me as much or possibly even more than the flight models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Targetware clouds don't look as good as the IL-2 clouds, but that's like the pits, and the planes, too, to some degree.

However, the Targetware clouds have something on the IL-2 versions...they're better at simulating overcasts and cloud layers. These don't show "from the side" like IL-2's big fluffy clouds...but they have the desired effect on visibility, and they can be hidden in. And, best of all, multiple cloud layers of varying alt thickness, cloud type and alt can be written into any scenario. So, for me, since they're also not framerate busters, I'm fairly happy with them until such a time as they might get a facelift. (I also notice even Oleg's pretty puffy clouds do weird things with drawing when you're close enough to see it; ever notice a line-of-sight blocking cloud suddenly form while you're headed toward a particular area of the sky? That's kind of "immersion destroying" if you ask me.

If you're gonna level a BIG criticism at Targetware, it'd be because there's no SUN (yet) to speak of!!! If we could get 3/4 of Oleg's awesome sun effects, I'd be happy. (For all of you who say I never pay IL-2 any compliments, there you have a big one; Oleg's sun effects are the best I've seen anywhere!!)

Aymar_Mauri
01-28-2006, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
If the LaGGs actually had performed as in PF+AEP+FB, then WW2 would have ended in 1941.
Well, although some people seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept, I think this phrase is self-explanatory. At least it should be to anyone who knows a bit about WW2 airplane data. And, although it might be interpreted like nothing new, I find it narrow-minded to try to be sarcastic in such a situation.

It might be viewed as a "nonsense-idiotic-whinning" post but it's simplicity condenses well the single most detrimental characteristic of the IL2 series - the FM innacuracies. As for the lack of data to backup the observation, I think data to justify it has been posted quite a lot of times to award yet another inclusion.

*Yes, Lex. I will talk to Tagert as soon as I have the time to make the tests with him.*

I have read the entire thread attentivelly and I have to agree with what Stigler_9_JG52 and, up to a point, 73GIAP_Milan both said. Many people will surelly disagree, but the single most important thing for a true simulator to be really thruthfull to RL and therefore be trully called a simulator is the Flight Model and all it's associated physics effects. Yes, the graphics and the sound effects are paramount in regard to immersion, the number of flyable and non-flyable aircaft important for our "eagerness" and curiosity to be fully fullfilled, etc, etc...

But the single most important aspect in a simulation is the reproduceability of the aircraft's behaviour in regard to historical reports. And when that slips through the cracks and keeps failling to be sorted out, no matter how many patches come out, it is only natural that persons concerned with a correct depiction get concerned > frustrated > disapointted > dejected.

In such a way, I feel it is understandable, if not 100% justifyable, that sometimes people vent their oppinions in a clumsier or harsher manner that other people might interpret as "whinning" or "bad-mouthing-god-Oleg". That happens, but not in this case. What I find unjustifyable is the lack of lucidity or the excess of blindness patent in some of the people that roam this forum, namely the people that keep saying remarks of such bright, eloquent and vast erudition like: "You is wrong. Oleg is god! STFU".

It is more than obvious that such people think that any criticism against the current state of events in IL2 is an act of sacriliege and the author of such remark should immediatelly be burned at the stake. It must surely be that this people think that saying "everything is godly in IL2" to Oleg is the best way to sort out innacuracies and achieve solutions to "beaten-to-death" problems. Well, guess again, it is absolutelly the wrong way. But maybe these persons aren't really interested in changing things to reflect historical accuracy.

On the issue at hand, it is quite clear for me, and it should be for everyone, that Stigler_9_JG52 and 73GIAP_Milan's comments about Oleg are mostly correct. Yes, he has proven several times, and in regard to some issues, to exhibt a particular sttuborness, even when proven incorrect. I find it stupid and unjustifyable when people just say "he suxs!!" or some ****** comment like that, but people, let's not fool ourselves in to believing that Oleg is always impartial in regard to accurate historical depiction. He is not and there are plenty of examples. And, sometimes, it's not a technical issue that stops the resolution of a particular innacuraccy problem.

One thing that puzzles me on these forums is that the speech is variable in regard only to particular matters and not to others. Quite convenient...

As an example, running the risk of annoying again some people and coming back to a subject dear to me, many people quote Oleg saying that in 1941, during Barbarossa, "german pilots 10 times better", therefore Russian planes were really not to be blamed for the aerial disaster in the first months of the offensive. They were at least as good as the German ones and, accordingly, they should have the current flight characteristics depicted in FB/AEP/PF. But let's discuss the point of the "german pilots 10 times better". Remember that thread about aerial aces in WW2? The one that kept some people asking "If Hartmann achieved 352kills and JJ only achieved 38, that means that Hartmann was 10 times better than JJ? So, this must be true of all German flyers?". After a lot of heated discussion finally people agreed (somewhat) that it's the circumstances that really make the difference in such different scores and that most aces were equally good in capabilities. So, what can we take from this? Is Oleg right in saying that "german pilots 10 times better"? Well, that means that most of the people in that thread are wrong because it was Oleg that spoke and, since Oleg is god here, common sense must be rejected. And it does really say that those many poor Russian pilots that died in 1941 must have been mentally disabled to be 10 times worse than the average LW pilot. Yes, the LW used better tactics and were more experienced in general, but 10 times better? That is a degree far greater that human hability can muster. Or was Oleg exagerating a lot just to make his point across?

