PDA

View Full Version : OT: Target Tobruk WIP Fw190A5!



nsu
06-16-2006, 04:58 AM
Here WIP of pictures of that Fw190A5/U3

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt002.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt003.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt005.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt011.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt006.JPG
it is WIP!!!!!
http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt010.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt009.JPG


http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/p47_e3.jpg
P47

http://www.kubanskiloewe.de/Bilder/cfs3/spitivcock1.JPG
Spitfire

Target Tobruk Homepage:
http://targettobruk.twsim.net/news/

Danke Wastel für die WIP Fw190er Bilder!

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Manu-6S
06-16-2006, 05:08 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">OH GOD!!! A REAL ANTON!!!!</span>

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

Difference?

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/5977/untitled19by.jpg

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-41.jpg

I.JG53_Steuben
06-16-2006, 05:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
06-16-2006, 05:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Brain32
06-16-2006, 05:57 AM
This is wrong, where is the bar, we know very well Fw190 had the poorest foward visibility of all planes ever made, even some submarines had better view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Jokes aside, the model is beautifull http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Feathered_IV
06-16-2006, 06:18 AM
That pilot looks cool too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Manu-6S
06-16-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
That pilot looks cool too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Yes, maybe he's too big, but his position inside the plane is right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
06-16-2006, 06:41 AM
Sweeeeeeetttttt!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif


And i bet she'll fly like a FW-190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

nsu
06-16-2006, 06:56 AM
http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt-il2.JPG

Target Tobruk Fw190A5 vs IL2 Fw190A5! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

269GA-Veltro
06-16-2006, 08:13 AM
NSU are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for you, i don't care about the FW-190, i can't sleep anymore waiting for the UFO jets addon, Mig-9 first of all....i can't wait for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Bf-109? FW-190? Who care about them...they have not been so important in the WW2 air war, UFO are better....UFO are needed. Who fly 190 and 109 in FB? Nobody, we are all waiting for Mig-9 and LaGG jets....so why are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't worry we'll have superb cockpit for the UFO.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

WOLFMondo
06-16-2006, 08:16 AM
I'd like Targetware more if the landscape and sky didn't look like a ZX spectrum game circa 1986. Some of the planes look nice though and the sensation of flight is good but the overall graphics absolutely kill the immersion for me.

Manu-6S
06-16-2006, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
NSU are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for you, i don't care about the FW-190, i can't sleep anymore waiting for the UFO jets addon, Mig-9 first of all....i can't wait for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Bf-109? FW-190? Who care about them...they have not been so important in the WW2 air war, UFO are better....UFO are needed. Who fly 190 and 109 in FB? Nobody, we are all waiting for Mig-9 and LaGG jets....so why are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't worry we'll have superb cockpit for the UFO.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

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

TheGozr
06-16-2006, 09:07 AM
The 190 model from outside view and the pilot position, Propeller attachement is far better than il2 IMO, Cockpit has a good position but not very good textured.


-- That too
http://targettobruk.twsim.net/gallery/images/bf109_3.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/TR-62-Snapshots/p38jpita.sized.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/TR-62-Snapshots/beau_nav2.sized.jpg

Xiolablu3
06-16-2006, 09:12 AM
Looks nice, especially for a non-pro outfit like TT.

Needs a lot more work tho, esp the landscape.

Problem is that its still trying to keep up with a 5-6 year old game (and I still think IL2/FB looks better) and not quite succeeding.

BUT this wont bother the TW guys as they love their work and would continue doing it for the love.

Nice job, I will try TW soon, nearly tried it a while back but something put me off. Will be sure to try again.

joeap
06-16-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
NSU are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for you, i don't care about the FW-190, i can't sleep anymore waiting for the UFO jets addon, Mig-9 first of all....i can't wait for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Bf-109? FW-190? Who care about them...they have not been so important in the WW2 air war, UFO are better....UFO are needed. Who fly 190 and 109 in FB? Nobody, we are all waiting for Mig-9 and LaGG jets....so why are you kidding? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't worry we'll have superb cockpit for the UFO.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

faustnik
06-16-2006, 09:50 AM
I really like the external texture. I hop as much time as possible is spent refining the cockpit textures, as that's what we look at all the time.

TX-Gunslinger
06-16-2006, 11:07 AM
The external model is outstanding. Great work.

But the very best thing to me in those pics is:

FLIGHT ATTITUDE IS CORRECT! Salute!

When trimmed in Il2, our FW-190 flies with too much nose up attitude. It does'nt take more than a few degrees of up angle from historical to make frontal visibility much more difficult.

If you don't get where I'm coming from, just examine a side shot in-flight of a 190A. They are correctly level trimmed with a few degrees less pitch than our sim.

S~

TheGozr
06-16-2006, 11:51 AM
Yeap Gunny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , this 190 is so appetizing!!!!

--

And i'm sadened that for us to see a 190 like that in Bob or what ever name teh sim will have , we will have to wait not month but maybe years. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif alas yeas

TX-Gunslinger
06-16-2006, 12:10 PM
S~ Gozr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, just to clarify -

I would'nt trade our 190 cockpit for this version. Do you remember the MSFS 2000 FW-190 add-on by the Firepower folks (GMX media)?

Anyway, this cockpit resembles that add-on. Square ish.

Olegs 190 cockpit is much more graphically correct when compared to real FW-190 pictures.

When you consider how long ago it was constructed, it's pretty amazing to me. It's still one of the best looking cockpits and most functional cockpits in the sim.

I think the external is a bit more detailed (of course it's being made now, not four years ago).

More than anything else though, the flight attitude is correct. With the flight attitude correct, I could care less about the "BAR".

Good to see ya Gozr. Hopefully I'll be home tonight and be on line late.

S~

Gunny

Ruy Horta
06-17-2006, 03:14 AM
Grfx vs Sim

Although it is a matter of tatse, I still find that a great combat simulation does not need to have the best graphics.

It is sure nice to have the best graphics, but it is not the main drive in combat simulation.

I must try TW again some day, been a while.

Brings back some memories from CK/WB and AH!

danjama
06-17-2006, 03:17 AM
Another reason to finally try targetware

HellToupee
06-17-2006, 03:36 AM
but graphics do help, when the cogpits a blurry mess with unreadable guages or just plane ugly its hard to get a feel for flying the plane. If it looks real it feels more real.

Ruy Horta
06-17-2006, 04:20 AM
Why does it have to be extremes of grfx differences.

TW doesn't have the same level of cockpit grfx, but they are good enough for the job (far better than lets say 5 years when similar MP sims were already very good at virtual air combat).

No the terrain isn't as good either in terms of eyecandy, but the distance and general topography look somewhat superior for air combat.

When I played WB2 we'd used to have great fights in the mountains and canyons, something I rarely enjoy in the IL2 series.

The map that could have made a difference (N-Africa) is disappointing and not much better than what is being scuffed at here in terms of grfx.

Again grfx are important to enhance a simulation, but they are not th eprime mover.

If TW is able to present a better combat simulation, with its current grfx, I'd call it a success.

If I have to choose between TW as in this example, with superior combat simulation models (flight dynamics, damage models etc), and BoB with better graphics but a weaker simulation, I'd prefer the former.

But even if BoB is nothing more than a glorified IL2/FB it will have succeeded to find a place on my HDD, but TW might just succeed to be that little bit more interesting as a complete package.

This has happened to me in the past, I can look back upon my enjoyment of CK/WB, which were never cutting edge. And when the WB team upped their graphics, I lost interest - they dumbed down their simulation models as well...

Of course we can differ in our tastes and opinions!

Ratsack
06-17-2006, 05:30 AM
There seems to be some sort of assumption that TW flight models are somehow the best. Why is that so?

cheers,
Ratsack

Ruy Horta
06-17-2006, 05:43 AM
That's indeed an assumption, since I didn't anywhere state that it is better.

I am arguing for the principle of grfx vs sim, and imho the latter carries the weight, although graphics is of course important.

TW had a very interesting flight model when I first tried it, during the early beta, but I have no idea where things stand today.

I do know that IL2/FB although good, certainly has room for improvement. Does that mean that other sims are currently better, again I do not know since I haven't tried any of the competing products for some time.

TW as it stands today, with my previous experience does start to look interesting enough to warrant a serious go.

Deedsundone
06-17-2006, 05:48 AM
A little question though,how can you get rid of that red cross (using TIR)?

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 06:33 AM
Website is a bit confusing too. Is there a way to find out ho much it costs withot signing up first?

