PDA

View Full Version : Wildcat flight model - too easy - no spins, no stalls



WildeSau
11-08-2004, 09:26 AM
did you notice the same? I really think it's a way too easy to fly compared with other planes. I can bank and jank on my stick as I would play an arcade game. And I think that thats the case for some other PF planes as well. Hope this will be fixed - until then, I go back to my Fw190.

joeap
11-08-2004, 09:45 AM
Yea, wait until the patch, I predict it will be "fixed" then carrier landings will be impossible. Have you ever thought it was like that as naval planes had to land on carriers??

mortoma
11-08-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildeSau:
did you notice the same? I really think it's a way too easy to fly compared with other planes. I can bank and jank on my stick as I would play an arcade game. And I think that thats the case for some other PF planes as well. Hope this will be fixed - until then, I go back to my Fw190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well judging by your expert opinion, based on experience flying the real aircraft, I guess I'll have to take your side in this issue. By the way, what's it like flying a Wildcat?? Please post some stories of your Wildcat exploits!!!! I love expert opinions.

VW-IceFire
11-08-2004, 09:57 AM
I'm going to guess here a little.

I suspect that the carrier based aircraft stall less because they are capable of sustaining a higher AoA. Why? Because they, on landing approach, are going to need a higher AoA to complete the approach to the deck. So I wonder if the Wildcat, Hellcat, and others in some respects are "easy to fly" because they were...that was the whole point.

By the way...the Wildcat and Hellcat do stall and do spin. It takes a bit more to do than if you're in a FW190 but they do suffer from it. I've seen this both from the perspective of attacking pilot in a plane that I'm experienced in and managing to force the Wildcat or Hellcat pilot to do a manuver that he can't follow and spin/stall. Or flying the planes myself, being too violent on the stick, and flicking the plane out of control.

I have crashed a few times due to this...the Hellcat is particularly nasty for about 3-4 seconds before regaining control.

So I'm not sure if this is all the way its supposed to be but I suspect its very close. Oleg and team did mention being surprised at the stall characteristics of the USN aircraft in how good they actually were.

Supr
11-08-2004, 10:01 AM
comon mort, this guys wasn't a jerk about it, no reason to flame him. Save that for the real idiot jerks out there, god knows we get enough of them in theese parts. His point about easy FMs has been discussed around here in several threads. Anyone who was here when IL2 first came out, wont argue that the fm's have gotten "easier" or "noobed" since the release. Now. is that for the better? Who can really say? I personally would like to see them a bit more hardcore, more like the original il2 Flight models. It helped seperate the men from the boys in my opinion, but thats only a personal opinion. I can still completely enjoy the game just like it is, and as long as we all have to fly with the same models, I see no reason to whine.

Chuck_Older
11-08-2004, 10:02 AM
Fighters that operate off carriers need to have good low speed handling

Don't be surprised that the Wildcat can turn so well. It's still inferior to the Zero in a turn fight, which it should be

The FM may get tweaked a little, but I don't expect the F4F to transform itself into a flying dump truck.

Tater-SW-
11-08-2004, 10:18 AM
The F4F could slow roll at 80 knots in RL according to the pilot's manual.

tater

Bearcat99
11-08-2004, 10:18 AM
Harder is not necessarily better or more realistic. This is to the implication that the newest FMs were "dumbed down". The term arcade sure gets thrown around a lot in here and it really has no place in any 1C sim IMO. Have you tried the P-39 lately? That sucker will flatspin on you in a heartbeat if you arent crefull. You can almost feel/see the plane being pulled around by that engine behind the pilot in a spin with the way the FM is now. I think for the most part these FMs are the best yet overall..

mortoma
11-08-2004, 10:39 AM
Let's face it, the guy flies mostly or nearly exclusively FW-190s and he expects all aircraft therefore to have the same nasty handling limitations of the 190!!! I am not a fighter pilot, but I am a GA pilot and can tell you even in GA aircraft there is much difference in how easily different planes handle from one to the other. For example I flew a Piper Cherokee 180 after a long time away from it, having flown only Cessna Skyhawks/Cardinals and a few Bonanzas for the longest of times. Let me tell you, the short stubby hershey bar wings on that Piper sure did make for a quick roll response compared to the others I'd been flying more recently!!! Took a while to get used to it again for sure. But that just goes to show you in RL the way one plane flies can be starkly different to the way another plane flies. Whether it's GA or fighters. I'd be willing to bet that the Wildcat is probably not that far off. But unlike the original poster, I'll admit I don't know for sure, since I have never flown the type!!

Osirisx9
11-08-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildeSau:
did you notice the same? I really think it's a way too easy to fly compared with other planes. I can bank and jank on my stick as I would play an arcade game. And I think that thats the case for some other PF planes as well. Hope this will be fixed - until then, I go back to my Fw190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said like a true Luftlover... Just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I hope you didn't expect the wildcat to fly like a FW 190. Leave the kitty alone. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft. The zero will still turn rings around it unless I'm flying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RAF238thOsiris

VF-29_Sandman
11-08-2004, 10:42 AM
wildcat was the 1st of the usn's carrier planes. granted they didnt have the speed or climb/turn rate to compete against the m2 zero 1 on 1, on carrier landings, the plane was most forgiving vs the most advanced corsair. any plane will stall if u mistreat it...some are just more unforgiving than others. altitude equal's life. no atitude+stall=certain death. fly it as if ur actual butt was on the line.

CHDT
11-08-2004, 10:42 AM
"the guy flies mostly or nearly exclusively FW-190s and he expects all aircraft therefore to have the same nasty handling limitations of the 190!!!"


Once again, Kurt Tank especially designed the 190A as a "noob" plane, for the average or poorly trained pilots who would come if war should last!

So, the 190 should not be taken as an example of a plane hard to master!

Cyrano
11-08-2004, 10:47 AM
What difference does it make whether or not a plane stalls at full stick travel or not? Once you fly any plane you can get a feel very quickly what it's limit is and then make a mental note not to pull any farther. Futhermore as many others have stated in various threads even though these new US planes turn well, many others turn better...so again, what's the big deal?
If on the other hand these planes are turning better than the historical respected tests suggests (not some random internet "study") than that's a totally different argument.

mortoma
11-08-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supr:
comon mort, this guys wasn't a jerk about it, no reason to flame him. Save that for the real idiot jerks out there, god knows we get enough of them in theese parts. His point about easy FMs has been discussed around here in several threads. Anyone who was here when IL2 first came out, wont argue that the fm's have gotten "easier" or "noobed" since the release. Now. is that for the better? Who can really say? I personally would like to see them a bit more hardcore, more like the original il2 Flight models. It helped seperate the men from the boys in my opinion, but thats only a personal opinion. I can still completely enjoy the game just like it is, and as long as we all have to fly with the same models, I see no reason to whine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't flaming him, just making him think about what he's claiming. As for what you are saying, the original IL2 aircraft were indeed more 'challenging' but were they more realistic?? I remember the original P-39 and Mig-3s, on the take off rolls you could barely get them into the air. And once in the air, they had such a feeble climb you'd better hope there was no hill in front of the runway, not even a small bump!! If you hauled back on the stick even mildly, they both would drop a wing on you and you were in trouble. I'd like to think the real Mig-3 and P-39s had perkier takeoffs more like they do now in the game, not the feeble performance they had originally. Challenging?? Yes, but realistic?? Hardly think so!! Challenging is not always more realistic, despite what some hard-core simheads think.

jasonburn
11-08-2004, 10:55 AM
HM, should the corsair FM be real so it is???

I have made several tests with differend corsairs because i am loving this plane, but it flys too easy.

Outturning a zero, no problem! I got 20 sec for a 360 degree circle at 3000 feet with a corsair MK1 (Birdcage).. Should this be OK for you? For me flies this bird not like a ensign killer, and a noob can blast away any zero. No superb flight skills nesassary.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VW-IceFire
11-08-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
"the guy flies mostly or nearly exclusively FW-190s and he expects all aircraft therefore to have the same nasty handling limitations of the 190!!!"


Once again, Kurt Tank especially designed the 190A as a "noob" plane, for the average or poorly trained pilots who would come if war should last!

So, the 190 should not be taken as an example of a plane hard to master! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the other hand, the FW190 has a historically very nasty snap stall and high wing loading compaired to its contemporaries making it a speed plane and not a turn fighter as well as having a high landing speed. I wouldn't call those things necessarily for easy learning.

On the other hand the FW190 had wide track landing gear, automated engine controls, a generally reliable engine, and good controls. So in terms of things not necessarily modelable or less modelable through computer simulation the FW190 was quite easy.

But if you want to take the FW190 to the edge...I'll bet that a real pilot would need to be extremely skilled to get the most out of the plane in a combat situation. So I'd say its still going to be a tougher plane to fly than the Wildcat...except for carrier landings.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
11-08-2004, 10:58 AM
Someone posted the following link in the german PF-Forum: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html

I found it quite interesting, to read an opinion about PFs flight models, that doesn't come from a hardcore member of IL-2 community. So we can't say:"Bah, he just wants to see his favorit planes to be improved in relative performance!!".
And their opinion about the FMs in PF is not very good!