He surely was. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, let's keep the number at 10. So, if the "10 times pilot skill" is a too great a number what can be another reason to explain the enormous rate of atriction inflicted on the VVS in those days? Tactics + experience, surelly. But enough to explain the "10 times pilot skill" value? Isn't it obvious that another factor in consideration can be the planes performance itself? Of course it can. And judging from most records everywhere, it were all these factors (tactics + experience + aircraft performance) that had to be taken in to consideration to explain the VVS "debacle" in 1941. However, "western" sources are to be taken lightly. Oleg has is own Russian ones that are absolutelly impartial, specially in regard to Russian planes performance and quality. Well, since we are talking about the IL2 FM, this awards LaGG3 a very specific type of performance in regard to German contemporary planes that western sources claim were far superior in every technical area. And then we have the famed UFO settings that are totally realistic and exactly like the RL data verified by WW2 pilots and engineers...

This example is just to exemplify some of the problems around this game series. Stigler_9_JG52 and 73GIAP_Milan have named some others, that are not less important, and justified some of their concerns and position in regard to them and concerning the game series. Is this kind of imput to be swept under the rugg? Is it good for the FB/AEP/PF series that I (and believe you all) adore, that these comments are not taken in to consideration? Is it in any way justifyable for the concerned gamer's imput to be choked in a mist of "fanboys" that swear by anything the developer makes, no matter what cockup he does?

Are you beggining to see some of the more knowlegeable "whinners" point? Or mental blindness is impervious to well-explained arguments?

What I am saying (and others) is that this game series is unfortunatelly not what it could be and that is not just due to unsurmountable technical problems...

LEXX_Luthor
01-28-2006, 11:25 PM
Wellcome Aymar_Mauri!! I never said "hello" to you!! Hello!

Yough Stiglr, FB/PF sun effects are good, and they work for the most part in blinding the player, although you can "cheat" a bit by looking away from the FB sun which decreases the glare in the computer screen center, but that itself is a less efficient visual search, making you look in a circle around the sun. so I guess even the "cheat" is only partially effective lala. No sim has done AI blinded by the sun yet. Old Su-27 Flanker 1.0 from 1995 had heat seeking missiles distracted by the sun, so its possible to program AI pilots this way. Programming AI to make offensive use of the sun in stalking and bouncing out of the sun is a deeper challenge. It may take some time for that to happen. But ya you are right, the rate at which Devs advance AI is not like they are infatuated with grafix.

FB/PF sun effects fall under LandShading=n with N= 2 or 3 to enable the bright blinding sun glare...I think. I would imagine this is a server setting, so all Online players have the sun to blind them. Not sure, but I would hope this is the case.

Stiglr, make sure the TW programmers create a brilliant flash of glare around the TW sun. This is needed by the players if not exactly desired by them. Saburo/Caiden writes about those first F4Fs that bounced them out of the sun on their approach to Guadacanal (Saburo's last flight before getting wounded). Wildcats used ground or ship (forgot) radar guidance to position themselves above the Japanese Bettys and Zeros, and they bounced from the sun, and even this super squad of Japanese aces had problems with the sun. When the sun rises over TargetWare, make sure the TW sun has a crippling effect on players looking for targets in the sun's direction.

Frankenstein000
01-28-2006, 11:38 PM
Anyone else notice that the originator of the thread isn't saying much?

Hmmmmm....


http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/cultstud/images/fishing.jpg

carguy_
01-29-2006, 04:59 AM
The LaGG3,especialy 66series is better than a Spitfire`44 only it has not so good armament.

It was known to be able to perform hard maneuvers but with big energy loss.The plane actually loses very little if any energy in those.You can pull loops,do zoom climbs and you still come out on the top of ANY plane from the same year.It acts like it had a 2300hp engine.

It`s very easy to check.If you guys fly a QMB duels sometime you know that if you sit on the AI it rolls like 5 times to evade(150m distance closure).Now any plane in IL2 slows down when rolling whereas the LaGG doesn`t.

LaGG`s wings performance is not near as the Spitfire so why has it so big energy retention?
From what I read the powerplant wasn`t powerful enough to give that plane such a big performance margin.

Add simplified DM to that and we have a new uber plane.

dizeee
01-29-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
...
As an example, running the risk of annoying again some people and coming back to a subject dear to me, many people quote Oleg saying that in 1941, during Barbarossa, "german pilots 10 times better", therefore Russian planes were really not to be blamed for the aerial disaster in the first months of the offensive. They were at least as good as the German ones and, accordingly, they should have the current flight characteristics depicted in FB/AEP/PF. But let's discuss the point of the "german pilots 10 times better". Remember that thread about aerial aces in WW2? The one that kept some people asking "If Hartmann achieved 352kills and JJ only achieved 38, that means that Hartmann was 10 times better than JJ? So, this must be true of all German flyers?". After a lot of heated discussion finally people agreed (somewhat) that it's the circumstances that really make the difference in such different scores and that most aces were equally good in capabilities. So, what can we take from this? Is Oleg right in saying that "german pilots 10 times better"? Well, that means that most of the people in that thread are wrong because it was Oleg that spoke and, since Oleg is god here, common sense must be rejected. And it does really say that those many poor Russian pilots that died in 1941 must have been mentally disabled to be 10 times worse than the average LW pilot. Yes, the LW used better tactics and were more experienced in general, but 10 times better? That is a degree far greater that human hability can muster. Or was Oleg exagerating a lot just to make his point across?