Looking good though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RevvinUK
06-17-2006, 06:53 AM
I don't think a price has been decided upon though quite a while back I recall a figure of around $10 was mentioned. It's been in BETA for a long long time but still looks good and the terrain will improve when the next version v0.65 is released which hopefully won't be far away. It's free to download and play and you can host your own large scale servers. The main client is only around 5mb and then you just download the mods you want to play which include's Target Rabaul (WWII Pacific), Target Tobruk (WWII Africa), Target Korea (Korean war) and Richthofens Skies (WWI). It's not nearly as polished as IL-2 but worth a download to try it out.

Targetware's official site (http://www.targetware.net/)

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 07:28 AM
Ok, downloading Tobruk now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I sure hope that Storch is available...

Jaws2002
06-17-2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
There seems to be some sort of assumption that TW flight models are somehow the best. Why is that so?

cheers,
Ratsack



Because it's true.
In targetware they have a solid independent physics engine. FM of individual plane is dictated by the parameters of that plane (weight, power. torque, drag, arrangement of wet surfaces) interacting with that good solid physics engine.

In IL-2 the FM was made for Il-2 and then extended to other planes, and added a good amount of "this is how Oleg's grandpa remembers that aircraft", and a lot of whining driven fixes.
The fm here is one big mess for all planes, and in order to get a certain plane to do one thing you have to mess up the entire FM. That's why you have Oleg fixing a bug in one aircraft only to make five bugs appears in some other aircraft.


But i'm sure a lot of this will be dramatically changed in BOB.

nsu
06-17-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Ok, downloading Tobruk now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I sure hope that Storch is available...

Target Tobruk screenshots:

http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_fs156_016.jpg
Storch

http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_do17z_001.jpg
WIP Do17Z
http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_do17z_002.jpg

http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_do17z_003.jpg

Ratsack
06-17-2006, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
That's indeed an assumption, since I didn't anywhere state that it is better.

I am arguing for the principle of grfx vs sim, and imho the latter carries the weight, although graphics is of course important.

TW had a very interesting flight model when I first tried it, during the early beta, but I have no idea where things stand today.

I do know that IL2/FB although good, certainly has room for improvement. Does that mean that other sims are currently better, again I do not know since I haven't tried any of the competing products for some time.

TW as it stands today, with my previous experience does start to look interesting enough to warrant a serious go.

That was directed at the room rather than at you in particular. As Jessica Artiedes sort of said, 'I displayed a general garment, and you claimed it was cut to your fit.'

I'm just interested in why the majority of posts about this TW sim seem to laud the accuracy of its FM. Thanks for your comments on that, too. When you say 'interesting flight model', what do you mean?


cheers,
Ratsack

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 09:23 AM
It kind of looks like CFS2 on steroids dosent it?

Should be finished downloading soon...

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 11:15 AM
Got it installed. Looks like it will take some time to set up the controls nicely though. Love the Storch! I will henceforth insist that we get one for BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
06-17-2006, 11:59 AM
why isn't stigler in this thread...he could help clear things up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

I think i'm gonna give it a try http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

RevvinUK
06-17-2006, 12:58 PM
I take claims on FM accuracy with a pinch of salt. There have been so many different developers who claim to have 'the' flight model and plenty more fans of one or another sim who will claim they got it wrong and how 'sim x,y,z' is better. I still primarily play IL-2 but I also keep an up to date copy of Targetware on my system as it's good to see such a community driven project improve and long may it continue. There can never be enough flight sims IMO.

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 06:03 PM
Its funny how when one fellow was aggressively pushing TW down our collective throats I didn't want to go near it. Along comes a nice fellow like NSU and posts some pictures, this time without calling us noobs and graphics *****s - and I go straight over there to try it out!

JG301_nils
06-17-2006, 06:13 PM
You know, polite presentation is good, and bullying is bad tactics for sale http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif... hooked already?
-nils-

joeap
06-17-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:



Because it's true.
In targetware they have a solid independent physics engine. FM of individual plane is dictated by the parameters of that plane (weight, power. torque, drag, arrangement of wet surfaces) interacting with that good solid physics engine.

In IL-2 the FM was made for Il-2 and then extended to other planes, and added a good amount of "this is how Oleg's grandpa remembers that aircraft", and a lot of whining driven fixes.
The fm here is one big mess for all planes, and in order to get a certain plane to do one thing you have to mess up the entire FM. That's why you have Oleg fixing a bug in one aircraft only to make five bugs appears in some other aircraft.


But i'm sure a lot of this will be dramatically changed in BOB.

Right how do you know? What makes it "solid"? I accept the Il2 was originally made for the well Il2 but have always been skeptical of the "Grandpa recalled it like that" accusations. What kind of testing has been done?

HellToupee
06-17-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Why does it have to be extremes of grfx differences.

TW doesn't have the same level of cockpit grfx, but they are good enough for the job (far better than lets say 5 years when similar MP sims were already very good at virtual air combat).

no 5 years ago we had truely excellent cogpits aka ww2 fighters, target ware not even close to that, even its best cogpits are barely up with the worst of il2.



No the terrain isn't as good either in terms of eyecandy, but the distance and general topography look somewhat superior for air combat.


ww2 planes dont engage in bvr combat, so for aircombat i still perfer the il2 terrian, other aspects like clouds look like something out of cfs1.



When I played WB2 we'd used to have great fights in the mountains and canyons, something I rarely enjoy in the IL2 series.

The map that could have made a difference (N-Africa) is disappointing and not much better than what is being scuffed at here in terms of grfx.


there are many maps with mountains and canyons just go thru all the maps in il2 with the full mission editor.



Again grfx are important to enhance a simulation, but they are not th eprime mover.

If TW is able to present a better combat simulation, with its current grfx, I'd call it a success.


how does it presemt a better combat simulation? visually its behind its dammage model dosnt seem nearly as good many things dont even work gunner positions bombardier, torpedos.



If I have to choose between TW as in this example, with superior combat simulation models (flight dynamics, damage models etc), and BoB with better graphics but a weaker simulation, I'd prefer the former.


bob is not just better graphics tho is it, its far more indepth dammage modeling flightmodeling it will be a stronger simulation.

jermin122
06-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ratsack
06-18-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Why does it have to be extremes of grfx differences.

TW doesn't have the same level of cockpit grfx, but they are good enough for the job (far better than lets say 5 years when similar MP sims were already very good at virtual air combat).

no 5 years ago we had truely excellent cogpits aka ww2 fighters, target ware not even close to that, even its best cogpits are barely up with the worst of il2.



No the terrain isn't as good either in terms of eyecandy, but the distance and general topography look somewhat superior for air combat.


ww2 planes dont engage in bvr combat, so for aircombat i still perfer the il2 terrian, other aspects like clouds look like something out of cfs1.



When I played WB2 we'd used to have great fights in the mountains and canyons, something I rarely enjoy in the IL2 series.

The map that could have made a difference (N-Africa) is disappointing and not much better than what is being scuffed at here in terms of grfx.


there are many maps with mountains and canyons just go thru all the maps in il2 with the full mission editor.



Again grfx are important to enhance a simulation, but they are not th eprime mover.

If TW is able to present a better combat simulation, with its current grfx, I'd call it a success.


how does it presemt a better combat simulation? visually its behind its dammage model dosnt seem nearly as good many things dont even work gunner positions bombardier, torpedos.



If I have to choose between TW as in this example, with superior combat simulation models (flight dynamics, damage models etc), and BoB with better graphics but a weaker simulation, I'd prefer the former.


bob is not just better graphics tho is it, its far more indepth dammage modeling flightmodeling it will be a stronger simulation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It also needs to be said that TW is an online-only game. There are no AI aircraft. You cannot, for instance, set up a flight of bombers in a mission builder and practice your gunnery, your gun convergance, formation flying or whatever. This is a serious limitation.

The other problem with it as an online-only game is that everytime I've gone online to look for a game, there's never been more than about 4 people online. (e.g., I checked just before I wrote this, and at 0530 GMT on Sun 14 Jun 06 there were NO players online. That's Sunday afternoon in the southern part of the English speaking world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif )

Now, the number of people I see online might just be a factor of my timezone, but it nevertheless means that my TW flying experience has so far been less than satisfying. It also means the TW online community is not as large as the FB one. I can jump into Hyperlobby at just about anytime of day or night, and find a fight with flyers from somewhere.

This leads me to wonder: if TW is so good, why is its online community so small? This is especially puzzling when you consider that:

1. the game is still free (open Beta); and
2. the game RELIES on the online community to be playable.

What gives?


cheers,
Ratsack

Ruy Horta
06-18-2006, 01:23 AM
Ratsack,

I've been playing sims since '91

Have you ever played Warbirds 2, Warbirds, Confirmed Kill or Air War?

That's the old MP range. The number of online players have always been small in these niche communities, but the quality of gameplay was often very high.