Greetings from Germany
EJGr.Ost_Chamel

Tvrdi
11-08-2004, 11:31 AM
I raped my Wildcat with wild stick moves and i never got him stalled..never...I tried at all speeds and no success...even tried constant and hard turns in one direction and no stall hehehehehe

faustnik
11-08-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Harder is not necessarily better or more realistic. This is to the implication that the newest FMs were "dumbed down". The term arcade sure gets thrown around a lot in here and it really has no place in any 1C sim IMO. Have you tried the P-39 lately? That sucker will flatspin on you in a heartbeat if you arent crefull. You can almost feel/see the plane being pulled around by that engine behind the pilot in a spin with the way the FM is now. I think for the most part these FMs are the best yet overall.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bearcat,

Honestly, I don't know where you are coming from here. The P-400 and P-39D are very easy to fly and dificult to spin with any normal maneuver. They also exhibit non of their historical power limitations that made then very unpopular in the Pacific.

Go back to IL-2 1.0 and fly the Cobra. I just did over the weekend and it's great! The Cobra FM in IL-2 1.0 is right out of the history books.

Fliger747
11-08-2004, 11:42 AM
Well.........

I sure got the Wildcat to snaproll and spin out of an accelerated stall! It wasn't all that easy to recover from the spin either!

Seems to have fairly reaslistic handling. The slower approach speeds are quite helpfull on the escort carriers. Good flying charcteristics, particularly low speed handling were important. Grumman did well with their whole family of WWII carrier aircraft in this respect. It was just these properties that made the F4F a more usefull carrier plane than the vaunted (in the air) Seafire.

I haven't had the privilidge of flying a real Wildcat, but do have some 30 years flying everything from taildraggers to jets.

Stiglr
11-08-2004, 12:14 PM
First off, "more difficult" doesn't necessarily make it more accurate. But in this case, it is fairly obvious that Maddox has dumbed down the FMs over the last few versions.

It also seems like the entire FM is really suspect, when, if you simply create a fairly accurate physics model, you wouldn't have to do things like adjust stall models to "enable" carrier landings, and then have planes that can turn and loop at low speeds with no ill effects: simply, if your model is good, it should work fairly well at all alts with minor adjustments, shouldn't it?

mort, I could counter your "what WWII planes did YOU fly?" challenge by deflecting that to Oleg's designers. Hmmm, they haven't flown any either. Well, that puts almost all of us on equal footing, doesn't it? The flight tests and numbers still exist, though, and you do a comparison and find that IL-2 planes often miss the mark, and the more so the further the version gets away from IL-2 1.0.

tsisqua
11-08-2004, 12:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If the Wildcat handled at low speeds (as pre-PF models) the way our earlier models handle, you wouldn't be able to get them to nail a carrier landing. Remember, before FB a 3-point landing wasn't possible (Oleg said so, not me). Actually, IIRC, It was still that way in FB, and was first possible with one of the patches.


Tsisqua

Tdavart
11-08-2004, 12:49 PM
I was a little surprised at the seemingly tame stalling characterstics also, that is until I got into an accelerated stall as Fliger did. And I didn't recover.

mortoma
11-08-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
"the guy flies mostly or nearly exclusively FW-190s and he expects all aircraft therefore to have the same nasty handling limitations of the 190!!!"


Once again, Kurt Tank especially designed the 190A as a "noob" plane, for the average or poorly trained pilots who would come if war should last!

So, the 190 should not be taken as an example of a plane hard to master! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That may be true of the real life FW but not the games FW. It's harder to master and harder to turn than most other planes in the game. Still, it's not all that hard, just harder than most in the sim. The Jug is easier to fight in then most the FWs!!

RedDeth
11-08-2004, 01:03 PM
WILDCAT handling will be wildly different for each gamer depending on how they set up their joysticks. if you have default settings the wildcat is mild mannered to the extremes of your joystick.


but tighten up your pitch and roll in the game controls to your joystick and the wildcat can get into trouble if you jerk your stick around fully.

wake up kids its all about your settings in game. you guys could have opposite posts about the same plane with opposite stick set ups........

p.s. there are plenty of fighters that can loop and roll at slow stally speeds. ive flown in one and trust me when i did my loops and barrel rolls they were VERY SLOW. 1500 horsepower can pull a plane through some really slow stuff guys. !

mortoma
11-08-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
First off, "more difficult" doesn't necessarily make it more accurate. But in this case, it is fairly obvious that Maddox has dumbed down the FMs over the last few versions.

It also seems like the entire FM is really suspect, when, if you simply create a fairly accurate physics model, you wouldn't have to do things like adjust stall models to "enable" carrier landings, and then have planes that can turn and loop at low speeds with no ill effects: simply, if your model is good, it should work fairly well at all alts with minor adjustments, shouldn't it?

mort, I could counter your "what WWII planes did YOU fly?" challenge by deflecting that to Oleg's designers. Hmmm, they haven't flown any either. Well, that puts almost all of us on equal footing, doesn't it? The flight tests and numbers still exist, though, and you do a comparison and find that IL-2 planes often miss the mark, and the more so the further the version gets away from IL-2 1.0. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here we go with the "IL2 ver. #1.0 was the most accurate" again!! You call FMs where some planes could barely take off accurate?? The original FMs in IL2 were extremely suspect, especially as far as some particular aircraft. I dare you to load up the original unpatched game and try to take off in the P-39!! After you leave the ground, nose up any more than 5 degrees and you're a goner!! I know that the P-39 was under-powered but it wasn't that under-powered.
Would have never been released for production if it flew like that. Also try the Mig-3 of various shades.

faustnik
11-08-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Here we go with the "IL2 ver. #1.0 was the most accurate" again!! You call FMs where some planes could barely take off accurate?? The original FMs in IL2 were extremely suspect, especially as far as
some particular aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What aircraft are those Mortoma? I've been flying IL-2 1.0 a lot lately. All the FMs seem great and I have had no issue taking off in any of the a/c.

Sakai9745
11-08-2004, 01:14 PM
Can't remember where I read this, but I swear it's been stated that the Wildcat was generally speaking a very easy and forgiving aircraft to fly. I'll try to find out the answer to this specific question when I head to Chino's Planes of Fame Museum this Thurs - they have a airworthy example there.

raaaid
11-08-2004, 01:23 PM
you pull the stick fully and doesnt stall so you want to pull it more but you cant, it happens the same with the la ,late yaks and all biplanes

for me it really sucks and never fly this kind of planes just as most people who dont like to fly biplanes, why? becaus with the joystick fully pulled is an arcade you could even play it with your keyboard,some times with the la I play it with the key board

faustnik
11-08-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sakai9745:
Can't remember where I read this, but I swear it's been stated that the Wildcat was generally speaking a very easy and forgiving aircraft to fly. I'll try to find out the answer to this specific question when I head to Chino's Planes of Fame Museum this Thurs - they have a airworthy example there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Wildcat was known for excellent low speed handling. Combined with its well designed suspension, it was very easy to take off and land on carriers.

From AHT:

The Wildcat, whether in early or later versions, had stall characteristics described variously as "Completely Innocuous", "Good" and "Fairly gentle"

Also from AHT:

The F4F-4 performance was noted as very inferior to the best Japanese fighters as performance was not satisfactory...

..factors cited agaisnt the F4F-3 and F4F-3A were lower climb rates and poorer maneuverability.

Many pilots felt the F4F-4 was completely outclassed by the Japanese Zero.

So, the Wildcat's low speed handling characteristics were not an issue, its poor climb rate and the Zero's superior turn ability made life difficult for the Wildcat pilots.

Gunner_361st
11-08-2004, 01:36 PM
It sounds more like "If it doesn't stall like a FW-190, it must have a noobed flight model."

If thats the case, then most of the fighters in FB/AEP/PF are too easy to fly as well.

Considering how much experience the average UBI poster has with real WWII aircraft and how they handled. Don't let all of Oleg and Crew's professional and thorough research get in the way of your impressions.

Oh, and if you really want to stall, why not use a lot of rudder when you start manhandling the Elevator controls. I can stall the Wildcat just fine, if I so choose to.

Motorsound
11-08-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Someone posted the following link in the german PF-Forum: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html

I found it quite interesting, to read an opinion about PFs flight models, that doesn't come from a hardcore member of IL-2 community. So we can't say:"Bah, he just wants to see his favorit planes to be improved in relative performance!!".
And their opinion about the FMs in PF is not very good!

Greetings from Germany
EJGr.Ost_Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This link is a useful contribution to this discussion, if you ask me!
At the end it is equal, what we think of "game"-papers, or how we like to rate them.
There is one fact in my eyes, to which we have no alternative (I say it without any evaluation!):
The FM of a few PF-aeroplanes (I mean the jap. fighters too!) have some fundamental differences in compare to the FM's of IL2/FB/AEP.

And now with my meaning:
Blackouts, Redouts, Stalling, ..., these features are coming very late in some machines, if you ask me.
And I have doubts that you can explain it only and always with carrier-features, these planes have needed. That's a little bit to easy for me.
Stories of pilots, which fly modern aeroplanes are also not very helpful, because these machines of present time are not the WWII-fighters of the past simply.

@mortoma!
Why so emotional (a hit dog barks always!)?
Everybody in a free land has the right to say his impression! Nothing else @WildeSau has done.
And if you only want to read meanings of experts, the Fora of this game would be dead.
So we all can discuss only about that what we have:
The real data, the reports of the past and the game!

to all:
Is it not possible to discuss about such themes with cool critical distance?
At the end we all want to have the same:
A good Flight-Sim with correct flying-data of the planes.
I at my person could not enjoy a victory with an overmodeled, could no accept a defeat with an undermodeled aeroplane.
I want to have the correct ones simply! Than the fight is okay!