He surely was. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, let's keep the number at 10. So, if the "10 times pilot skill" is a too great a number what can be another reason to explain the enormous rate of atriction inflicted on the VVS in those days? Tactics + experience, surelly. But enough to explain the "10 times pilot skill" value? Isn't it obvious that another factor in consideration can be the planes performance itself? Of course it can. And judging from most records everywhere, it were all these factors (tactics + experience + aircraft performance) that had to be taken in to consideration to explain the VVS "debacle" in 1941. However, "western" sources are to be taken lightly. Oleg has is own Russian ones that are absolutelly impartial, specially in regard to Russian planes performance and quality. Well, since we are talking about the IL2 FM, this awards LaGG3 a very specific type of performance in regard to German contemporary planes that western sources claim were far superior in every technical area. And then we have the famed UFO settings that are totally realistic and exactly like the RL data verified by WW2 pilots and engineers...


you are entering the dreaded "rofl he still believes all what has been written about ww2 airial warfare ****" world of pain there.

there are numerous reports of finish and german enegneers being "puzzled" about the state of which captured russian aircraft where, after they got their hands on some of them, incl the lagg3. none of em would have been declared fit for flying duty in their respective air units.

the gap between a desired, wanted or simply hoped performance output, and the actual performance, being delivered by the aircrafts comming from the production lines, is not there in this game. this alone puts of basicly any "historical" balance.

there was someone from iirc youguslavia, posting here, who was active in a board where members of the former post war yougoslavian airfore where comitted. the yugo airfore kept a variety of vvs, us and lw planes in active duty for quite some time after the war. he said that the pilots prefered basily every us plane, like the p47, over all vvs types. even the late yaks and las.
the p39.

why was a plane, that was being labeled subpar to any 109, 190 or jap plane, by the raf and usaaf, held in such a high regard by the vvs pilots? imho, this is a testimony to how much the vvs own prodution aicraft suffered from all sorts of shortcommings. pls spare me with the "they removed all armor and guns theory", that this wold put the p39 at the same level as their counterparts, is a obvious myth.

Max.Power
01-29-2006, 07:00 AM
I see that after the initial allergic reaction by the resident cynics, this thread is becoming quite a worthwhile read. This latest exchange in particular is quite well done.

I'm not trying to be here all sitting on my high chair and looking down on you, but I don't have anything to add but my compliments.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-29-2006, 10:16 AM
To be fair, the 66 version of the LaGG-3 should be no slouch. After, er, experiencing its prowess in an online war, we Luftwobblies went off in a huff and did some basic research and discovered that it was much improved over earlier versions. It was faster than contemporary 109s, certainly turned better and had a better thrust/weight ratio than the 109G6 "Beule", which was going the other direction vis a vis power/weight ratio.

If it was as much improved as it appeared in the sim, is open to debate and conjecture...but there was some basis for a "competitive LaGG". I would think, though, it should not make one forget the La5, La5F models that were likely coming out at that time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif These Lavochkins were much greater refinements to the original LaGG airframe than the -3/66 could hope to effect.

Aymar_Mauri
01-29-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
The LaGG3, especialy 66series is better than a Spitfire`44 only it has not so good armament.

It was known to be able to perform hard maneuvers but with big energy loss. The plane actually loses very little if any energy in those. You can pull loops, do zoom climbs and you still come out on the top of ANY plane from the same year. It acts like it had a 2300hp engine.
Preciselly. When in reality it had one rated at 1180HP (some authors claim late versions had 1240HP).

But the biggest problem are the earlier versions that were much worse performers in power/weight ratio IRL and still achieve very good performance in-game in regard to contemporary airplanes (allied or axis).


Originally posted by carguy_:
It`s very easy to check. If you guys fly a QMB duels sometime you know that if you sit on the AI it rolls like 5 times to evade (150m distance closure). Now any plane in IL2 slows down when rolling whereas the LaGG doesn`t.
Yes. E-bleed is minimum.


Originally posted by carguy_:
LaGG`s wings performance is not near as the Spitfire so why has it so big energy retention?
From what I read the powerplant wasn`t powerful enough to give that plane such a big performance margin.
Not understandable when we have:

-Worse aeroynamic wing profile than the Spit.
-Less power [LaGG3 66 series - a Klimov M-105PF1 rated at 1180HP or M-105PF2 rated at 1240HP (late versions)/ Spitfire IX - Merlin 61 rated at 1660HP or 63/70 series rated at 1710HP / Spitfire XII - Griffon II/IV series rated at 1735HP]

Although it had slightly less weight:

[Empty weight: LaGG3 66 series - 2430kg / Spitfire IX - 2545Kg / Spitfire XII - 2530Kg]
[T/O weight: LaGG3 66 series - 3023kg / Spitfire IX - 3311Kg / Spitfire XII - 3297Kg](not Max t/o weight)

Historical accounts refer that it was always underpowered in regard to contemporary planes. It seems this was only partially solved with the introduction of lighter and more powerfull versions in later years (like the 66 series in late 1943). It was well armed (for a russian plane at that time - early 1941) and robust, being able to take some damage and reach home (we must remember it was not a Sturmovik though). Quoted by Russian pilots as "lacking in manouverability in regard to other fighters".