TW is a relatively new player in that range, building up its game world. My early tests, some years ago, were very impressive in terms of flight simulation. The package is small, the need to download limits the graphics, not the ability. The trick, unlike 1C, is to make a gameworld that runs on a wide range on machines, but while keeping the experience the same for all players. This is a must in MP.

Compared to earlier MMP the graphics looks pretty up to date and IMHO very functional. I think they've achieved a good balance. Remember they are still in an open beta phase.

But I am not going to argue about a matter of taste.

Yes, IL2 looks great and BoB will look better, but it is arguable if it is and will remain the best combat simulation / experience.

Perhaps I am nostalgic, but my best online experience was with WB2, back in '95-97, with events that took up hundred plus players in dedicated historical campaigns.

If BoB manages to equal that, it has really succeeded in my eyes.

joeap
06-18-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Based on what?

HellToupee
06-18-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
That's the old MP range. The number of online players have always been small in these niche communities, but the quality of gameplay was often very high.


ratsacks noting that there is no gameplay because mp only and 4 players in a large map might as well be none. Other sims aces high warbirds were generally mmos with atleast a few hundred playing.



TW is a relatively new player in that range, building up its game world. My early tests, some years ago, were very impressive in terms of flight simulation. The package is small, the need to download limits the graphics, not the ability. The trick, unlike 1C, is to make a gameworld that runs on a wide range on machines, but while keeping the experience the same for all players. This is a must in MP.


The 3rd party developers limits the graphics vs a paid full time dev team. The current game world runs on a range of machines, hell il2 orginal when it came out all those years ago ran great on my vastly inferior machine i have today. The trick IC is employing is to great a gameworld with longitivity so that in other 5 years time bob like il2 will not be old and dated.



Compared to earlier MMP the graphics looks pretty up to date and IMHO very functional. I think they've achieved a good balance. Remember they are still in an open beta phase.

But I am not going to argue about a matter of taste.


jetfighters graphics are functional, but in a simulation having it look close to real life is more ideal.



Yes, IL2 looks great and BoB will look better, but it is arguable if it is and will remain the best combat simulation / experience.

Perhaps I am nostalgic, but my best online experience was with WB2, back in '95-97, with events that took up hundred plus players in dedicated historical campaigns.

If BoB manages to equal that, it has really succeeded in my eyes.

well its arguable but its highly likely it will remain, as target ware hardly is at il2 level, there is no other ww2 air combat simulation comming out. As it is now bob is not a MMo so hundreds of human players is unlikely, same for target ware where it seems 10 is unlikely.

Xiolablu3
06-18-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Based on what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably its based on the Western Allies version of history.

A sim always has a certain bias, depedning on who the developers of the planes/flight model are. I read that the makers of the Targetware FW190 cockpit were going to 'see what they could do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif' about the forward view of the plane. I see they have made the gunsight a bit higher than it should be and you cannot see the bar at all.

Me109 will likely not be as effective in Targetware as it is in Il2, as per the western version of WW2 history.

Each sim has its own 'quirks' and benefits different planes depnding on what they have read,people they have talked too.

When there are just a few people playing, its fine and people get on. As things get more popular, the arguing about flight models will start, just like here. If it gets as many people interested, there will be exactly the same arguments going on over there about 50's strength, Me109 turn, P51/FW190 performance etc.

I_KG100_Prien
06-19-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Based on what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably its based on the Western Allies version of history.

A sim always has a certain bias, depedning on who the developers of the planes/flight model are. I read that the makers of the Targetware FW190 cockpit were going to 'see what they could do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif' about the forward view of the plane. I see they have made the gunsight a bit higher than it should be and you cannot see the bar at all.

Me109 will likely not be as effective in Targetware as it is in Il2, as per the western version of WW2 history.

Each sim has its own 'quirks' and benefits different planes depnding on what they have read,people they have talked too.

When there are just a few people playing, its fine and people get on. As things get more popular, the arguing about flight models will start, just like here. If it gets as many people interested, there will be exactly the same arguments going on over there about 50's strength, Me109 turn, P51/FW190 performance etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jesus, hate to beat this dead horse even further but a member of the IL2 community awhile back posted photos taken while sitting in the cockpit of a honest-to-god REAL FW-190 and the view wasn't as terrible as it is in this sim.. and there is more proof elsewhere.

But I digress.. You are however correct that there will always be some form of bias towards whoevers favorite plane.

I've given TT some time just to see what it was like.. All not too shabby, and if there were more people online playing I'd give it some solid play time.

Last night on one of the servers they had a fun little scenario where the axis had to fly Storchs to little islands to drop off intel packages because "other means of communications had been cut off". It was fun because you actually had to land that neat little bird on the island.. in one case on the side of a hill :P... Allied objective, shoot down the Storchs.... Would have been a total hoot had there been about 20 people playing with a good mix of interceptors, storchs, and escort craft.

The completion of objectives and winning scenarios actually carries a reward too.. The winning side gets more and upgraded aircraft, where as the losers get less planes and don't get "upgraded" crates..

It's the little things like described that can really enhance the online experience. I know I bashed Targetware in another thread awhile back, but I went back and gave it another, more objective try. I think it's a solid idea, and I too am of the opinion that graphics do not make a game.

Xiolablu3
06-19-2006, 01:28 PM
Yes I understand that the IL2 view is possibly too poor. However that gunisght looks a little high to me and looks to be modelled a little generously in the 'north direction' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))

By the way UKded servers have bonus plane types for the last map winners and limited numbers of planes on their IL2/FB servers.

If blue wins the last map for example, they may get a 109F4 instead of a 109F2. Or they get the Me262 on the late war maps. I agree it adds variety and makes your team strive a little more to win.

Will have to try TW, sounds good. I was playing Wings Over Europe - COld war gone hot today and the graphics are nothing special. But I enjoyed it all the same. Good for a quick blast, I really didnt mind the dated looking graphics when I was blasting Migs down with Sidewinders from my Harrier and killing Sam sites with my A10 Tbolt II.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-19-2006, 02:11 PM
I tried TR a while back and decided to give it another go with TT. But I have a problem with stick setup. I have a X-52 and CH Pro Pedals and cant get them set up correctly. Perhaps Im just spoiled by the simplicity of IL-2's setup procedures.

HellToupee
06-19-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:


But I digress.. You are however correct that there will always be some form of bias towards whoevers favorite plane.


oleg has noted 190 is his favourite plane

Aaron_GT
06-20-2006, 02:12 AM
There's a general aviation add on for TargetWare with, I think, the same Su we are going to be getting in Oleg's BoB, so it might be possible to contrast and compare the flight models between this, and also X-Plane and Flight Sim 2004, and maybe there is a pilot out there with access to these sims AND the real plane.

With regards to X-Plane, Piper actually produces some officially licenced versions of some of its aircraft, which gives some sort of 'official' comparasion for this sim, although it might then be a stretch to compare that against other sims as you are getting further and further away from the original point of reference.

jermin122
06-20-2006, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Based on what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently you haven't read all of this thread. Read it again carefully.

joeap
06-20-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently, TT is a pretty "honest" sim, honest to the history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Based on what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently you haven't read all of this thread. Read it again carefully. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was being facetious. Anyway, the view is great I agree, some other stuff you and others mentioned about "realism" can;t ne simulated in any sim yet. I mean, tactics (AI still is not good enough), the strategic situation etc.

Manu-6S
06-20-2006, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
oleg has noted 190 is his favourite plane

I remember he said 109... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Xiolablu3
06-20-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:


But I digress.. You are however correct that there will always be some form of bias towards whoevers favorite plane.


oleg has noted 190 is his favourite plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think maybe the view on the 190 is made a little poor to try and balance out its incredible firepower.

A plane that can range the battle field with incredible amounts of ammo firing 4x20mm and 2xmg would be a real game unbalancer in 1941-42.

In my opinon the FW190A already rules in 1941-42 especially with the 109G2 to back it up. Yak1's and I16's really dont have a chance.

Not saying this is defeinite, just that its a possiblility.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
oleg has noted 190 is his favourite plane

I remember he said 109... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats funny I dont remember a FW109? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)))

It was the FW190 he said for sure.


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Becasue FW-190s are my favorite aircraft design of WWII. And I don't like when someone who know nothing about advatages of thi aircraft say something bad against it. I take it as agaist me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know that some American prop planes had some better devices for comfort fly, but the engineering that is present in design of this aircraft is simply increadible for the time when it was developed as final fighter. I don't tell about engine or Komandegerate (which people mix with some other things that was working as well on many WWII aircraft. But so cool word looks for many other nations as magic word!). I tel about construction aircraft, wing construction , etc... There were solved some similar to La-5 initial problems of overheating by simple ways, there were used simple solutions(like it looks now in modern time) for serious things.... They was so simple that was copied on La-5FN for two month and was goinf in a serial production (its why Chinese production of licensed after the war ASh-82FN is so good was going for the created now FW replics!)