Supr
11-08-2004, 01:49 PM
i like the term challenging. Thats a good way to put it. If thats accurate, or not accurate, I surely cant say, i doubt there are many left that can. But like I said, It only a personal opinion and preference for me that I'd like the fm's to be a bit more "challenging". Sure, maybe not as hard core as the 1.0 models, but more challenging would be better in my book. BTW, i'm with you on the original p39, wow that was a tough bird to fly well, altough, i remebr some did. Of course, re-upping the fm's to something even approacing the original il2 models would upset all the kiddies, and we certianly dont want that, now do we?

joeap
11-09-2004, 07:50 AM
For *ç%& sake why hasn't anyone answered the problem of carrier landings as a possible reason for the stall issue???

Kwiatos
11-09-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
It sounds more like "If it doesn't stall like a FW-190, it must have a noobed flight model."

If thats the case, then most of the fighters in FB/AEP/PF are too easy to fly as well.

Considering how much experience the average UBI poster has with real WWII aircraft and how they handled. Don't let all of Oleg and Crew's professional and thorough research get in the way of your impressions.

Oh, and if you really want to stall, why not use a lot of rudder when you start manhandling the Elevator controls. I can stall the Wildcat just fine, if I so choose to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now even fw-190 dont spin like before. You must be very stubborn to get spin in Fw-190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VF-29_Sandman
11-09-2004, 09:58 AM
if u dont like the game, go to start/programs/ubisoft/fb/uninstall. problem solved. next case http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
For *ç%& sake why hasn't anyone answered the problem of carrier landings as a possible reason for the stall issue??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have but it doesn't seem to be terribly popular. Why listen to what Oleg is telling us about the issue when it's waaaay more fun to go off on a tear about how he is dumbing down the sim and needs to court the hardcore simmer dollars? :>

Yellonet
11-09-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
For *ç%& sake why hasn't anyone answered the problem of carrier landings as a possible reason for the stall issue??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you mean that the carrier planes are easier to fly because they should be easier to land?
That would totally suck! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
The FM should be such that everything (that you should be able to do) is possible without giving some planes a "helping" hand.

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 10:19 AM
Carrier landings for carrier planes were one of the showstopper things that absolutely had to work right for everyone out of the box.

UBI decided not to extend development time to accomodate new features in PF MG were adding at the request of the community.

I have no great experience to tell me whether the flight parameters are now right or wrong or whatever, but I do know enough about having to compromise to get something shipped. The final fine tuning part of the FMs tends to take a while, and ends up extended through multiple [free] patches over months. If it's not right out of the box - especially given their time schedule - I'm not going to have a fit about it.

Something else that tends to happen is that people discount the possibility that people with no AE qualifications or piloting experience might not actually know what the **** they are talking about with regards to FMs too.

BinaryFalcon
11-09-2004, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supr:
i like the term challenging. Thats a good way to put it. If thats accurate, or not accurate, I surely cant say, i doubt there are many left that can. But like I said, It only a personal opinion and preference for me that I'd like the fm's to be a bit more "challenging". Sure, maybe not as hard core as the 1.0 models, but more challenging would be better in my book. BTW, i'm with you on the original p39, wow that was a tough bird to fly well, altough, i remebr some did. Of course, re-upping the fm's to something even approacing the original il2 models would upset all the kiddies, and we certianly dont want that, now do we? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This illustrates the problem quite well, and it's something I see a lot around here.

People with no real understanding or point of reference assume something is incorrect simply because it's "not challenging enough".

To that I say, "So what?" This is supposed to be a sim, not some random game. If it doesn't seem quite challenging enough from the comfort of your desk chair, there's a good chance it's not supposed to be.

Half of it is that on the whole, real aircraft aren't that hard to fly. They may demand a lot of you, and be high workload, but the basic "flying" isn't all that difficult once you've gotten down the basics. If widely used, production aircraft were all as difficult to handle as many seem to believe, they would either be falling out of the sky far more often than they do, or they wouldn't be very widely used. I would go so far as to suggest this is especially true of combat aircraft. While they'll generally be "hotter" and more easily let you get into trouble, they still can't be very difficult to fly. If the crew has to spend more of their effort fighting their aircraft than focusing on their mission, the vehicle in question will be fairly useless for getting the job done.

The other half of it is that it's always going to seem easier in a home sim than it will in the real aircraft, even if it were possible to model the FM with 100% accuracy (which can not be done in real time with current equipment). You don't have to deal with as many systems, and there's not the same kind of pressure to "get it right" as there is in the real world.

You may think you take it seriously, and you might, but it's still not the same as actually having your rear end in the seat of the real thing under actual conditions.

Now throw in that you've got the luxury of surviving and presumably learning from a huge number of screw-ups early in your simming life and things will start to look even easier.

Claims along the lines of, "I only stall/spin and crash once in a while in the Corsair, it's not hard enough!" are fairly ridiculous. In the real world, doing that ONCE would have likely been it for you.

It was known as the "Ensign Eliminator". Anyone who has balled one up even once due to the FM (as the result of damage or not) should consider themselves eliminated.

It was difficult enough that you couldn't handle it in that case, and in real life you probably wouldn't have lived to learn from that and take a second (or third) shot.

I'm not saying IL-2 is perfect, because it can't be, but there's a frame of reference here that very few seem to perceive, let alone understand.

Nige_Reconman
11-09-2004, 11:09 AM
Are the FM's really dumbed down or are we just getting better at them?

Sure there are some obvious errors from time to time, but a general dumbing down? i don't think so. If i've logged 200+hrs on the me-109 in game then you can bet i'll have a bloody good idea of what it can anc cannot do - and you set those mental limits for yourself - you fly a plane to it's advantages, that advantage includes avoiding spins/stalls, doesn't stall as easy then maybe it's because you are very used to that aircraft and you it's ingrained in you to avoid those issues.

It's dead easy to stall the planes in PF. Though i admit energy bleed seems quite forgiving in this version.

The data on USN aircraft showed they had very good stall characteristics, namely due to there need to get at high AoA and low speed while landing.

The other factor is this: with the way il2 is modelled did they reduce stall characteristics to make carrier landings even possible - only Oleg/Ilya can answer that.

GT182
11-09-2004, 11:40 AM
Sorry to say this but, I've flown the Wildcat and it does stall. Not all that easy but at real low speed and a tight turn it does stall and can be h*ell to pull out of the spin too. Just remember to use combatflaps in a tight turn with low speed.

Besides, where do ya think I got vonSpinmeister from? You say it can't be stalled, trust me, I can do it. Could be my stick but I've seen others do it too and they don't have the same stick as I do. Next time it happens I get a screenshot of it as proof.

WildeSau
11-09-2004, 12:06 PM
I think that we can say something about the flight model of the different planes also without having flown these planes in real life. Of course it might be well that the Wildcat was easier to handle (harder to get in a stall or spin) than for example a Fw190 D but it was certainly not as easy as it's a the moment in PF. We just can see that from the fact that many flight models seem to became more arcade from the first release of IL-2 to IL-FB and now to PF.

I can imagine that they were more real in IL-2 than they are now.

Hope some of them - above all the Wildcat and the Corsair - get some changes. Otherwise flying these planes makes no fun since you can yank and bank as you want and nothing happens at all beside that the plane becomes slower.

Let's wait and see what the next patch will contain.

Michael the WildeSau

A.K.Davis
11-09-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildeSau:
I can imagine that they were more real in IL-2 than they are now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that would certainly be imagination.

BinaryFalcon
11-09-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think that we can say something about the flight model of the different planes also without having flown these planes in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course we can, otherwise perhaps only a dozen or so of us could speak about the FMs of these aircraft in any form.

However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with no reference or standing at all to talk about what's right and wrong with respect to aerodynamics or FMs. People whose flight experience and training amounts to little more than some PC sim time and riding in the back of an airliner imagining they could jump in and fly if the flight crew became incapacitated.

For those people to loudly and repeatedly claim that "X is wrong!" and "Y would never happen!" and demand that it be "fixed" to match their often baseless views tends to be... a bit silly.

Yet it's something I see quite often. Not from everyone and not all the time, mind you - but often enough that it makes me wonder why Oleg even bothers coming around.

To sum it all up and quote Stiglr,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "more difficult" doesn't necessarily make it more accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's pretty much it.

I'll be the first to admit that I was at first surprised at how "tame" the Corsair seemed, given its reputation.

But you know what?

It "killed" me within the first hour.

It has done so on several occasions since. Granted, I'm usually pushing it and know better when it does get me, but it still gets me. I've got roughly 20 years of flight sim experience under my belt, and I'm a commercial pilot with a multiengine rating. I've had college courses in aerodynamics, aircraft performance and physics as it relates to flight, to name a few.

And the Corsair or Wildcat can and do still "kill" me. Again, usually only when I do something that I know is probably ill-advised, but they do get me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure there are some obvious errors from time to time, but a general dumbing down? i don't think so. If i've logged 200+hrs on the me-109 in game then you can bet i'll have a bloody good idea of what it can anc cannot do - and you set those mental limits for yourself - you fly a plane to it's advantages, that advantage includes avoiding spins/stalls, doesn't stall as easy then maybe it's because you are very used to that aircraft and you it's ingrained in you to avoid those issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quoted for truth. I was getting at this when I mentioned screwing up and presumably learning from it. After a while, you should just get a good feel for where the limits are, and you won't be very inclined to push past them, even in combat. For all those claiming that "X plane can't be stalled/spun when I pull full deflection on the stick", have you really tried yanking it around, or are you just going as rapidly to full deflection as you know you can without going over the line?