Originally posted by carguy_:
Add simplified DM to that and we have a new uber plane.
Well, accounts say that the LaGG3 was pretty sturdy. My main problem is the performance.

Here is some more data about the LaGG3 series posted by another member:


Originally posted by Kocur_:
From the beginning till 28/35 series, the engine was M-105P/PA at 1050PS. Last of 28 series got M-105PF1 at 1180PS and that engine lasted till end of production of 66 series, produced since 1943/44 winter till mid 1944. No serial LaGG-3 had M-105PF2 at 1240PS.

Engine:
4 series: M-105P/PA at 1050PS
7 series: M-105P/PA at 1050PS
23 series: M-105P/PA at 1050PS
early 28 series: M-105P/PA at 1050PS
late 28 series: M-105PF1 at 1180PS
66 series: M-105PF1 at 1180PS

t/o weights
4 series: 3346Kg
7 series: 3280Kg
23 series: 3100Kg
28 series: 3055Kg
66 series: 3023Kg

Aymar_Mauri
01-29-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by dizeee:
you are entering the dreaded "rofl he still believes all what has been written about ww2 airial warfare ****" world of pain there.

there are numerous reports of finish and german enegneers being "puzzled" about the state of which captured russian aircraft where, after they got their hands on some of them, incl the lagg3. none of em would have been declared fit for flying duty in their respective air units.
Well, that makes the LaGG3 current FM even more unbelievable.


Originally posted by dizeee:
the gap between a desired, wanted or simply hoped performance output, and the actual performance, being delivered by the aircrafts comming from the production lines, is not there in this game. this alone puts of basicly any "historical" balance.
Agreed. But that should not happen or at least should be minimized and I haven't seen any sign of this.


Originally posted by dizeee:
there was someone from iirc youguslavia, posting here, who was active in a board where members of the former post war yougoslavian airfore where comitted. the yugo airfore kept a variety of vvs, us and lw planes in active duty for quite some time after the war. he said that the pilots prefered basily every us plane, like the p47, over all vvs types. even the late yaks and las.

the p39. why was a plane, that was being labeled subpar to any 109, 190 or jap plane, by the raf and usaaf, held in such a high regard by the vvs pilots? imho, this is a testimony to how much the vvs own prodution aicraft suffered from all sorts of shortcommings. pls spare me with the "they removed all armor and guns theory", that this wold put the p39 at the same level as their counterparts, is a obvious myth.
Of course it is. But that is preciselly my point. The P39 is also overmodelled in performance. With historical accounts like that how can we believe some of the current aircraft flight performances experienced in-game?

Aymar_Mauri
01-29-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
To be fair, the 66 version of the LaGG-3 should be no slouch.
Partially agreed. In regard to the 1941 airplanes it was very good. But in regard to late 1943, early 1944 it was just satisfactory for a fighter plane performer.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
After, er, experiencing its prowess in an online war, we Luftwobblies went off in a huff and did some basic research and discovered that it was much improved over earlier versions. It was faster than contemporary 109s
IIRC, only slightly faster in level flight than some versions of the Gustav (that varied from 580Km/h to 690Km/h) and slower than many Antons (that varied from 630 to 670Km/h). And this for the later 66 versions that were never faster than the initial La5 models (647Km/h). It also could not keep up with any Gustav or later Bf109 version in climb speed (960m/min for the late 66 series in oposition to +1000m/min).

But my main grippe is the earlier series that are very different from RL.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
certainly turned better
Agreed.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
and had a better thrust/weight ratio than the 109G6 "Beule", which was going the other direction vis a vis power/weight ratio.
Agreed on the direction taken by the Bf109 series, disagreed on the thrust/weight ratio:

LaGG3 (66 series early) - 3023Kg/1180HP = 2,563Kg/HP
Bf109 G6 Early - 3260Kg/1475HP = 2,210Kg/HP

LaGG3 (66 series late) - 3023Kg/1240HP = 2,438Kg/HP
Bf109 G10 - 3450Kg/1800HP = 1,917Kg/HP


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
If it was as much improved as it appeared in the sim, is open to debate and conjecture...but there was some basis for a "competitive LaGG". I would think, though, it should not make one forget the La5, La5F models that were likely coming out at that time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif These Lavochkins were much greater refinements to the original LaGG airframe than the -3/66 could hope to effect.
I agree they were. But that is not entirelly at stake here. Altough the La5 and later still have irrealistic performance figures in this game series, I agree that their performance boost is quite more moderate than the LaGG3 early series case. LaGG3 performance, specifically early series, in regard to Fw190A series (that has been castrated in every department in FB/AEP/PF) is one of the most obvious aircraft over/under modelling problems. Only the LaGG3 66 series could keep up with the Antons, specially with the A8 which was notoriously heavyweight.