Also, as I told in the past... If FW is my favorite aircraft it doesn't means that this plane will fly better than any others...

Manu-6S
06-20-2006, 08:17 AM
I'm not sure but he said this in 10/03/02 (and however the only link with these word I found is from January 2005).

I'm quite sure in one of the lastest interviews about BoB he said he loves BF109.

Sorry but I don't have time to search (maybe it was the interview on the russian magazine)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
06-20-2006, 10:34 AM
Looks cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ruy Horta
06-20-2006, 10:51 AM
Oleg did indeed state that the Fw 190 was his favorite WW2 fighter / aircraft.

Apparently he's fond of the Bf 109 as well.

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

The man has good taste, what more can I say...

fabry1972
06-21-2006, 06:24 PM
Hi all, I€m the 3d and FM modeller of TT's 190, cr42, c200, c202, c205, re2001, re2005, Gladiator Hurricane, P47, Spitfire (co-author), just want to say that I like too IL2 for offline play especially Pacific Fighters have a great graphics and very good cockpit, but I just cant find enough flight feeling from the FM that's why I€ve chose TT for online play where I founded flight feeling like never before in a flight sim,
We as a TT team leaded by Vespa aim to make planes as close as we can to data, and we had a lott of data for any of our aircraft also tnx to a very dedicated community, we work for free so we have no fear to make things close to real without any bias.
But the real big power of TW is that if you want a particular, plane, scenario, tgt or effect you just have to do it by yourself or better cooperate with a team and make it ready for online use is jus amazing!
Don€t worry for the 190 cockpit texture those images are old Work in Progress screenshot we aim to release Fw190 for this weekend and we hope to have as much as Beta tester as possible to help us improve it and there€s only one way to test it Fly it in online combat, you play and we get useful data, and any Comment or error founded and reported on TT forum will be very useful to us.

And TW is free so I save the money to buy IL2 series product when they are out to enjoy my eye watching landscapes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

baders1964
06-21-2006, 07:16 PM
Hi all. I am a Mod lead for Target Rabaul. I would like to back up fabrys comments re "honesty" & bias & other points regarding TW/TT/TR.

As with the TT Mod team, our TR team strives for flight model accuracy using firstly primary period documented evidence. Other forms of evidence can also be used where the primary data is lacking or even missing. We accept no claims of bias whatsoever. I am just as keen to have our IJ aircraft perform as close to reality as our Allied ones.

Like fabry, I also think IL2 is a wonderful achievement. It does not however offer me the "feeling" of flight that I crave like some drug crazed unit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Targetware, TT & TR certainly do (for me).

This is not to say that the TW engine is the best in all areas, it is not. Improvements are still needed & are coming.

I too (& the TR team) work for nothing. We do it because we love it & can see the future potential.

Hopefully soon, a new version of TW will be available. It will incorporate a fully customisable scripting language. This means that there will be very little limitation to any aspect of the Sim. The Scenario System will be going away, replaced by a "Campaign" type world. Until this happens, yes, we have limitations & the Dev teams are aware of these.

In answer to your questions of population of the servers, yes, i'm at a bit of a loss. That said, quite often all it takes is one person to join, & the others follow in numbers. What can I say except just log in for 5 or 10 minutes. If we all do that things will improve.

When you select "Go Online" in TW, you will see a server called "vRAAF Test". In there you will find all sorts of flight model improvements from our FM guru Peril & team. I urge you to test these aircraft & suggest improvements !! Be aware though that you need to be objective about it & provide evidence to back up your claims http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyone can alter flight models in TW & fly them offline. This is one of the beauties of the system.

Thank you for reading, I am happy to answer questions/criticisms here if you wish.

Cheers
baders.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2006, 07:19 PM
I tried it today and although it felt a bit alien at first (I have been playing IL2 for nearly a year now online), once you set up the controls for yourself its a good experience.

tigertalon
06-21-2006, 08:41 PM
Fabry, Baders, ty for stoping by and clearing things up. I respect your devotion.

A question: how do you do weapon and especialy damage modeling? Is this customizable in TW?

Ratsack
06-21-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by fabry1972:
Hi all, I€m the 3d and FM modeller of TT's 190, cr42, c200, c202, c205, re2001, re2005, Gladiator Hurricane, P47, Spitfire (co-author), just want to say that I like too IL2 for offline play especially Pacific Fighters have a great graphics and very good cockpit, but I just cant find enough flight feeling from the FM that's why I€ve chose TT for online play where I founded flight feeling like never before in a flight sim,
We as a TT team leaded by Vespa aim to make planes as close as we can to data, and we had a lott of data for any of our aircraft also tnx to a very dedicated community, we work for free so we have no fear to make things close to real without any bias.
But the real big power of TW is that if you want a particular, plane, scenario, tgt or effect you just have to do it by yourself or better cooperate with a team and make it ready for online use is jus amazing!
Don€t worry for the 190 cockpit texture those images are old Work in Progress screenshot we aim to release Fw190 for this weekend and we hope to have as much as Beta tester as possible to help us improve it and there€s only one way to test it Fly it in online combat, you play and we get useful data, and any Comment or error founded and reported on TT forum will be very useful to us.

And TW is free so I save the money to buy IL2 series product when they are out to enjoy my eye watching landscapes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

That soon? Excellent! I look forward to taking it for a spin.

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
06-21-2006, 09:46 PM
Baders I wasnt suggesting that your sim or Il2 is intentionally biased.

However ALL sims are biased, purely because not everyone has flown these planes in combat, therefore you must read information about them.

If you dont read Russian then you read more Western information, If you dont read German then you read more English information, therefore everyone has a certain bias whether they like it or not.

The man from the US who has read a lot of US pilots reports thinks the 50 cals should rip planes up with a good burst. THe others think the 50's should not be very strong at all.

One man thinks the Fw190 doesnt turn tight enough at 350kph, another man thinks it overturns.

One man thinks the wooden planes take too much damage, the man from Russia has heard all his life how strong it was and wants it stronger.

Are 3 50 cals REALLY the equivalent of 1 20mm cannon? Or is it 4? Maybe 5?

One report states that the P38 with its powered elevators and special flaps could turn inside 109's and 190's. Other people think this is rubbish. How do we find out without putting a real p38 up against the FW190? If the sim maker is a P38 fan or an American, then he will ask mostly other Americans and probaly make the P38 turn very well.

Russians have read all their lives that the La5/La7 was the best plane in the war, Americans have read that it was the P51.


Bias is not always intentional, but everyone (and every sim) has it. It depends a lot of what part of the world you come from and what literature/propaganda is available there. Opinions are a big part of sims simply because not every bit of info is available, therefore the gaps get filled in with what the Programmer/sim maker thinks should happen, and we get back to influence/bias/literature/location.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2006, 10:04 PM
Here are a few other FW190 cockpits, as you can see the gunsight in the TT FW190 has been 'generously' modelled to most pics I have seen. Thats all I was saying.


http://home.arcor.de/nsu-binder/nsu-binder/homepage/bilder/fw190a8/1.JPG

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1956/fwhighpos2gz.jpg

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/9393/longnose6pq.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt-il2.JPG

Maybe the TT one is correct tho, I am not sure really, but its the best (as in best for shooting) gunsight view I have ever seen from a FW190 and Stiglr was telling me Targetware is nothing but absolute realism, maybe it needs checking?

OUt of the 3 game views (the other one is shockwaves FW190) I think the IL2/FB looks most correct compared to the photos.

baders1964
06-22-2006, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Fabry, Baders, ty for stoping by and clearing things up. I respect your devotion.

A question: how do you do weapon and especialy damage modeling? Is this customizable in TW?

Like the flight model, weapons physics is controlled by the core TW engine. Each weapon then has parameters that can be altered to suit the individual weapon.

Damage modelling handles every round & it's subsequent strikes. At the moment, individual parts absorb up to 100% damage then fail. Part hit boxes can be altered to suit. Performance of most parts "degrades" as damage progresses, producing interesting scenarios like decreasing aileron response & increased drag. Damage modelling is however one area that will see vast improvements with the new version.

Hope this answers your questions tigertalon.

jermin122
06-22-2006, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by joeap:

Yes, I was being facetious. Anyway, the view is great I agree, some other stuff you and others mentioned about "realism" can;t ne simulated in any sim yet. I mean, tactics (AI still is not good enough), the strategic situation etc.

Haven't Oleg said that he won't change the front view of 190 in BoB, even we won't buy it because of this?