At this point, I can't really even bring myself to do that sort of thing. It's too "trained out" of me. I have to work at it. Chances are most of you do too. Go back to that unstallable plane and really give the stick a good, hard pull to the full aft position. Don't do it smoothly like you're used to. Snap it back there.

See how quickly that plane departs controlled flight. It'll do it. "Be sure."

I'm not saying they're dead on perfect, because the sim itself isn't, and can't be. But I do think they're probably closer than you may think.

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that people without any real world experience shouldn't share their thoughts or comments on the FMs in the sim. I'm only saying that it's rather silly to rigidly insist that something must be wrong simply because it doesn't behave exactly as you expect it to.

Keep an open mind.

Supr
11-09-2004, 01:14 PM
BF, I dont know why you quoted me in your previous post and stated ...
"This illustrates the problem quite well, and it's something I see a lot around here."

I was pretty clear that it was only my personal preference to have more challenging FM's, but i also pointed out previously that I was enjoying the game as is. Like I said, as long as we all play with the same flight models, then they're ok by me.
I also said that I had no idea as to what is "right" or "accurate". So please dont use me as an example of someone illustrating the perceived problem you "see alot around here". I have never claimed to have any knowledge on how these planes should be acurately modeled. Have I?

Yes, I would like to see the fm closer to the original il2 fm's, because thats what i enjoy. Thats the only reason. I dont try to cover up my own desires by saying thats the way its "supposed" to be, or that its inacurate as is, and I've been ripped off because they wont make it right in my mind. I know we see alot of guys like that, but it aint me. I'll play it like they give it to me. And if it doesnt float my boat, i'll give it away, or just stick it my desk with the rest of the games i no longer play. My preferance is my preference. I want it to be challenging, and I want people who dont play much to have a difficult time when using full flight setting. To me, thats why those options are there. Again, that is only my personal opinion and preference. If you disagree, thats fine too. Everyone owns their own game(at least they should) and has a right to their own opinion about it. The only thing that sets me off is when they try to blame someone else for their difficulties.

BinaryFalcon
11-09-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BF, I dont know why you quoted me in your previous post and stated ...
"This illustrates the problem quite well, and it's something I see a lot around here." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mainly because it does, and is. It wasn't my intention to single you out specifically, but overall it covered the kind of posts I'm talking about fairly well. It's not a perfect example, because as you said, you don't know (or necessarily care) if the FMs are correct.

However, you stated that you want them to be more challenging, because you prefer it that way and "I want people who dont play much to have a difficult time when using full flight setting."

As you said, that's your preference and opinion, which is fine. But this is supposed to be a simulation, not a random game. As such, opinions about how aircraft should fly based on personal preferences and not hard data really have no place here, but it's the sole basis I see used for a lot of complaints about FMs.

Again, I'm not specifically singling you out, as you said you'll fly what you get and go elsewhere if you don't like it - but a lot of the people who whine and complain about the FMs don't share your view in that respect while offering similar arguements.

I used your post because it illustrated the general type of arguement very well, even if your ultimate attitude about it doesn't completely fit (although the "Of course, re-upping the fm's to something even approacing the original il2 models would upset all the kiddies, and we certianly dont want that, now do we?" bit does come awfully close).

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2004, 01:54 PM
MORTOMA:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I dare you to load up the original unpatched game and try to take off in the P-39!! After you leave the ground, nose up any more than 5 degrees and you're a goner!! I know that the P-39 was under-powered but it wasn't that under-powered. Would have never been released for production if it flew like that.

Also try the Mig-3 of various shades. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tell more about MiG~3 in original IL~2 which was dangerous in real life. Thanks. Never had the original game.

Bearcat99
11-09-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nige_Reconman:
Are the FM's really dumbed down or are we just getting better at them?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the most sensible statements in this thread.

Maple_Tiger
11-09-2004, 02:33 PM
Some of you may want to check you'r stick settings or even buy a new stick.

I can stall out any flyable plane in this simulation. This includes the Zero. lol

JG51Beolke
11-09-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm going to guess here a little.

I suspect that the carrier based aircraft stall less because they are capable of sustaining a higher AoA. Why? Because they, on landing approach, are going to need a higher AoA to complete the approach to the deck. So I wonder if the Wildcat, Hellcat, and others in some respects are "easy to fly" because they were...that was the whole point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that sounds about right. Those planes appear to have a great deal of Wing Area, making them capable of sustaining lower speeds at a higher AoA, especially with Flaps Down.

I've flown RC Aircraft and always choose aircraft with greater square inches of wing area for that reason. My RC Spitfire would have to come in low and fast. If I bounced the landing, it was goodbye left wing.

Fliger747
11-09-2004, 05:58 PM
My 'day job' is flying airplanes (it's always daytime somewhere). With some 17000 hrs in everything from the Supercub to the 747-400 I can only judge the Flight Models by how they 'act like an airplane'. These are pretty good as far as I can tell.

If the F4F won't shake and stall on you (and roll off to the right), your joystick probably needs calibration.

As pointed out by 'Binary Falcon' earlier, they might seem tame, but 'kill' you every few hours! In real life a plane that only 'killed' you once a month or so would develop a fearsom reputation.

Flight is and should be a fluid, beautiful, musical experience.

The original IL2 models should be no basis for comparison (they were horrible). The best comparisons I can think of are many of the excellent AvHistory 1% planes for CFS2-3.

horseback
11-09-2004, 06:55 PM
I think that one of the problems we have in these forums is that we forget that everything is relative. I remember the brouhaha over the P-40's surprising agility, and how deeply the LW advocates were offended by it until they finally realized that in most accounts they had read about it, the P-40 was described as being less maneuverable than the Zero.

That's like being described as being a less skilled soccer player than David Beckham. There's a lot of room to work in that category.

With the US Navy's WWII fighters, it is even more so. Some people are still obsessing over the Corsair's lack of a vicious stall comparable to the FW 190's high speed stall, not appreciating that the stall problem was encountered on the low and slow carrier approach, where a predictable and gentle stall is highly desireable, if not absolutely necessary.

The original Corsair's low speed stall was abrupt and came almost without warning, until the installation of the spoiler on the starboard wing. Takeoffs and landings are what kill most student pilots, and carrier landings are orders of magnitude more dangerous in a powerful prop fighter than on a long strip of concrete-hence, "ensign eliminator."

The FW 190 wasn't particularly hard to take off and land in, especially compared to the 109. So it was thought of as "easier to fly." Maneuvering at high speeds was a different matter. The 109 was much more precise in horizontal maneuvers, and provided more of a stall warning. However, its reputation for landings and takeoffs was less good, and a lot of crashes and ground loops were experienced by pilot trainees in the type.

Wildcats were flown off the smallest carriers by some of the least experienced pilots ('jeep' carrier Air Groups were not going to get the cream of the crop-they were used for ASW and ground support primarily,and the 'tigers' were rewarded for excelling by assignments to fast carriers and F6Fs and F4Us). They remained among the safest naval fighters per hour of combat of any major participant, and they were easy to fly (and takeoff and land). This in no way prevented them from being effective, because it also made them easy to fight in.

cheers

horseback

Snootles
11-09-2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Are the FM's really dumbed down or are we just getting better at them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! Back before Forgotten Battles was even released I remember a huge rash of forum arguments about how "arcade" the FM's had ostensibly become. When I had a friend over and I showed him how to fly, he couldn't enter a turn without stalling out. So much for "dumbed-down"!

RedDeth
11-09-2004, 07:32 PM
1. tighten up your joystick settings. default is waaay too loose. thatll eliminate the no stall problem.

2. planes are EXTREMELY easy to fly. in a few hours you can teach your grandmother to fly. no im not exaggerating. i was barrel rolling and looping in planes easily by myself. granted a trainer was with me but its easier than driving on a windy mountain road trust me.

3. who here has flown a real wildcat? alright then...shut up.

4. re read points 1 through 3 five more times till it sinks in.

Fliger747
11-09-2004, 07:53 PM
With regards to one of the above points, To a widley experienced real pilot, reading of test pilot notes, comparisons and evluations is quite meaningfull. From such resources one pilot can relate to another just what you might expect in many situations.

Remember that the only way that guys were check out in these was by a DESCRIPTION of what to expect from another pilot who had flown one, and then off solo!

Flying IS (Clintonian emphasis) easy, flying precisely and under dificult conditions is not. Always making good decisions is problematical as well. Running complex aircraft systems can take a LOT of training.

This gave rise to the old saw "Better LUCKY than GOOD, any day".

These sims keep getting better and better. Not perfect, but better!

Fliger747
11-10-2004, 01:37 AM
Further experimental test results: You can torque roll the F4F-3/4 on short final if you get slow enough!

Sakai9745
11-10-2004, 09:29 AM
Perception is also important. Let's face it, we're all afficinados, but we lack the hands-on experience of actually piloting one of these birds (I know of, what... one person in these forums who was actually there.) Everything we go on is based on historical accounts, and it's probably the same situation for the devs. It's probably a matter of feeding the raw data into a program and then testing the results against what was written. If they're really lucky, they have the benefit of evaluation by someone who had that crucial hands-on experience, like Sakai for CFS2. Otherwise, it's largely left to guesswork.

Take the P-39. The devs do their business and crank out a FM for it. Does it have a tendancy to 'tumble and roll and dig a big hole', in our simulation, as went that famous Army Air Corp song?