LEXX_Luthor
01-29-2006, 07:58 PM
Aymar_Mauri::
*Yes, Lex. I will talk to Tagert as soon as I have the time to make the tests with him.*
Our current FM is beta for BoB And Beyond, and TAGERT will get you on "track" to have good input on Oleg's New FM development. Stiglr posted at the TargetWare forum that one of our "fanbois" is uncovering suprising and revealing defects in Oleg's flight models. I believe Stiglr's fanboi is TAGERT.

If you love damage and flight model design, and how it can be "pigheadedly" ignored in a shipping software title, see the thread here about Poland's P11c. There will be a 1939 Polish expansion pac for BoB And Beyond, so you may wish to see this...

P11c ~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7941050504


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif At the simhq thread below, the community is claiming the MiG's flight model is overmodelled. Russian Bias? Okay, MAYBE the sim favours Russian planes a little? Maybe not? I dunno, but read the thread and you tell me....

Evidence of Russian Bias?
~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=145;t=002213 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=145;t=002213)


Aymar::
Yes, the LW used better tactics and were more experienced in general, but 10 times better? That is a degree far greater that human hability can muster. Or was Oleg exagerating a lot just to make his point across?
Yes, Oleg posted "LW pilots 10 times better" to make a point, much like Chuck Yeager claimed "its the pilot not the plane" when he knew it was both the pilot AND the plane. Yeager said that to make a point to balance society's focus on the plane and flight performance which Yeager knew was only half the equation. In this case, society is much like flight simmers. That said, LaGG-3 early could be very overmodelled in this sim. Get with TAGERT.

Lack of tactics, training, leadership, radio, and a culture of political Fear under Stalin's tyrannic system in 1941 could conceivably cause well trained flying pilots to be roughly "10" times worse in air war effectiveness than the 1941 Luftwaffe pilots. You posted about Soviet pilots liking P-39 and other western fighter designs better than Soviet fighters. One reason would be the working radios that enabled the development of combat team work, which the Luftwaffe was long experienced in using.

Great post last page Aymar, well said, and I learned from it. Thanks!!


Stiglr, here are pics of the excellent stock StrikeFighters F-104G with and without canopy "glass" (or "reflections") option enabled. Compare the water, the sun, sky colours, and the cirrocumulus clouds (my own beta mod). This method of modelling static "glass" or "reflections" only darkens and washes out the sim's grafix outside the cockpit. Unfortunately, as far as I know -- and I may know wrong, the option of turning the "glass" effect OFF does not work with 3rd Party addon cockpits that try to model it -- not all do, many go without modelling "glass." So I must find and delete the TGA "glass" or "reflection" file, or in the case of mods that use SF's files, replace the SF TGA file used with a totally transparent TGA file -- sized at 1x1 pixel why not save memory? It works to get clean glass. How many simmers know how to do that?


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/10efdc65.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/ab918c6f.jpg

Aymar_Mauri
01-30-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar_Mauri:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*Yes, Lex. I will talk to Tagert as soon as I have the time to make the tests with him.*
Our current FM is beta for BoB And Beyond, and TAGERT will get you on "track" to have good input on Oleg's New FM development. Stiglr posted at the TargetWare forum that one of our "fanbois" is uncovering suprising and revealing defects in Oleg's flight models. I believe Stiglr's fanboi is TAGERT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok. Thanks for the info.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If you love damage and flight model design, and how it can be "pigheadedly" ignored in a shipping software title, see the thread here about Poland's P11c. There will be a 1939 Polish expansion pac for BoB And Beyond, so you may wish to see this...

P11c ~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7941050504
It's about the P11 dive speed, right? I've read a comment or two about it.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif At the simhq thread below, the community is claiming the MiG's flight model is overmodelled. Russian Bias? Okay, MAYBE the sim favours Russian planes a little? Maybe not? I dunno, but read the thread and you tell me....

Evidence of Russian Bias?
~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=145;t=002213 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=145;t=002213)
I don't know. They were pretty fast for the time - straight line speed mainly. In regard to the Bf109F their level of performance seemed to me not too dissimilar to historical accounts, but I might be wrong because I didn't really make tests on it. Just flew a bit.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, the LW used better tactics and were more experienced in general, but 10 times better? That is a degree far greater that human hability can muster. Or was Oleg exagerating a lot just to make his point across?
Yes, Oleg posted "LW pilots 10 times better" to make a point, much like Chuck Yeager claimed "its the pilot not the plane" when he knew it was both the pilot AND the plane. Yeager said that to make a point to balance society's focus on the plane and flight performance which Yeager knew was only half the equation. In this case, society is much like flight simmers. That said, LaGG-3 early could be very overmodelled in this sim. Get with TAGERT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Lack of tactics, training, leadership, radio, and a culture of political Fear under Stalin's tyrannic system in 1941 could conceivably cause well trained flying pilots to be roughly "10" times worse in air war effectiveness than the 1941 Luftwaffe pilots. You posted about Soviet pilots liking P-39 and other western fighter designs better than Soviet fighters. One reason would be the working radios that enabled the development of combat team work, which the Luftwaffe was long experienced in using.
It wasn't me who posted the info on the P39 but dizeee. I just concurred with his point. On the other hand, Russian planes were only deprived of radios early in the war.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Great post last page Aymar, well said, and I learned from it. Thanks!!
Thanks. Just trying to make everyone think before they post.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 05:00 PM
Aymar_Mauri::
It wasn't me who posted the info on the P39 but dizeee. I just concurred with his point. On the other hand, Russian planes were only deprived of radios early in the war.
Yes, Oleg was posting about 1941 Luftwaffe pilots being "10 times better" (ie...having overwhelming advantage in experience, tactics, training, leadership, and ya radios etc...endless list)