WOLFMondo
06-22-2006, 04:35 AM
The positioning might not change but the angle the 190 flies at might. That will change the pilot view.

Brain32
06-22-2006, 04:36 AM
Here are a few other FW190 cockpits, as you can see the gunsight in the TT FW190 has been 'generously' modelled to most pics I have seen.
Xiola, FW190 had a nose down attitude in flight and there is also the refraction. See this picture of FW190:
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8944/a45bc.jpg
Foward visibility of FW190 should be half a ring better than that of a Spitfire and also better than that of Me109, we don't have that in IL2(where FW190 is among the worst) and TW did it pretty well.

joeap
06-22-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:

Yes, I was being facetious. Anyway, the view is great I agree, some other stuff you and others mentioned about "realism" can;t ne simulated in any sim yet. I mean, tactics (AI still is not good enough), the strategic situation etc.

Haven't Oleg said that he won't change the front view of 190 in BoB, even we won't buy it because of this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What am I writing gibberish? I was saying the view in the Targetware FW is good, but not everyone agrees...look at Xiolablu3. Plus saying TT is "honest" implied IL2 is intentionally dishonest. Have a nice day.

jermin122
06-22-2006, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Here are a few other FW190 cockpits, as you can see the gunsight in the TT FW190 has been 'generously' modelled to most pics I have seen. Thats all I was saying.


http://home.arcor.de/nsu-binder/nsu-binder/homepage/bilder/fw190a8/1.JPG

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1956/fwhighpos2gz.jpg

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/9393/longnose6pq.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt-il2.JPG

Maybe the TT one is correct tho, I am not sure really, but its the best (as in best for shooting) gunsight view I have ever seen from a FW190 and Stiglr was telling me Targetware is nothing but absolute realism, maybe it needs checking?

OUt of the 3 game views (the other one is shockwaves FW190) I think the IL2/FB looks most correct compared to the photos.

Xiolablu3. Have you ever noticed that except the IL2 and TT pics, all the other 190s are on the ground? In other words, their noses are higher than the tails. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Brain32
06-22-2006, 05:03 AM
Xiolablu3 is unaware of one fact, FW190 had bad foward visibility during taxiing on the ground, but that changed in the air. Here is the picture from Wings of power while our dear Focke is in the air:
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/26.jpg

jermin122
06-22-2006, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:

Yes, I was being facetious. Anyway, the view is great I agree, some other stuff you and others mentioned about "realism" can;t ne simulated in any sim yet. I mean, tactics (AI still is not good enough), the strategic situation etc.

Haven't Oleg said that he won't change the front view of 190 in BoB, even we won't buy it because of this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What am I writing gibberish? I was saying the view in the Targetware FW is good, but not everyone agrees...look at Xiolablu3. Plus saying TT is "honest" implied IL2 is intentionally dishonest. Have a nice day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I implied IL2 is dishonest, because Oleg is reluctant to change it. It is not a piece of news that Oleg is very obstinate. If a game you play everyday has many serious bugs and they cannot be fixed becuase of some failures of the game structure , I have to say this game( and the programmer) is not a good one. But the fact is that HE even doesn't want to change it!

MEGILE
06-22-2006, 06:57 AM
I just downloaded TT and I like it... waiting patiently for the FW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
06-22-2006, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by baders1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Fabry, Baders, ty for stoping by and clearing things up. I respect your devotion.

A question: how do you do weapon and especialy damage modeling? Is this customizable in TW?

Like the flight model, weapons physics is controlled by the core TW engine. Each weapon then has parameters that can be altered to suit the individual weapon.

Damage modelling handles every round & it's subsequent strikes. At the moment, individual parts absorb up to 100% damage then fail. Part hit boxes can be altered to suit. Performance of most parts "degrades" as damage progresses, producing interesting scenarios like decreasing aileron response & increased drag. Damage modelling is however one area that will see vast improvements with the new version.

Hope this answers your questions tigertalon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, I appreciate it! DLing now to try it out myself.

Xiolablu3
06-22-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:

Yes, I was being facetious. Anyway, the view is great I agree, some other stuff you and others mentioned about "realism" can;t ne simulated in any sim yet. I mean, tactics (AI still is not good enough), the strategic situation etc.

Haven't Oleg said that he won't change the front view of 190 in BoB, even we won't buy it because of this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What am I writing gibberish? I was saying the view in the Targetware FW is good, but not everyone agrees...look at Xiolablu3. Plus saying TT is "honest" implied IL2 is intentionally dishonest. Have a nice day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I implied IL2 is dishonest, because Oleg is reluctant to change it. It is not a piece of news that Oleg is very obstinate. If a game you play everyday has many serious bugs and they cannot be fixed becuase of some failures of the game structure , I have to say this game( and the programmer) is not a good one. But the fact is that HE even doesn't want to change it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jermin, you need to be able to read RUssian to understand what Olegs opinons are etc. We only get one side of things over here. DO you trealise some Russians are probably saying that the LW planes are overmodelled in some aspects? (which they are, especially climb rates)

I know you think that the Luftwaffe planes are undermoddled, and so do others. Others like HayateAce (him being the worst example) think that they are overmoddelled already.

Just how does Oleg please you all?

You think one thing should be fixed and is the most important bug, another player thinks something else and 'your' bug' is not important.

I think too many people are too sure that 'their' opinon is the right one around here. Take a step back and look at the big picture. Oleg is busy with Battle OF Britain and this sim has takemn a back seat now. I think IL2/FB/PF is a fantastic acheievement to say the engine was made 5 years ago, I still love the game and play it more than any other.

joeap
06-22-2006, 08:51 AM
Well fine then, those who like it can go and play it and those who like IL2 can play this sim. I am not convinced either is more "real" because well they are not. They are interpretations of reality. I am out of this thread.

karost
06-22-2006, 09:47 AM
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8944/a45bc.jpg
hey where is the bar .... the black bar.

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

faustnik
06-22-2006, 09:52 AM
This argument will never die. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

1C decided long ago to use a specific method of modeling cockpits. The method does not account for light refraction. It is the same with all planes. Why should the Fw190 get special treatment? Anyone who wants to cry about the Fw190 forward view should fly the Mig-3 or P-47D-10 for a while, and gain a new appreciation for the Fw190 view.

faustnik
06-22-2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
LW planes are overmodelled in some aspects? (which they are, especially climb rates)

You better back that up with some facts and tests Xiobablu. Some of the LW planes test low in climb rates in PF by our testing.

******************

Anyway, the TT guys sound like they are working really hard to create a good Fw190 model. I look forward to trying it out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MEGILE
06-22-2006, 10:22 AM
I fly online TT as AustinPowers_ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

I'm liking the P-47D40 alot! Great bomb truck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

That FW is gonna be cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

tigertalon
06-22-2006, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
1C decided long ago to use a specific method of modeling cockpits. The method does not account for light refraction. It is the same with all planes. Why should the Fw190 get special treatment?

Simply because it is only (real) FW that has such a thick piece of glass, mounted under such a high angle, making refraction effect that important. Heigth of revi is correct, 3D model of Fw cockpit is right. If IC modelled refraction of light on all aircraft, all other planes would get barely noticable different view, if any at all. Fw woud get enormous difference. That's why.

P47 issue is completely different. As presented so well by Kocur in one of past threads, it's problem is that gunsight is mounted too low, so 3D model of cockpit is wrong (contrary to Fws cockpit). Refraction of light wouldn't change things half as much as with Fw.

Brain32
06-22-2006, 11:10 AM
Yes I agree, but there is also the bar, which is double the size of that tiny little thing we usually see on pictures. The thing is, OK position may be modelled correctly historically, but that kind of modelling mad FW's view extremely unhistorical, completely removing one of the best characteristics of the FW's. BTW look at SpitMkVc it has no nose, the foward visibility is exceptional and completely unhistorical(not to mention that FW190 actually had better front view than Spitfire), yet I never saw Maddox team rushing to fix it, so in light of:

1C decided long ago to use a specific method of modeling cockpits. The method does not account for light refraction. It is the same with all planes. Why should the Fw190 get special treatment?
Let me ask the question, why should Spitfire get such a special treatment?

faustnik
06-22-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW look at SpitMkVc it has no nose

Yeah, that is obviously a bug.

tigertalon
06-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes I agree, but there is also the bar, which is double the size of that tiny little thing we usually see on pictures.

This is the whole point: "teh bar" is modelled correctly in 3D space, but IRL pilot does not see it due to refraction.

And, as a sidenote, La5FN was known to have a bad forward view due to that oil cooler... now if we compare it to Fw and/or spit... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

joeap
06-22-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
LW planes are overmodelled in some aspects? (which they are, especially climb rates)

You better back that up with some facts and tests Xiobablu. Some of the LW planes test low in climb rates in PF by our testing.