To me, I so far have almost no complaints. They said the Oscar was one of the most nimble fighters around, and in the game, it mimics this well. If I power dive the Lightning J past the 370 KIAS range, it becomes real problematic of pulling out in time as is well documented. The only aircraft in PF that stands out as not being 'right' is the Tony, which was confirmed by the devs as having an 'off FM'. Other than that, I think Oleg and his guys did fairly well, given the lack of actual stick time.

GT182
11-10-2004, 10:55 AM
Fliger747, you and another pilot I know and fly with, says the same thing. I'm referring to your comments from your Nov. 9th, 04 post. He's a senior flight instuctor in Cleveland.

I think that whoever says they can't stall in PF or FB/AEP should uncheck the "No Spins or Stalls" in the Difficulty Settings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mortoma
11-10-2004, 11:26 AM
I saw two people ( at the same time, very close together ) get into flat spins in the Wildcat F4F-4 just last night on HL. Both were very respected and well known ace caliber pilots. One was able to recover, one was not. So the statement that they are unstallabe/unspinnable is simply ludicrous.

mortoma
11-10-2004, 11:51 AM
I want planes to be as accurate as Oleg can make them, FM-wise. And I think he's done a fairly good job. Most of us smart guys want FM's to be accurate, and if some planes are easy to fly and some aren't, well then good, because that's the way it is in RL.

Some the hardcore people want only "challenging" FMs because of some elitest ego problem they have. They seem to not grasp the fact that there were fighter planes in both the first and second world wars that were actually quite easy to fly. Just as many as there were difficult to fly ones. They think everything should be hard to fly to satisfy their macho egos.

Then there's the noobies who think every plane should be easy to fly. But they can always fly with fewer switches on, so no problem there.

So there's basically three types of people in this thread:

1.) People like me, who want planes to fly as closely as possible to the way they really flew,
whether it's easy or hard. Within the limits of this sim's engine of course.

2.) People who want every aircraft ( even the Wildcat ) to be 'challenging', even it it was/is really easy to fly in RL.

3.) People who think all planes should fly like an arcade game.

Which one are you?? I vote for number one!!!

Supr
11-10-2004, 12:34 PM
ok, so i'm a #2, what can i say, its what i enjoy. Besides, they have options to make it easy, what good do those options do if its already easy on the hardest settings? But, I do admit, i'm starting to go along with "Are the FM's really dumbed down or are we just getting better at them?" line of thinking. Still, challenging is why i play, when it gets too easy, i find something else to pass my time. At least you knwo I'll never cheat at games. what a waste of time that would be. Maybe I'll just get back into golf. Thats way challenging for me. To bad i lost my pitching wedge in the lake last time. I really need to work on anger manmagement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BinaryFalcon
11-10-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To bad i lost my pitching wedge in the lake last time. I really need to work on anger manmagement :Wink:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or just equip all of your clubs with little Mae Wests. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Clostermann77
11-10-2004, 03:22 PM
maybe the fm is weird but for me the wildcat damage is even more each time i get 1 hit from ennemy gunner in my wing i lost cable wtf is that, i dont even see a hole on my wing.

Tater-SW-
11-10-2004, 03:35 PM
Yeah, the f4f and f6f lose aileron control with almost any hit it seems. maybe I need to turn arcade on and see what happens.

tater

flyingbullseye
11-10-2004, 03:53 PM
After talking with an ex-hellcat pilot he said that in general the easist way to recover from a stall in a F6F was to let go of the controls and the plane rights itself. Haven't tried this myself in PF though if anyone else has how did it turn out?

EJGr.Ost_chamel
11-10-2004, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I want planes to be as accurate as Oleg can make them, FM-wise. And I think he's done a fairly good job. Most of us smart guys want FM's to be accurate, and if some planes are easy to fly and some aren't, well then good, because that's the way it is in RL.

Some the hardcore people want only "challenging" FMs because of some elitest ego problem they have. They seem to not grasp the fact that there were fighter planes in both the first and second world wars that were actually quite easy to fly. Just as many as there were difficult to fly ones. They think everything should be hard to fly to satisfy their macho egos.

Then there's the noobies who think every plane should be easy to fly. But they can always fly with fewer switches on, so no problem there.

So there's basically three types of people in this thread:

1.) People like me, who want planes to fly as closely as possible to the way they really flew,
whether it's easy or hard. Within the limits of this sim's engine of course.

2.) People who want every aircraft ( even the Wildcat ) to be 'challenging', even it it was/is really easy to fly in RL.

3.) People who think all planes should fly like an arcade game.

Which one are you?? I vote for number one!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you REALLY believe, that flying a WWII figher was as easy as it is in this game????
Let's remember some facts. Pilots were carefully chosen from many candidates, to meet the requirements for a (hopefully) successful pilot. The chosen few had to go through hundreds of hours of hard training in theory and practice before they could make their first combat flight. Even after this training, all air forces had very high loss rates under their novice pilots, that were not yet battle-hardened.
Now compare this with FB/PF. In our beloved game, anyone with a mediocre hand-eye-coordination can take off in any plane after maybe half an hour of "learnung by doing"(not a bad way to learn, but surely not the most efficient one).
I have never flown any real plane, but for me, all this sounds, like flying a WWII fighter in reality was way more difficult, than what we are doing here. So if you REALLY want "planes to fly as closely as possible to the way they really flew, whether it's easy or hard.", i think you should hope for much much more challenging FMs!

Greetings
EJGr.Ost-Chamel

jazman777
11-10-2004, 04:58 PM
FYI, I've flown a Wildcat. Then my mother called me to dinner and snapped me out of my daydream.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-10-2004, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I want planes to be as accurate as Oleg can make them, FM-wise. And I think he's done a fairly good job. Most of us smart guys want FM's to be accurate, and if some planes are easy to fly and some aren't, well then good, because that's the way it is in RL.

Some the hardcore people want only "challenging" FMs because of some elitest ego problem they have. They seem to not grasp the fact that there were fighter planes in both the first and second world wars that were actually quite easy to fly. Just as many as there were difficult to fly ones. They think everything should be hard to fly to satisfy their macho egos.

Then there's the noobies who think every plane should be easy to fly. But they can always fly with fewer switches on, so no problem there.

So there's basically three types of people in this thread:

1.) People like me, who want planes to fly as closely as possible to the way they really flew,
whether it's easy or hard. Within the limits of this sim's engine of course.

2.) People who want every aircraft ( even the Wildcat ) to be 'challenging', even it it was/is really easy to fly in RL.

3.) People who think all planes should fly like an arcade game.

Which one are you?? I vote for number one!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you REALLY believe, that flying a WWII figher was as easy as it is in this game????
Let's remember some facts. Pilots were carefully chosen from many candidates, to meet the requirements for a (hopefully) successful pilot. The chosen few had to go through hundreds of hours of hard training in theory and practice before they could make their first combat flight. Even after this training, all air forces had very high loss rates under their novice pilots, that were not yet battle-hardened.
Now compare this with FB/PF. In our beloved game, anyone with a mediocre hand-eye-coordination can take off in any plane after maybe half an hour of "learnung by doing"(not a bad way to learn, but surely not the most efficient one).
I have never flown any real plane, but for me, all this sounds, like flying a WWII fighter in reality was way more difficult, than what we are doing here. So if you REALLY want "planes to fly as closely as possible to the way they really flew, whether it's easy or hard.", i think you should hope for much much more challenging FMs!

Greetings
EJGr.Ost-Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frieherr Manfred von Richtofen had about 24 hours of training.

Late war LW pilots had about 10 or so hours of training and were flying 2000+ hp 109s. An airframe with already poor ground characteristics hampered by an excess of power.

You do realize that much of the training is on actual combat maneuvers to make it a reaction, not an analytical process while in combat, emergency procedures (same thing), and heavy emphasis on navigation and meteorology...... right? Because it sounds like you're forgetting about all that.

BinaryFalcon
11-10-2004, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you REALLY believe, that flying a WWII figher was as easy as it is in this game???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overall? Yes, I do.

I've also little doubt that if given access to one today, I could safely operate it with only a few hours of instruction.

Maybe not superlatively well, but I could get by.

As BlitzPig_DDT mentioned, the most time consuming part of training tends to be stuff not directly related to the actual flying of the aircraft. It's emergency procedures, systems operation and things of that nature.

During wartime I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these pilots were going into combat with less than 100 hours of logged flight time. Without knowing the numbers offhand, I wouldn't be surprised if the average was closer to 40-60 hours logged. Back then, it wasn't uncommon to solo a pilot between 5-8 hours total time. That's it. In under 10 hours you can learn all of the basics you need to safely operate an aircraft by yourself. You may not be the greatest at it, but you can take it up, around and bring it back down again without damaging yourself or the plane.

There were even cases of pilots having logged time in type in the single digits when going into combat with new aircraft.

Granted, it was wartime, so things may have been accelerated a bit, but not a whole lot. It's already a reasonably quick process.

They're planes, they're not that hard to fly if you already know how to fly one. Just observe the operating limitations and don't do anything monumentally stupid and you'll probably be okay. In my experience, the toughest thing about flying a faster, more powerful aircraft than you're used to is learning to keep ahead of the aircraft.

That can take a couple of hours to figure out, but once you do, you're pretty much set.