Max.Power
01-31-2006, 11:41 PM
Looks like the LaGG is having another 700 lbs added to it. Maybe the match ups will be a little more historical in these early war servers now.

Aymar_Mauri
02-01-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
Looks like the LaGG is having another 700 lbs added to it. Maybe the match ups will be a little more historical in these early war servers now.
Yes, so it seems. Maybe this was part of the problem, together with the dismall FW190A series acceleration and excessive E-bleed.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-01-2006, 03:43 PM
A FW190 should bleed energy like an 18-wheel truck. It has a good instantaneous turn, especially at speed. But that doesn't last too long, half a circle at best; after that, a FW190 is in the weeds trying to turnfight.

The "maneuverability" the early RAF pilots referred to during the Focke Wulf scourge of early '42 in comparison to the Spit was likely the FW190's vertical and roll maneuverabilty and its handling at speed; it sure wasn't because they were outturning Spits and Hurries. That simply never happened at any stage.

Aymar_Mauri
02-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
A FW190 should bleed energy like an 18-wheel truck. It has a good instantaneous turn, especially at speed. But that doesn't last too long, half a circle at best; after that, a FW190 is in the weeds trying to turnfight.

The "maneuverability" the early RAF pilots referred to during the Focke Wulf scourge of early '42 in comparison to the Spit was likely the FW190's vertical and roll maneuverabilty and its handling at speed; it sure wasn't because they were outturning Spits and Hurries. That simply never happened at any stage.
And when did I start to compare the FW190 with the Spit? Care to elaborate?

What I mean is that the E-bleed for the FW190 is way to exagerated. You just move the stick and... ...instant stop.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
was likely the FW190's vertical and roll maneuverabilty and its handling at speed
Was likely? You mean, it might have been. So, you're not sure.

Well, since you started comparing the FW190 and the Spit let's see what the contemporary experts wrote:


Spitfire Mk VB vs FW190A

In early 1942 RAF fighters first encountered the Focke-Wulf 190 in numbers, and it became evident that the formidable German fighter was overwhelmingly superior in performance to the then current variant of Spitfire, the Mk VB. The Mark IX Spitfire was developed as an emergency response to this crisis.

SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190 A3

The account below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190 A3, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942.
The FW190 A3 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet.

"The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows -

At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB

Climb: The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.

Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions. If the Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.

The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise."

I'm sorry, but where in this text says: "The loss of speed of the FW190 is turning circles is mind-bogglingly high!" ?

And, as you can gather from the text above, how is that, in FB/AEP/PF, the FW190A4 (more powerfull than the A3 tested) has a climb speed that is worse than the Spit Mk V, when in real life it was the exact opposite?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-01-2006, 06:42 PM
Well, one at a time...

I said Spitfire, because, as you have used as your source, there were historical documents re: the 190's "maneuverability", specifically as compared to the contemporary Spitfire.

Number two, I would not presume to say unequivically what RAF pilots said or meant to say about their first meetings with the plane. But, as this report here points out, the maneuverability of the 190 was NOT its "superior turn rate", it was acceleration, roll, and handling at high(er) speed. Exactly what I said: maneuverability does not necessarily mean, as many in this community think, better turning ability.

However, the fact that the FW190 is at heart, an energy plane, it stands to reason that it does NOT have a good sustained turn, nor a particularly small turn radius. It DOES, as I have stated, have a good instantaneous rate of turn, that's only good for less than half a circle. That, in a high speed pass, is enough to get guns on for a quick squirt: with 4 x 20mm guns, that's often all that's needed to destroy or maim a plane.

So, although that report doesn't say the FW190's turn rate is "mindbogglingly high", the mention several times that it could not outturn a Spit, pretty much proves what I've said about its various turn rates and its expectation for energy loss; one of the things that stops a plane from maintaining a good, tight turn circle for a sustained period of time is energy loss.

Aymar_Mauri
02-01-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, one at a time...

I said Spitfire, because, as you have used as your source, there were historical documents re: the 190's "maneuverability", specifically as compared to the contemporary Spitfire.

Number two, I would not presume to say unequivically what RAF pilots said or meant to say about their first meetings with the plane. But, as this report here points out, the maneuverability of the 190 was NOT its "superior turn rate", it was acceleration, roll, and handling at high(er) speed. Exactly what I said: maneuverability does not necessarily mean, as many in this community think, better turning ability.