******************

Anyway, the TT guys sound like they are working really hard to create a good Fw190 model. I look forward to trying it out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude you're doing Xiobablu a bit of disservice with that remark. Of course you did the testing (I saw them) He said "overmodelled" in some aspects, you say your tests show they test low. I suppose there is a difference between what you say and the various whiners saying the "X" plane or "grey" side is dishonestly, deliberatley over or undermodelled due to bias, or community pressure, or secret fake KGB documents or whatever. It seems the resonable ones are sniping at each other because of the noise and ambience of the real whiners.

faustnik
06-22-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Dude you're doing Xiobablu a bit of disservice with that remark.

Nothing against Xiobablu, I'm sure he knows that. I read what he posted as an absolute, and so, I said something. Generalizations about one side or the other always bother me. No offense intended.

MEGILE
06-22-2006, 05:06 PM
That's a pretty nice FW model though, no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-22-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW look at SpitMkVc it has no nose

Yeah, that is obviously a bug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, a known bug - which will not be fixed - as Oleg said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
the Cockpit "sits" to hight in the fuselage - therefore also the wings looks very short in the Vc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


but in general - i also dont like that huge engine cowling in front of the Revi of the Spitfires in game ! i doubt that the Merlin had the shape of a Banana. its way overdone in my opinion. imagine, you are aiming straight forward, and having than that cowling in sight ????
well, we are sitting in front of a 2D screen, thats the proplem - and its the designer's choice how to "simulate" a 3D effect.

faustnik
06-22-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
That's a pretty nice FW model though, no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Yeah, the more I look at it, the external model is fantastic! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

fabry1972
06-23-2006, 01:01 AM
Tonight the TT's 190 will be released and the OpenBeta online test will begin so if you are interested in having a better 190 model just download freely TW and TT and test it on the server.
In TW any player opinion is important (if documented) and anyone have access to FM just opening a file (all planes FM are in "Targetware\data\tt\planes" and can be edited using notepad ), viewpoint position FM graphical effect a lot can be edited just using notepad, obviously all this modification will be overwrited if you connect to official TT server so make a copy if you do some.

http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=P...71e90c65e8e5a9d0f735 (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=27&sid=3c61f31ff75d71e90c65e8e5a9d0f735)

TX-Gunslinger
06-23-2006, 01:16 AM
I can get that THIS WEEKEND!

Ok dude, I'm there. If for no other reason than to honor you guys for re-creating the Anton!

I just re-read this thread. I'll try it out. Truth is I'm dying to see what the buzz is about.

S~

msalama
06-23-2006, 01:55 AM
OK, first off it has to be remembered that TW is a WIP, and thus not really comparable to more mature products as a whole. But a couple of points nevertheless (IMHO only, mind you, so feel free to disagree):

* Many HC sim freaks say that eye candy is unimportant. Well, it's not important per se, but what if the graphics are so primitive that you just can't get your bearings during, say, takeoffs, because of a lack of adequate visual reference? This is what happens to me all the time in TW. I've of course tried to adjust the settings, but that has only landed me into a nice little slideshow so far! Whereas both IL-2 and FS2004 run adequately in my humble box...

* The FM engine is good, that's true, but according to someone who's involved with the design still incomplete (search the TW forum for the thread if you're interested, it should be there somewhere). Now that most definitely doesn't make it BAD, but not necessarily THAT cutting edge either - contrary to what some people might claim!

* There's been a certain air of supremacy surrounding the TW flight models, in that they're allegedly harder - possibly implying that they're more realistic too - than what you get if you stick with the big boys (IL-2, FS2004, whatever) only. Well, according to my experiences that's not true, because the hardest warbird I've _ever_ tried in any simulator so far is Tom Kohler's P-47. And the platform? Believe it or not, the allegedly ooh-so-arcade FS2004 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

* There's something funny with how my controllers interact with TW AC, in that they might work one day and be somewhat different the next. That, however, might be just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

* The TW ground physics modelling is decidedly weird. The planes slip and slide about as if they are on ice, even in Sahara http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OK, that's it, more or less. So flame on gentlemen, getting me asbestos suit immediately http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Feathered_IV
06-23-2006, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW look at SpitMkVc it has no nose

So how does it smell?

fabry1972
06-23-2006, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
....... but what if the graphics are so primitive that you just can't get your bearings during, say, takeoffs, because of a lack of adequate visual reference? This is what happens to me all the time in TW. I've of course tried to adjust the settings, but that has only landed me into a nice little slideshow so far! Whereas both IL-2 and FS2004 run adequately in my humble box...

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


if you have problem to follow the runway is not a TW problem but is lack of we as a TT devs teams that we have still not finalized terrain that i agrree it totaly suks at the moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif but next 0.65 capability will give us tools to improve in a radical way in the future, as for LOW FPS it seems very strange to me because one of the aspect that i've always loved of TW is very High fps, i'm a RL Sportpilots and i feel that if you dont get at least 30 fps as minimum spike that's simply no more a flightsim ,in My Athlon 3000/1024Mb i stay betwen 80 and 120 fps but you have to take care of graphic setting and use somting like this.

[Screen]
Width = 1280
Height = 1024
Depth = 32
Refresh = 0
Multisample = 0
Windowed = 0
Render Flags = 0

[Graphics]
Gamma = 1
Texture Preload = 0
Max Texture Size = 2048
Terrain Detail = 3000
Object Detail = 1
Cloud Detail = 6
Transparency Mode = 1
Max Visibility = 20000
Anisotropic Level = 1
Full Anisotropic = 1
Terrain Mipmap = 1
Terrain Supertexture = 256
Terrain Render Level = 2
Detail Textures = 1
Environment Map = 1
Screenshot Jpeg = 1
Screenshot Jpeg Quality = 300
Stretch Main UI = 1
Stretch In-Game UI = 1

Is unusefull to use higher setting because TT 0.64 terrain is a **** compared to IL2 no matter if you rise them ,TR have a much better Terrain than TT but still no comparable with IL2.

MEGILE
06-23-2006, 04:10 AM
Does anyone use Track IR with TT? I'm considering getting it because I don't like how the hat switch is handled in TT, similar to WW2OL.

Is 6DOF a neccessity? From the way the pilot leans left and right when turning the head, it seems like it isn't. Will TrackIR3 Pro suffice?
Track IR 4 is a bit costly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

But I will get it if reccommended

fabry1972
06-23-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Does anyone use Track IR with TT? ........Will TrackIR3 Pro suffice?
Track IR 4 is a bit costly.....

I use TrackIR3 Pro and joy hat for lean function and i feel really comfortable with it.

MEGILE
06-23-2006, 04:23 AM
I use TrackIR3 Pro and joy hat for lean function

Is that to lean forwards and sidewards when looking forward?

In that it still leans left and right when you turn your head to see behind the pilots head rest automatically?

fabry1972
06-23-2006, 04:31 AM
I use hat for lean left/right and up/down

msalama
06-23-2006, 04:55 AM
<snip>...TR have a much better Terrain than TT but still no comparable with IL2.

Cheers Fabry, will try those settings later on. S!

BGs_Ricky
06-23-2006, 06:29 AM
How's the take-off in the TT Fw-190?? There's no WWII sim that I have played so far that has the FW taking off in a three-point attitude as it did historically (perfectly visible on the video on this page http://www.airventure.de/news_flug_werk_fw190_erstflug.htm).
I tried once to take-off like this in Il-2, but it just doesn't work, in game the tail comes up the same way as for any other plane, which is wrong.
This is not a whine, it doesn't make me hate the sim or the plane in-game, I love to fly it and shoot down aircraft in it, I just wonder why no one's got the take off right for this plane yet... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fabry1972
06-23-2006, 08:52 AM
You can try it by yourself 190 was just released http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-23-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
LW planes are overmodelled in some aspects? (which they are, especially climb rates)

You better back that up with some facts and tests Xiobablu. Some of the LW planes test low in climb rates in PF by our testing.

: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I thought the BF109's climb were overmodelled? Have they been fixed?

F6_Ace
06-23-2006, 10:51 AM
Hey, someone has done a decent job of modelling the FW190 forward view and well documented nose down attitude. Take note, Oleg.

The graphics may not be 'as good' but it certainly looks a lot more realistic than Oleg's 'masterpiece'

269GA-Veltro
06-24-2006, 03:35 AM
No comment..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
A superb work guys!

Cockpit's video:

http://home.arcor.de/nsu4/Target-Tobruk/fw190cockpit.zip

http://home.arcor.de/nsu4/Target-Tobruk/002.jpg

Deedsundone
06-24-2006, 06:59 AM
But what does that red cross do?What is it purpose?(unless annoying me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Deedsundone:
But what does that red cross do?What is it purpose?(unless annoying me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

I was asking the same thing yesterday, I didnt like the red cross, as it looked sort of like another gunsight, and was a little confusing.