The sim definitely has a few problems here and there, but as Fliger747 pointed out, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can only judge the Flight Models by how they 'act like an airplane'. These are pretty good as far as I can tell.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all the PC sims I've tried over the last 20 years, IL-2/FB/PF feels more like actually flying a real plane than any others I've seen so far. It captures the overall experience extremely well. The planes generally react as I would expect them to, view shifts slightly with G loads as I'm used to. The sounds of the wind over the airframe is also very well done. It all comes together into something that just feels very true.

Again, it's not 100% dead on, but it's closer than anything else I've tried so far.

If you really want a sim challenge, go buy some time in a Frasca 141. Handles nothing at all like a real aircraft, but its loggable, and definitely offers a challenge. It proves quite well that harder does not necessarily mean more realistic. Actually most FAA approved simulators are like that. They're often much more difficult to handle than the real things, because it's about the only way they can accurately simulate the workload and stress that you experience when operating the real thing out in the real world.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the usual FM tweak here or there that we often see in a new patch. But overall, I'd say most of the aircraft are acceptably close to being right.

EDIT:

Just to add to the response to the first quote:

In some respects, these same planes would be, or at least seem, easier for a modern pilot to fly than their counterpart of 60 years ago. The reason for that is because these days we understand aerodynamics, aeronautics and weather a lot better than we did back then. Training will be more in depth, and there's going to be a much stronger emphasis on safety, how to avoid doing bad things, and what to do to recover should you screw up and do bad things anyway.

Many of these resources were simply not available to the pilots of 60 years ago because no one knew about them. Most pilots today know about compressibility, or if they don't could quickly look it up and learn all they'll ever need to know. 60 years ago, it was still largely unknown. They knew of it, but not a whole lot more. They couldn't just go look it up to learn more about it either. Transsonic flight was still mostly a mystery outside of a few sketchy reports from some pilots who got a little too close to the limits and were lucky enough to survive.

In aviation, what you don't know can kill you, and do so very quickly. Today's pilots, and by extension, today's sim pilots, have an additional 60 years of aeronautical knowledge to draw on when attempting to fly these aircraft.

Things that may have been "The Way To Do Things" (tm) back then we've since scientifically proven to be a "Bad Idea" (tm). As a result, aircraft that may have had a reputation as a killer back in the day would only be considered quirky at worst today, and only liable to get the untrained or ham fisted into trouble.

Today we have better training and a much better understanding of the forces at work in flight. That goes a long way toward making these old aircraft seem more tame than they did half a century ago.

BfHeFwMe
11-10-2004, 08:44 PM
This is funny, first it's whine and cry till artificial stick limiters are thrown in the game, no pilot can pull beyond X pounds. Now lets cry because we can't stall with our shiney new training wheels bolted on.

Either way he can't win. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I find it humerous people always refer back to original IL-2 for comparison. It's apples and oranges, they had full access to the entire stick curve, 100% deflection possible across the board, we don't, only a true linear pull when set to 100%. We have stick force limiters stuck in our version, they didn't, at least to the degree we have. No blippin wonder they can stall and we can't.

Funny thing is the guys from 1C probably are LTAO when the see this and know it's nearly the exact same flight model for the most part.

Ignorance is bliss.

RedDeth
11-11-2004, 01:05 AM
you guys should go fly in T-6 Texans. world war 2 trainer aircraft. p.s. the pilots of these planes state they are harder to fly than a P-51. I dont know the validity of this as ive never been in a P51.

BUT i will say this. a Texan is LIGHT YEARS easier to fly than the game forgotten battles.

yep a real fighter plane is much easier to fly than FB. and acrobatics are a snap for even someone with ZERO flight time. now try taking off and landing first time in FB. you end up crashing.

x__CRASH__x
11-11-2004, 01:26 AM
Aerobatics aren't that hard for someone with FB experience I would bet. But landing ANYTHING in real life is the hardest part of flying. In this sim, in any sim, or in any real life plane. It's the landing that will ruin your day faster than any other task.

CHDT
11-11-2004, 02:39 AM
I've seen some time very experienced fighter jet pilots transitioning to Porter or C-3605 making funky starts because of the torque!

So, I don't think flying a WWII fighter can be so easy.

RocketDog
11-11-2004, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you REALLY believe, that flying a WWII figher was as easy as it is in this game???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overall? Yes, I do.

I've also little doubt that if given access to one today, I could safely operate it with only a few hours of instruction.

Maybe not superlatively well, but I could get by.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post BinaryF. I almost wish this could be stickied somewhere because it's such a perfect response to the "harder = more realistic" brigade.

Thanks,

RocketDog.

RocketDog
11-11-2004, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
yep a real fighter plane is much easier to fly than FB. and acrobatics are a snap for even someone with ZERO flight time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I've only ever had my hands on an aircraft's controls once, when the RAF kindly took me for a flight in a Bulldog. I was able to loop the aircraft and do a (really poor) stall turn with a total stick time of 15 minutes. I found my Suzuki GSX1100EF a lot more frightening.

Regards,

RocketDog.

MrMig
11-11-2004, 03:04 AM
About difficulty

At the moment I'm reading the memoirs of the russian pilot who had flown I-16, Yaks and P-39.
In one of the chapters he describes his first take off experience whith the Yak:

When he took off, Yak rocketed upwards and outright achieved more than 500 metres altitude. That guy had to push the stick at full strech to prevent stall because of lose of speed. He remebers that at that moment he feared he won't be able to master Yak ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Then he landed, instructor told him to set the trim to neutral. But appeared that he had no idea what the trim is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif No one told him about the trim and what it is used for!

My point is - we hardly can compare wartime pilots which where rushed to the front and had to fight having much less experience than todays average sim player has... At least experience in flight theory...

Just wanted to share ... And sorry for my poor english

EJGr.Ost_chamel
11-11-2004, 04:11 AM
To all guys, who think that I forgot half the story, or that I am simplifying this subject: Of course I do simplify it - do you expect me to be the only one here, that tells the whole story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .
Anyway , I will never join the horde of the "IL-2 flight characteristics are much too difficult whiners", cause I simply don't believe they are too difficult.
I would like to see you guys alone in an aircraft (no matter from what era) knowing that you have to land this craft on your own, without the possibility to hit the restart button http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . If I was in such a situation, I would definitely start looking for a parachute!

BinaryFalcon
11-11-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would like to see you guys alone in an aircraft (no matter from what era) knowing that you have to land this craft on your own, without the possibility to hit the restart button Smile . If I was in such a situation, I would definitely start looking for a parachute! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, I strongly suspect that a large number of the people who have spent time with a PC sim could manage at least a "good" landing in that situation. *

"Good" being defined as "any landing you can walk away from". Not to be confused with a "great landing", which is one after which you can use the plane again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are a few tricks to it of course, but I truly believe that given enough runway, anyone with the ability to follow directions and who is given the right numbers can safely land a plane. It's really not that difficult. I was initially trained under a rather conservative program, and the first time I was in the aircraft I took off myself, and I made my first landing on the second or third flight, IIRC.

The physical act of flying a plane is easy enough that just about anyone who can fog a mirror can learn and do it. What takes work is becoming a pilot - learning good airmanship. Developing the right knowledge and mindset and gaining a good "flying sense".

That's where people who could otherwise fly get washed out. While they're capable of learning and doing the physical act of flying a plane, they're just not mentally wired for the task.

In any case, I think I've probably covered about all on this that I can.

* - I'm not saying that you can learn to fly just from a sim, but having had the experience certainly helps, as you'll have a better idea of what to expect, at least in theory.

Motorsound
11-11-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
... In under 10 hours you can learn all of the basics you need to safely operate an aircraft by yourself. You may not be the greatest at it, but you can take it up, around and bring it back down again without damaging yourself or the plane. ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

@BinaryFalcon

You all forget the most important thing:
the difference between Theorie and Praxis and the HUMAN. I mean the ... ... nervs and the anxiety!
I want to see you all in an aeroplane on an airport -alone!- with less than 10hours and now you have to start or -sorry, start is too easy!- to land.
I want to see your sweat, the shake of your hands and in your voice! Oh dear, like little girls and not like fighting pilots! Haha!

If it is so easy, than we all would be great pilots only because of PC-flying and only the money would be the border.

My meaning:
Please weak up!

BinaryFalcon
11-11-2004, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You all forget the most important thing:
the difference between Theorie and Praxis and the HUMAN. I mean the ... ... nervs and the anxiety!
I want to see you all in an aeroplane on an airport -alone!- with less than 10hours and now you have to start or -sorry, start is too easy!- to land. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How am I forgetting anything?

There's no "theory" about what I posted and what you quoted. It was actual practice. I know people who soloed for the first time with 6-8 hours, and this was post war when there was no rush to get pilots trained and out there to fight.

They did it all. Started the plane, taxied out, did a run-up, safely took the runway, went up and around a few times and then landed, taxied back and shut down. All by themselves.

It's shocking, I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Really, it's not that difficult.

The actual learning how takes very, very little time. What takes the bulk of the time is training emergency procedures and practicing what you've already learned so that you get better at it.

Believe me (and the others) or not, but those of us who have actually been there do know what we're talking about. However it seems that some of you will remain unconvinced either way. That's fine, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about how "unrealistic" things are.

EDIT:

Just to be fair, I'll say that the only place I truly see universal, glaring errors in the FMs is with respect to multis and single engine operations. At least in AEP, a Lightning with an engine physically torn from the aircraft is only marginally harder to operate than one in perfect condition.