However, the fact that the FW190 is at heart, an energy plane, it stands to reason that it does NOT have a good sustained turn, nor a particularly small turn radius. It DOES, as I have stated, have a good instantaneous rate of turn, that's only good for less than half a circle. That, in a high speed pass, is enough to get guns on for a quick squirt: with 4 x 20mm guns, that's often all that's needed to destroy or maim a plane.

So, although that report doesn't say the FW190's turn rate is "mindbogglingly high", the mention several times that it could not outturn a Spit, pretty much proves what I've said about its various turn rates and its expectation for energy loss; one of the things that stops a plane from maintaining a good, tight turn circle for a sustained period of time is energy loss.
But that is precisely my point. I never said the FW190 turned better or had better manouverability than the Spit. So, why were you thinking I had said that? And the fact that it doesn't out-turn a Spit is not an indicative that it turned like a dumper-truck with permanet airbrakes on. Many planes don't turn like the Spit and do not have this massive E-bleed the FW190 in-game does. What I said was that it's E-bleed is waaaay too excessive. You cannot even make slight turns without loosing massive amounts of energy. Even a slight, slow movement of the stick means an effect equivalent to massive AoA in other planes. The rate of E-bleed loss of the FW190 is unmatched (and by a long margin) in the game. Is that realistic? No.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
More examples of how what some call "whining" turns into proper action at Targetware...

Not too long ago, Target:Tobruk introduced several marks of the Hurricane, including the Hispano-armed Hurricane IIC.

I ended up facing them in my little Fiat G-50, and noticed the Hispanos were, like in some versions of IL-2, way too effective. Any ping and the Fiat was DONE. Now, I'd expect not to last more than a second under those powerful guns, but even glancing, fleeting, lucky strikes were destroying the wings EVERY TIME. It just couldn't be right, I thought.

Well, after a particularly suspicious headon pass which I lost, not to sink to whining, and knowing it might be possible that I soaked up a big burst of 20-mike, I went into my Targetware log file, which you can access at any time, and see exactly what happened, down to bullet strikes, penetration and damage to individual parts.

What did I find? Yep, sure enough, the lucky HO death I suffered took out my entire outer wing with ONE HIT. Not one burst, ONE single 20mm shell. And I had proof, not just "whining".

So, I posted the log file entries on the Targetware site, it was looked into, and action was taken. The Hurricane "authors" looked into the possibilities that the Hispanos were too strong, and that the Fiat wings were too weak. Turns out it was the former, and changes were made.

Now, a IIC can take your wing out with one hit, sometimes, but not every time, like clockwork. Yeah, that sounds about right.

So, no secret data, no agendas, no bullsh*t. Just good, sound modeling.

Errrm yeah, sounds just like the Hispanos in this game.

This 'honeymoon' period sounds great, what happens when you start disagreeing like people are here? You think the mk108 is too weak , the other guys doesnt...what you going to do? Fight? Play different versions?

This Il2 engine is an old engine now and you are expecting perfection from it, something impossible. I am greatful for this game and enjoy it immensely, why do you stay here just to **** it off?

How can you say that the recent patches which have introduced much improved physics and torque are not a MASSIVE step forward? Flying the older versions is like flying on rails if you go back.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Yough Stiglr, Fw has some good canopy reflections too, and these reflections don't need the dirty glass "reflections," and these shine brighter than the outside environment brightness. These work very well, since they are dynamic and not static, and don't require darkening or hazing of the complete canopy.

Late evening, Sunset, when the canopy glass colours become the most pretty...

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/55c69d79.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/6c1825f0.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 10:49 PM
X::
This 'honeymoon' period sounds great, what happens when you start disagreeing like people are here? ....what you going to do? Fight?
TargetWare Honeymoon!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif They *may* attract a different type of simmer than Online dogfight shooter, for one they plan on Pay-To-Play, are focused on targeted "forgotten" theaters, and they seem like a small community of enthusiasts, although that could change if its massively successful, which means they could afford a community split over MK-108 mods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just guessing. The more sims the better, especially from small developers. StrikeFighters is fully "open" AND there is less back biting than here, although SF is almost entirely Offline play.

Xiolablu3
02-02-2006, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
X:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This 'honeymoon' period sounds great, what happens when you start disagreeing like people are here? ....what you going to do? Fight?
TargetWare Honeymoon!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif They *may* attract a different type of simmer than Online dogfight shooter, for one they plan on Pay-To-Play, are focused on targeted "forgotten" theaters, and they seem like a small community of enthusiasts, although that could change if its massively successful, which means they could afford a community split over MK-108 mods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just guessing. The more sims the better, especially from small developers. StrikeFighters is fully "open" AND there is less back biting than here, although SF is almost entirely Offline play. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point Lexx, your post just made me download it to try it out. As you say 'the more sims the better'.

Not tried it yet, but I am hoping for something good. I understand its very beta and not professionally made tho.

The only thing I am worried about is that I can see exactly the same arguments going on over there. Its almost like a sim you can tailor to how you like, can you imagine the arguments if Kurfurst was making the 109 FM and Gibbage the P38? Or Gibbage the .50 cals and Kurfy the Mk108? If it gets popular then characters like these WILL turn up.