Still getting used to the controls, but it looks promising!

Ratsack
06-25-2006, 04:18 AM
Yes, is there any way to get rid of that red cross? It's a killer...immersion killer, that is.

cheers
Ratsack

JG52Karaya-X
06-25-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Deedsundone:
But what does that red cross do?What is it purpose?(unless annoying me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

It points you in the direction your pilot is looking - so you can see if your view is off center...

And yes, it is pretty annoying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I_KG100_Prien
06-25-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deedsundone:
But what does that red cross do?What is it purpose?(unless annoying me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

It points you in the direction your pilot is looking - so you can see if your view is off center...


And yes, it is pretty annoying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Odd, whenever I use the hat switch on my stick to look around, the red cross goes away and doesn't come back until I use the mouse to look around.

Deedsundone
06-25-2006, 10:24 AM
Using TIR and it´s always in your view.I read how you could remove (or fade it out?) the red cross in their forums but I must have screwd it up at some point cause it wouldn´t start up after my little tinkering...whatever...or,how do you do a 512*512 white 24bit targa file? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack
06-25-2006, 11:03 PM
I€ve had a little bit of a fly in your Fw190A-5 and I have a couple of comments to offer. Firstly, it looks very nice. I also like the view over the nose: it closely resembles the view I have seen in the Soviet video of a captured Focke-Wulf. Nice work.

I have two criticisms to offer so far. They may be only the result of my lack of familiarity with Target Ware, so please let me know if that€s the case.

Firstly, the plane wants to roll left under most flight regimes. This may be because of the way I€ve set up my controllers, but in any event the Fw190A was noted for needing very little trimming, even with changes in speed. This is noted in the AFDU report from 1942 (I€m sure you€ve seen it).

My second criticism / query is about the propeller. It seems to be modelled as a constant speed unit. I say this because I have RPM mapped to the slider of my M$ Force Feedback II, and the prop revs seem to correspond to the position of this slider. This is from start up, even if I haven€t touched the slider.

This doesn€t seem right. The BMW 801 D-2 motor used the €˜control device€ (Kommandosgerrat) to coordinate propeller revs, mixture, supercharger and manifold pressure so the pilot had single-lever engine operation. In other words, the propeller was effectively on automatic control unless the control device failed. In manual limp-home mode, the propeller was not a CSP, but a variable pitch propeller.

Is there an option for automatic control that I am missing?

I look forward to doing some performance tests on this beasty soon. It looks very nice, and it€s a blessed relief to be able to see out of the thing.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Abbuzze
06-26-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

I have two criticisms to offer so far. They may be only the result of my lack of familiarity with Target Ware, so please let me know if that€s the case.

Firstly, the plane wants to roll left under most flight regimes. This may be because of the way I€ve set up my controllers, but in any event the Fw190A was noted for needing very little trimming, even with changes in speed. This is noted in the AFDU report from 1942 (I€m sure you€ve seen it).

My second criticism / query is about the propeller. It seems to be modelled as a constant speed unit. I say this because I have RPM mapped to the slider of my M$ Force Feedback II, and the prop revs seem to correspond to the position of this slider. This is from start up, even if I haven€t touched the slider.

Cheers,
Ratsack

TW has more torque in all planes, so they all roll more and need to be handled more carefully than any plane in il2.
I think the very little trimming that is needed and often mentioned are just related to the elevatortrim, because german planes don´t have any other trim.
On the other side the fact that you can set personal sticksetting in il2 makes the FW the plane with the most need for trim for me, because my stickset is optimised for "my" 109. I simply can´t aim without trim in the FW...

You are right for the propeller problem, it´s not modelled correct, but keep in mind that TW is Beta 0.65 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
06-26-2006, 12:44 AM
the planes roll a bit too much due to torque u have to hold stick like half way to the right in the games spit to keep it level.

Ratsack
06-26-2006, 01:15 AM
That was my initial take on the Spit, too, that there was too much slipstream / torque effect.

I'm still trying to work out if you can map the trim to a rotary...without success, so far. I've become used to rotary trim in Il-2, and now the tapping technique seems really alien.

Oh well.

Ratsack

msalama
06-27-2006, 12:46 AM
That was my initial take on the Spit, too, that there was too much slipstream / torque effect.

I'm not sure about that. I just D/L'd & installed the latest TW add-on patches, and tested the Hurri Mk.IIC, the Spitfire MK.Vb (I think?) and the Zero. Yep, the torque, p-factor and gyro effects are there, but they're not uncontrollable by any means if you trim correctly during all phases of flight.

The turn and slip indicators, however, seemed to be broken in both Brit fighters. And the Spit refused to lower its gear & flaps, even when I went below 160MPH, which IIRC was the Vfe / Vle for it. I wonder why that is? And oh yeah, how the h*ll do you turn off that annoying green status/log/info window on the lower screen, huh?!?

But still, I really do like the FMs myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And the add-ons seem excellent too...

Shows promise that TW baby is MHO.

PS: Which mark of the TW Spitfire are you gents talking about, BTW?

I_KG100_Prien
06-27-2006, 05:27 AM
Only Spitfire I've taken to the skies in is the MK IX clipped wing.... The torque is rediculous.. I can hardly get the damn thing off the ground because of it, and in the air I have to hold my stick damn near half way to the right to counter it... Makes dogfighting a beast.

Maybe I need to take up the other spits to compare.

As for the FW190 that TW has.. I think it's the 190 that IL2 pilots dream of. Forward vis that doesn't suck, it actually climbs, and it doesn't snap stall if you even think about doing a hard turn.. and oh boy is she fast ;p

Ratsack
06-27-2006, 06:08 AM
I've just read over in the TW forums that the prop pitch problem is a limitation of the current global flight model. It doesn't allow them to link manifold pressure and revs, so there's no way to simulate the Komandosgerrat at the moment. It works fine for CSPs, so that's what they've modelled on the Fw190.

In answer to your question, msalama, I flew the Spit Vb and VIII. I didn't find it as bad as I_KG100_Prien did, but it did require right stick, even with the rudder trimmed.

On that note, I also noticed that the slip indicators don't seem to show anything useful. It wasn't just in the Spit, but also the Hurri, P-47, A6M2 and Fw190. The ball doesn't seem to deviate unless I deliberately pull a really violent side-slipping move. This means it's virtually useless for the purposes of coordinating turns, meaning it will have consequences for good gunnery, particularly tracking deflection shots.

I didn't try any speed tests on the Fw190, but she felt nice and fast. I noticed that the left wing drops in the accelerated stall, which matches the accounts of tests I've read. I also noticed that with a sharp application of elevator you can pull sufficient Gs to black out long before you get to the edge of the stall.

The other tests that would be interesting would be dive and zoom climb.

cheers,
Ratsack

msalama
06-27-2006, 06:33 AM
Only Spitfire I've taken to the skies in is the MK IX clipped wing.... The torque is rediculous.. I can hardly get the damn thing off the ground because of it, and in the air I have to hold my stick damn near half way to the right to counter it... Makes dogfighting a beast.

No offense meant, but you obviously didn't trim your rudder correctly. I just tried the Mk.IX CW out myself, and while the torque is admittedly hard it is entirely controllable during all phases of flight _if_ correct rudder trim is used. And yep, the plane is entirely trimmable for hands-off flight as well!

The torque modelling isn't actually all that different from, say, the RealAir FS2004 Spitfire Mk.XIV, and according to historical documents I've read it was hard IRL as well. The Spit Mk.XIV POH states, for example, that you shouldn't usually try to takeoff with more than +7 Lbs. of boost because of the huge torque! Now I know that the Mk.XIV was a Griffon-powered plane, while Mk.IX was powered by the Merlin (IIRC - correct if mistaken), but both were nevertheless high-powered beasts and thus comparable.

So I'm actually slowly but surely coming to the conclusion that it's IL-2 which has its torque modelling wrong, not the competitors...

Yeah, just my $0.002 again so feel free to disagree!

msalama
06-27-2006, 06:49 AM
In answer to your question, msalama, I flew the Spit Vb and VIII. I didn't find it as bad as I_KG100_Prien did, but it did require right stick, even with the rudder trimmed.

That's funny, because I could trim the planes for hands-off flight myself... a controller issue of some sort again? Seems unlikely, though, if your gear is in order - which I'm sure it is...

Puzzling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

joeap
06-27-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by msalama:

So I'm actually slowly but surely coming to the conclusion that it's IL-2 which has its torque modelling wrong, not the competitors...

Yeah, just my $0.002 again so feel free to disagree!