Granted, I've never flown a P38 with one engine ripped off, but my training and experience tell me that it would be no walk in the park to keep under control, if it were even possible to do so. What I would expect is a rather high Vmc, a hell of a time maintaining good directional control due to rudder size and engine power, and a loss of up to 80% of the aircraft's performance. As it is now, any multi in the game with an engine(s) out is far tamer than a Piper Seminole, and the Seminole is about as gentle and forgiving as they come.

Oddly enough, I never really seen anyone complain about this around here, yet stuff that's a lot closer to being correct gets nitpicked to death.

That may have changed a bit in PF from what I've read so far, but as of yet, I haven't had an engine ripped off in flight in PF, so I can't say for sure if it has improved. Even if it has, I suspect it still falls well short of being as harsh as it should be because of limitations in the sim's code.

I know it's not right, and isn't likely to ever be close to right in this case, but it doesn't bother me because I know it's likely beyond IL-2's capabilities to correctly model. I can live with that, because in the grand scheme of things, it's a rather minor point.

Hendley
11-11-2004, 12:57 PM
Binary - just want to say thanks for the great posts; speaking as someone who will likely never be a real-life pilot, it's interesting to hear from folk who fly on the PC AND in RL.

This is just an idle thought, but it seems to me that many folk who want FMs etc to be harder are _gamers_ more than _simmers_; they are more into the mano a mano dogfight challenge, who shot down who, how many kills per mission etc, rather than the re-creation of WW2 aerial battle atmosphere.

I like the latter myself, but it is the beauty of this sim that all kinds of players can enjoy playing it in whatever way they prefer.

LANCER25
11-11-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
My 'day job' is flying airplanes (it's always daytime somewhere). With some 17000 hrs in everything from the Supercub to the 747-400 I can only judge the Flight Models by how they 'act like an airplane'. These are pretty good as far as I can tell.

If the F4F won't shake and stall on you (and roll off to the right), your joystick probably needs calibration.

As pointed out by 'Binary Falcon' earlier, they might seem tame, but 'kill' you every few hours! In real life a plane that only 'killed' you once a month or so would develop a fearsom reputation.

Flight is and should be a fluid, beautiful, musical experience.

The original IL2 models should be no basis for comparison (they were horrible). The best comparisons I can think of are many of the excellent AvHistory 1% planes for CFS2-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With regards to the original IL2 FM, I agree 100% with that statement. As an airline captain myself and thousands of hours of flying experience it did not seem to fly "fluid." One example being when you banked the aircraft in one direction it would try to return to a wings level attitude. With fighter aircraft this is a definate NO-NO. That is just one example.

With regards to stalling the wildcat I find that it will stall if I push her a little to hard. I was thinking the same thing that someone else has said in that it is most likely a joystick calibration issue. Funny thing is people will still come post that it is impossible to stall the wildcat!

ruxtmp
11-11-2004, 01:15 PM
I have been flying for about 11 years mostly Cessna 152/172s and a homebuilt Berkut. Simulators, does not matter which one you pick off the game store shelf are only a close approximation. I agree that the actual flying is easy but all you sim veterans with zero flight experience should go to your local flying field and try out a introductory ride. Explain to the istructor that you have x years of flight sim experience and that you feel you could takeoff fly a circle and land with little to no help. I think you will all be suprised how much different it really is when compared to a flight sim.

Motorsound
11-11-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:

If the F4F won't shake and stall on you (and roll off to the right), your joystick probably needs calibration.

As pointed out by 'Binary Falcon' earlier, they might seem tame, but 'kill' you every few hours! In real life a plane that only 'killed' you once a month or so would develop a fearsom reputation.

Flight is and should be a fluid, beautiful, musical experience.

The original IL2 models should be no basis for comparison (they were horrible). The best comparisons I can think of are many of the excellent AvHistory 1% planes for CFS2-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes (to all)!
In my eyes the F4F shake and stall too late, but that's a never ending discussion. You are right: Who can't get such flight-behaviour absolutely, should controll his settings or the stick.
And the 1%-planes for cfs2 (cfs3 I haven't got) are in deed very good in my eyes.

Slingn
11-11-2004, 01:39 PM
gee, what€s so wrong with just admitting you like harder flight models? One guy did. Why does it always have to be justified by saying its more real? Like as been said countless times here, who really knows what "100% accurate" really is. Personally, I'm with the other guy, I like them challenging to the point where a noob has a much harder time then a veteran, at least until he gets some experience and learns the ins and out of his plane of choice. Nothing wrong with that, is there? When they, the fm's, get so easy that anyone can be competitive without having to pay their practice time dues, its just not as much fun to me. I spent alot of time learning how to properly fly, and fight in a 190. I would be offended if they suddenly made the 190 fm so easy that anyone could be competitive in it without first learning all its idiosyncrasies. And I wouldn€t have as much fun, or get the same satisfaction out of playing. After all, we do all play for fun, right?

BTW, i think its funny that some of you suggest its all in the joystick. lol, that really makes no sense to me. How can the joystick affect the fm of the plane. It only changes the input values. Yeah, if you reduce it, you have to move it more to get the same effect, but the fm is still the same. So are you saying if we want it harder we should set a joystick so the slightest movement will cause max deflection of the control surfaces? Thats silly.

LANCER25
11-11-2004, 01:54 PM
Slingn
Then what is your explanation? Why can some people stall the wildcat and others can't? What else could it be?

BinaryFalcon
11-11-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slingn:
gee, what€s so wrong with just admitting you like harder flight models? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a thing.

However, claiming they're easier than you'd like and you want them to be harder, and that the real planes couldn't possibly have been so easy to fly - just because you want to be sure a "noob has a much harder time then a veteran" - is not okay.

It has no place in a serious flight sim that is attempting to be true to the real world aircraft.

If you want FMs modeled according to how you feel they should be, rather than based on the actual data from the real planes, you should not be playing a serious sim.

There's nothing wrong with wanting it to be more difficult because you think it's more fun that way, but you shouldn't expect that from a serious sim. It will be as easy or difficult as the real data suggests it should be within the capabilities of the simulation. No more and no less.

Wanting it to be harder and claiming it's inaccurate, even when the data doesn't back you up is the problem.

Not that it ultimately makes much difference, but I'd respect the "make it harder" arguement a lot more if those making it simply said, "I know it's not necessarily accurate, but I'd prefer it if it were more difficult." (And I do thank you for just coming out and saying it).

I still wouldn't agree with them in this case, but I'd at least respect the POV a lot more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is just an idle thought, but it seems to me that many folk who want FMs etc to be harder are _gamers_ more than _simmers_; they are more into the mano a mano dogfight challenge, who shot down who, how many kills per mission etc, rather than the re-creation of WW2 aerial battle atmosphere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that sums it up pretty well, at least as far as I can figure it out.

Slingn
11-11-2004, 02:07 PM
well, it may be a fairly serious sim, but it is still a game we play online and that meanS some playability aspects need to be considered too. But your right, i agree its not right for people to scream about harder makes it more accurate, and just to be clear, i didnt say that at all. Like you said, I just want it harder because its more fun for me, because i've practiced more then some of the new guys. Is is greedy or wrong for me to want that advantage? Which i think is the samething that other guy was trying to say up the thread a few posts

As far as the joystick goes and why somep eople stall and other dont, I cant really say. I can stall the wildcat, but have to really try. maybe its just that i'm fairly well experienced with the game, and its hard for me to push it beyond its envelope. My brain just wont let my hand push that hard unless i really force it too. Goes back to that are they really easier or are we just better at them line of thought. I'm sure joysticks do react differently, but your input should be different too. If a stick is very sensitive, obviously less input is needed. Maybe some people just have hams for hands? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slingn
11-11-2004, 02:12 PM
whoops, double posted that one, sorry

BinaryFalcon
11-11-2004, 02:17 PM
Well, you could always just take a "lesser" plane up if you really want a challenge.

Personally, I think it's great fun to mix it up with La5s and 7s and 190s and the like while flying a P11 or other horribly outclassed plane.

I may not manage a kill ratio as good as I would in a better plane, but I'm doing it for the fun and challenge, and I can still usually manage slightly better than 1:1.

All things being equal, and even often when they're not, the better pilot is going to come out on top unless they're ridiculously outclassed in equipment.

I even bluffed a Zero into the ground in a P40 at one point, because despite being out of ammo, I was a more experienced pilot. He got low while trying to run, and I flew up his back, got directly above him and then shoved forward on the stick briefly when we were only about 100' AGL. The Zero pilot panicked, tried to dive and bank hard to avoid me and went right into the ground.

If he'd only blipped his cannons I'd have been toast, but I figured I could startle him into screwing up like that, and he did. The aircraft didn't have much to do with it, it was all pilot experience (well that and luck).

Slingn
11-11-2004, 02:21 PM
ha, that p11 is uber, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

lol, jk, but i've always been a 190 guy.

BTW, I agree with that post too. I do consider myself more of a gamer than a simmer. Once upon a time i enjoyed flying accross country, just to fly, but i just dont have that time anymore. I do still enjoy the single player game, but i spend more time online now. I do prefer coops much more than the mindless airquake df games though. The more serious full real( or as close as the come) df games are fun however.