I understand some of the flight models are out in this game (IL2) but I dont think some people realise just how hard it is to make a computer game, and how hard it is to change a simple thing like energy bleed etc. They are quick to blame bias as soon as the things they want arent fixed.

I can just see the same thing happening at targetware and either people falling out and not playing the game (like Stigler has with IL2) or evryone playing different versions of the game.

BUT - I am looking for ward to trying Targetware http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-02-2006, 10:33 AM
Well, for one thing, even if debates do occur about "things that are off-kilter" there (and I've never said they didn't; we're having some chats about Hispanos right now)....

the biggest difference is, you don't have to just sit there and take it when some 'authority' tells you "you is wrong, be sure". There is FREE exchange of data there. Threads are not locked because someone continues to bring up an issue that is not solved to his satisfaction (although, usually, the issue is decided well before somebody feels they have to run up with a padlock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif). And, the players themselves can go in, and make changes and show everyone that they're right (or, perhaps, reconfirm that the "official" version might have been right all along). There are no Fw190 gunsight problems; whizzed-on Luftwaffe canopies, or other controversies that go on for months and months; people can and do, do something about issues and they get sorted tout suite.

You can even go into your log files and get detailed logs of your sessions: down to who you hit and what damage you did, the damage you suffered, etc., and comb it for detail. No secrets. No BS. And that detail often uncovers little design problems and offers solutions for fixing things and making them more realistic, even ideas for new features and bits of code... all taken with a spirit of "well, let's just get it right"; not a personal umbrage that somebody actually found something wrong with some developer's ~~unquestionably accurate data~~. (~~ = sarcasm)

As for StrikeFighters, Lexx, you said there's less backbiting over there? Uh....incorrect. Over there, if you criticize nearly anything, you are set upon with a ferocity that brings to mind the Salem witch trials. If you're not in the "shiny, happy, supportive clique" that only cares if something "looks kewl", or have any kind of objective viewpoint, you quickly wear out your welcome. Oh, and that design is so stuck in the past that it has hardly any online support, and in fact the developer himself has expressed a disdain for online play. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

So, although the SF community is about the most prolific there is for adding "questionable quality" mods... all they can really do with it is post screenshots for others to see (and take their word for it) what hotshots they are in their little boxed worlds...

LEXX_Luthor
02-02-2006, 05:13 PM
X::
Not tried it yet, but I am hoping for something good. I understand its very beta and not professionally made tho.
Beta indeed, but recall that CFS3 was also "professionally" made and then dropped by the creators of the "Windows" simulation of an operating system. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The long ongoing support/development can be considered a professional attitude on the part of TW members. You may wish to try Online play, and the forums especially regards developing theater operations, as the community experience might be half the equation of playing Online.

Stiglr::
As for StrikeFighters, Lexx, you said there's less backbiting over there? Uh....incorrect. Over there, if you criticize nearly anything, you are set upon with a ferocity that brings to mind the Salem witch trials. If you're not in the "shiny, happy, supportive clique" that only cares if something "looks kewl", or have any kind of objective viewpoint, you quickly wear out your welcome. Oh, and that design is so stuck in the past that it has hardly any online support,...
Ya, I was talking about the average SF simmer/player; the consumer of the mods.


...and in fact the developer himself has expressed a disdain for online play.
Excellent, I share the same disdain for myself, but I do see the great attraction Online play offers many others. That's why we have multiple sims available.

Stiglr::
So, although the SF community is about the most prolific there is for adding "questionable quality" mods... all they can really do with it is post screenshots for others to see (and take their word for it) what hotshots they are in their little boxed worlds...
I focus on the equally prolific high quality mods, and the ones important for my own simming use.

carguy_
02-02-2006, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yough Stiglr, Fw has some good canopy reflections too, and these reflections don't need the dirty glass "reflections," and these shine brighter than the outside environment brightness. These work very well, since they are dynamic and not static, and don't require darkening or hazing of the complete canopy.

Late evening, Sunset, when the canopy glass colours become the most pretty...

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/55c69d79.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/6c1825f0.jpg



Seeing this I thought about the Tempest.The plane has a special gunsight modelled reflecting on the glass.Due to limitations that doesn`t look too authentic but sure does the job.

Why the hell can`t we get refraction with FW190 gunsite??!

Texan...
02-02-2006, 11:38 PM
No matter how wrong the gunsight is, seems Oleg refuses to visit old models/cockpits. Look how awful all the Jugs cockpits are and how completely useless the D10/22 models are because of the gunsights.

I've never even considered trying to campaign to fix those models, and they would make 1943 scenarios against Fw's mucho fun.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-03-2006, 04:20 PM
Xiaolablu3 wrote:


I understand it [Targetware] is very beta and not professionally made tho.


Your sources are incorrect. It is a beta, and has rough edges, but I would disagree vehemently on "not professionally made". It is not professional from the standpoint that much is done by player/volunteers, but a lot of the quality is high; some of it higher than what you have in IL-2. I'm not talking just graphics here, which is clearly where IL-2 shines over most sims...I'm talking about overall design, flight modeling, support for mods, etc. And, some of the graphics in Targetware are pretty darned good; it's not as consistent across all parts of the sim, and average quality levels are not as advanced as IL-2.

Do come and have a look.