The score means very little to me, they're not paying for points, so why should anyone really care., I really hate the guys that run from a battle after they get one kill, just to claim their points. I stick around to help my teammates till i'm out of ammo or fuel. Little good it does though. hardly anyone ever even says thank you anymore. Reguardless of what you think about the original fms. I think the game was better back then, if only for the crowd it attracted. People seeemed to be much more respectful and mature in the "good ol days"

DIRTY-MAC
11-11-2004, 02:38 PM
you who
wants more challenge
should change plane to something else and put
its heaviest bombload on to it, and just fly it like that keeping the bombs on at all time
and maybe go online
THAT should be more of a challenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Supr
11-11-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
I suggest you who
"Its not enough challeging for me"
should change plane to something else and put
its heaviest bombload on to it, and just fly it like that keeping the bombs on at all time
and maybe go online
THAT should be more of a challenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you kind of missed the point.

Nige_Reconman
11-11-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruxtmp:
I have been flying for about 11 years mostly Cessna 152/172s and a homebuilt Berkut. Simulators, does not matter which one you pick off the game store shelf are only a close approximation. I agree that the actual flying is easy but all you sim veterans with zero flight experience should go to your local flying field and try out a introductory ride. Explain to the istructor that you have x years of flight sim experience and that you feel you could takeoff fly a circle and land with little to no help. I think you will all be suprised how much different it really is when compared to a flight sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm we would but our arms are weedy and our eyes shot from years of sitting infront of flight sims on poor quality monitors, trying to determine if the tiny dot in the distance is
A) A flight of marauding zero's
B) A driver problem
C) A game engine error
d) A dead pixel.


Yes flying in real life is quite differenyt from a flight sim. ie i don't mind crashing a digital airplane.

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

lbuchele
11-11-2004, 06:01 PM
Please,everyone, take a look at this post, at SimHQ foruns.It´s from a real pilot with real flight experience on WWII fighters,Colonel Damir P.Fillen:
www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=001292 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=001292)

RocketDog
11-12-2004, 01:11 AM
Yep - an interesting read. From that thread here is a quote about the Corsair FM in Pacific Fighters from a man who has flown Corsairs:

"The Corsair FM is very good in PF. Not that 100% perfect, but almost there. Until now I can say it is one of the best FM in the game."

Didn't mention the word "arcade" once http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards,

RocketDog.

clint-ruin
11-12-2004, 01:14 AM
Corey Jordans account of the F4U-4 here: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html has a lot of kind words about the F4U-1s handling as well. Worth a read. With even more torque and wash than the F4U-1 the handling is noted as much more predictable than the P-51, with a 30mph slower stall speed.

Even Oleg was impressed by it and you know how he's felt about other "won the war" US planes :>

ElAurens
11-12-2004, 05:43 AM
Last night on Slammin's server I shot down a YP-80 with a D3A Val, at altitude. Does that mean the Val is overmodeled or it's flight model is incorrect? Or that the YP-80 is undermodeled or has a bad FM? NO.

It means it's pilot made a series of incorrect assumptions, and actions that lead to his demise.
The same is true with the bickering about FMs in this thread. Incorrect assumptions and poor knowledge of the aircraft involved.

Just look at the difference in wing loadings between the US and IJN Naval types vs. the Luftwaffe day fighters. Your answer lies there.

And in your joystick settings.

Thanks for the insightful posts BinaryFalcon.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2004, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Binary - just want to say thanks for the great posts; speaking as someone who will likely never be a real-life pilot, it's interesting to hear from folk who fly on the PC AND in RL.

This is just an idle thought, but it seems to me that many folk who want FMs etc to be harder are _gamers_ more than _simmers_; they are more into the mano a mano dogfight challenge, who shot down who, how many kills per mission etc, rather than the re-creation of WW2 aerial battle atmosphere.

I like the latter myself, but it is the beauty of this sim that all kinds of players can enjoy playing it in whatever way they prefer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah, gotta agree....
realistic is more real
and it is very much about those you fly with. Fly to enjoy not fly to feed an rpg addiction

Supr
11-12-2004, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
yeah, gotta agree....
realistic is more real
B <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now theres something I think we can all agree on (ok, most of us anyway)

"realistic is more real" .

No arguement from me on that statement, but I bet we can find someone around here to disagree

killer2359
11-13-2004, 05:28 AM
I've done a grand total of 3 hours real flight training in a Cessna 172 (that's 3 one hour lessons) - all about 10 years ago. I took off, learned "visual level flight reference" concept and then landed PERFECTLY on that first lesson. Reason for this was years of FS background - ie. the landing was a piece of cake. The instructor was a little annoyed as I was supposed to do the old "float it as far as possible before landing" thing, but armed with the vital info - ie. final approach power setting and desired speed and landing and stall speeds I ignored him (yes, actually a very bad attitude to take I now realise with a little age and maturity) and landed a perfect 3 pointer on the piano keys with a tiny chirp of the stall warning immediately before touchdown. This also annoyed 3 aircraft in the circuit because I then had to taxi the 172 all the way to the exit taxiway - right at the other end of the runway - which seemed to take forever.

That instructor noted that the biggest thing about my behaviour in the context of my FS background was how much trouble I had with comming to grips with flying on outside (horizon) reference and how much I used the instruments - he was putting his hand over the Artificial Horizon during turns to make me look outside.

To me the actual landing "felt" and looked identical to landing an F15 in Strike Eagle III.

My point is that FS flying isn't as remote from the real thing as you'd think - comments about flying not necessarily having to be hard and real training mainly being about procedures and navigation etc. are spot on (and of course combat pilots also have to learn to be tactical).

In my experience the PF Wildcat stalls pretty much as you'd expect - it's much more docile at low speed than high speed, and stalls involving rapid AoA changes are nastier than more gradual ones (I get the impression the Wildcat's center of lift is maybe not quite in a conventional position?). The PF Wildcat doesn't seem to be able to outdive the Zero - but I'm not sure which FM is at fault.

Osirisx9
11-13-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
I've done a grand total of 3 hours real flight training in a Cessna 172 (that's 3 one hour lessons) - all about 10 years ago. I took off, learned "visual level flight reference" concept and then landed PERFECTLY on that first lesson. Reason for this was years of FS background - ie. the landing was a piece of cake. The instructor was a little annoyed as I was supposed to do the old "float it as far as possible before landing" thing, but armed with the vital info - ie. final approach power setting and desired speed and landing and stall speeds I ignored him (yes, actually a very bad attitude to take I now realise with a little age and maturity) and landed a perfect 3 pointer on the piano keys with a tiny chirp of the stall warning immediately before touchdown. This also annoyed 3 aircraft in the circuit because I then had to taxi the 172 all the way to the exit taxiway - right at the other end of the runway - which seemed to take forever.

That instructor noted that the biggest thing about my behaviour in the context of my FS background was how much trouble I had with comming to grips with flying on outside (horizon) reference and how much I used the instruments - he was putting his hand over the Artificial Horizon during turns to make me look outside.

To me the actual landing "felt" and looked identical to landing an F15 in Strike Eagle III.

My point is that FS flying isn't as remote from the real thing as you'd think - comments about flying not necessarily having to be hard and real training mainly being about procedures and navigation etc. are spot on (and of course combat pilots also have to learn to be tactical).

In my experience the PF Wildcat stalls pretty much as you'd expect - it's much more docile at low speed than high speed, and stalls involving rapid AoA changes are nastier than more gradual ones (I get the impression the Wildcat's center of lift is maybe not quite in a conventional position?). The PF Wildcat doesn't seem to be able to outdive the Zero - but I'm not sure which FM is at fault. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mentioned that you did a three point landing in a 172.That is not a perfect landing in a 172. I think you meant to say that you landed on the mains while the stall warning was chirping. If you did a so called three pointer in a nosewheel equiped aircraft you run the risk of breaking the nosewheel off and a nose over. 172s also are none to happily bunny hop down the runway under the senerio you discribed. This is a good recipy for an accident.
However back to the wildcat...I love the aircraft. I rather fly it than the other quick kill aircraft. When you get a kill in a wildcat you really earned it.

RAF238thOsiris

killer2359
11-13-2004, 08:26 AM
Quite right - in fact the aircraft "landed" on the mains (the flare makes that happen - at the correct speeds it'd be hard to actually land nose first I think) - immediately followed by the nose "touching" - followed by gradual setting of weigh forward as speed washed off and I relaxed the elevator - it was much easier to call this a "3 point" to describe my perfect landing - and yes I'm proud of it. The instructor did caution about wheelbarrowing - so I pointed out that the nose did actually touch after the mains - albeit immediately after - and that this was intentional and completely controlled (as it was - ie. it touched with little weight and I controlled the subsequent settling on the nose).

The whole story continues to the second landing which was actually not very tidy at all! :-) The instructor chipped me right when I was ready to put it down and got me to hold it off to "float" as far as possible before letting it land - this I didn't cope with very well and bounced it a bit (I applied a tad of power to arrest my sinkrate but without familiarity I used too much and we actually balloned a bit etc. etc.). In the third lesson we got asked to expedite for another plane behind us - which meant landing long to get off quickly or going around - and the instructor elected to take over and do the long landing rather than either go round or let me try and land it well down the runway. BTW my feeling then and now is that we should have gone round - I'm old fashioned in that I reckon take off from the very end of the runway and land at the very end of the runway - having runway and not needing it is better than needing runway and not having it.

I've taken off and landed Twin Otter (climbs like a bloody elevator and shockingly light on the controls) and landed Cessna 402 (controls get surprisingly mushy surprisingly quickly right at the end near landing speed).

Wildcat is also my favorite - has been since 1942:PAW - that's the reason I have such a beef with the trim controls - you work too ****ed hard in the 'Cat to be able to afford blowing opportunities at shots - especially if it's because the controls are buggering about unrealistically.