My two bits says ok. I haven't tried TW, so can't comment on that, however I feel since 4.xx the torque in IL2 is quite good and can bite you if you don't trim. I recently changed some of my keyboard setting around and forget that included the trim zeroing and somehow took off in my SBD with insufficient rudder trim and found myself going off the edge. I am also playing the Mig-3 Yak-1 campaign and in the Nig really feel the need for trim and rudder to adjust to TO...aileron would help too. The Peska has really good torque you really need to compensate with trim and all in every flight regime. I am wondering if some of the comments can be put down to the fact trim is implemented differently in both sims? I only have keyboard trim btw.

msalama
06-27-2006, 06:59 AM
My two bits says ok. I haven't tried TW, so can't comment on that, however I feel since 4.xx the torque in IL2 is quite good and can bite you if you don't trim.

Well yes, that _is_ true - and I've noticed that myself too - but compared to the competition (and second-hand RL accounts) I still feel it's a bit weak! Might be just me, though, because as you can imagine I have no experience of real Spitfires and their handling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
06-27-2006, 07:06 AM
Me neither, but then pressing a plastic pedal, or in my case twisting a stick is no way like the real pilots did it. I am always careful and never slam the throttle forward in any case.

The other thing is the planes in IL2 (like the planes in MS) are all different. I think the torque in some planes is quite strong, but I think that for some others (the Me-109) it is still too weak. In Il2 here...some planes in MSFS were quite good, assuming a decent FM.

msalama
06-27-2006, 07:57 AM
Me neither, but then pressing a plastic pedal, or in my case twisting a stick is no way like the real pilots did it.

It surely isn't - which, BTW, is why I usually shy away from these endless FM debates myself... Because just as you said yourself, we really don't know what we're talking about here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Speaking of which, the first and foremost thing I'm trying to remember nowadays is that none of these PC flight games are - nor will be, I'm afraid - true simulators. There're things clearly wrong - even to a layman - in all of them, and none of them reproduce all aspects of RL flight accurately (and yes, that includes X-Plane too).

And when it comes to Targetware, I think they should do something to that godawful ground handling / physics modelling ASAP. I tried the Würger too - can't remember which airfield it was, though, now - and the beast could NOT move straight ahead at all, regardless of the amount of throttle used. Nope - it just turned left, even with full rudder deflection and differential braking applied!

So there's clearly some room for improvement there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

karost
06-27-2006, 08:02 AM
good to see alot of friends share idea after test TW , MS2004 and current IL2 I believe alot of players keep reading this piont to improve their judment about FM in WWII warbird how it look like

joeap: "I am always careful and never slam the throttle forward in any case"

yes... that is what real life pilot did when he stay on WWII warbird with a Big motor.

S!

fabry1972
06-27-2006, 09:33 AM
When you learn how to use all the triks like elevator to increase tailwhhel aderence, loock tailweel after you are correctly alligned with runway, and gradual throtle increase you will love TW grounfd handling, and you will control the plane on the ground like or better you do with your car.

msalama
06-27-2006, 10:34 AM
When you learn how to use all the triks like elevator to increase tailwhhel aderence, loock tailweel after you are correctly alligned with runway, and gradual throtle increase you will love TW grounfd handling, and you will control the plane on the ground like or better you do with your car.

"Learn"? And what exactly makes you think we _haven't_ learned those tricks?

No disrespect, but I'm personally accustomed with how warbirds are flown, and I'm surely not the only one around here. Everyone - or at least everyone who's been into simming for awhile - knows about stuff like locking the tailwheel, trimming for takeoff, pushing the tail up with the elevator, throttling up gradually (and adhering to maximum TO power limits where applicable) and all that. So I don't really think our lack of knowledge is the problem here... and as I said before, the ONLY bird giving me trouble was the Würger, and that was actually on one airfield only (I re-tested elsewhere after my previous post, and it seemed OK there).

Moreover, I seem to remember reading a lot about the TW ground physics modelling being somewhat off, so maybe, just maybe, there IS something to that notion after all? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
06-27-2006, 01:04 PM
OK, I've done some more happy-go-lucky flying in assorted TW birds now, and it seems to me that there really is something wrong in the ground physics modelling.

First off (and regardless of the AC in question, too) there're some airfields / start scenarios where the planes behave as expected, whereas in other places not even full rudder trim and deflection, tailwheel locking and moderate power usage will keep them under control. The torque (or the broken ground modelling?) just keeps on turning them, no matter what you do!

Also, it seems to me that some airstrip surfaces are too uneven. You can seemingly break your gear even when you succeed in greasing the bird in, because you'll hit the potholes and bumps...

Anyone care to shed any light on these matters?

I_KG100_Prien
06-28-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
OK, I've done some more happy-go-lucky flying in assorted TW birds now, and it seems to me that there really is something wrong in the ground physics modelling.

First off (and regardless of the AC in question, too) there're some airfields / start scenarios where the planes behave as expected, whereas in other places not even full rudder trim and deflection, tailwheel locking and moderate power usage will keep them under control. The torque (or the broken ground modelling?) just keeps on turning them, no matter what you do!

Also, it seems to me that some airstrip surfaces are too uneven. You can seemingly break your gear even when you succeed in greasing the bird in, because you'll hit the potholes and bumps...

Anyone care to shed any light on these matters?

Oh jee.. Guess it wasn't me not knowing how to sim....

(maybe I should have pointed out that I'd had the same thing happen in other A/C, however it wasn't pertinent at the time considering that I was discussing the Spitfire ;p)

Oh.. and it may be my equipment.. But trust me I did mess with trimming the A/C out and still couldn't get level flight out of it.

wastel
06-28-2006, 12:32 PM
ground physiks are not completed in the current TW version and more or less just a placeholder.

we are all waiting for 0.65

wastel

msalama
06-28-2006, 01:59 PM
ground physiks are not completed in the current TW version and more or less just a placeholder.

OK, thanks. That explains it all.


we are all waiting for 0.65

Me too. I'm mostly an IL-2 / FS2004 flyer ATM, but nevertheless following your progress with interest. S!

msalama
06-28-2006, 02:23 PM
But trust me I did mess with trimming the A/C out and still couldn't get level flight out of it.

Hey, I believe you. It's just strange, that's all, because I _did_ succeed in trimming them for hands-off flight myself. These were the planes I flew IIRC:

* Assorted Spits
* FW190
* Hurri Mk.IIc
* Fieseler Storch
* Gladiator Mk.II
* Boston III
* CR.42
* G50
* Beaufighter

Some of those planes have a trimmable elevator only so constant stick input was of course required (dunno whether they have any pre-set tabs modelled & didn't try to find out). But the others, however, were all trimmable for hands-off flying...

msalama
06-30-2006, 10:56 AM
One more thing to report:

I tried to disable the TW console window, because it doesn't really tell me anything useful. So I went to D:\Program Files\Targetware\data\ui\ and edited the ui.txt file (TW configuration resides in pure ASCII text files) so that game widget 8 - that's the console - would be disabled (disable = 1).

Did that, saved the file. Now the game won't start anymore. Undid the changes, still doesn't start.

Hmmm... Stig could help, of course, but he hasn't been around much lately... now where on Earth is Stigler, now that we _really_ need him for something else besides IL-2 bashing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS. Yeah yeah yeah, gotta register over there @ TW if I want to get this sorted, I know! But this just FYI if you decide to tinker with the bugger further yourself...

Kocur_
06-30-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I think maybe the view on the 190 is made a little poor to try and balance out its incredible firepower.
(...)
Not saying this is defeinite, just that its a possiblility.

Since the last sentence is present there, I can comment the idea, not directing it to Xiolablu:

The idea of balancing a historical feature of a plane by making some other worse than IRL is totally <span class="ev_code_RED">POPIERDOLONA</span>! Especially in case of software, that is claimed to be a sim! Anyone to find it attractive in any way is pathetic <span class="ev_code_RED">z"amas</span>!

joeap
06-30-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I think maybe the view on the 190 is made a little poor to try and balance out its incredible firepower.
(...)
Not saying this is defeinite, just that its a possiblility.

Since the last sentence is present there, I can comment the idea, not directing it to Xiolablu:

The idea of balancing a historical feature of a plane by making some other worse than IRL is totally <span class="ev_code_RED">POPIERDOLONA</span>! Especially in case of software, that is claimed to be a sim! Anyone to find it attractive in any way is pathetic <span class="ev_code_RED">z"amas</span>! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I think (I don't know those words you sued Polish?) I can guess the context. You really think this was done here, or any other sim??

Badsight-
06-30-2006, 05:31 PM
notice how the FB version has the correct mode of flight - i.e. the prop facing foward level

in all the nose-down conspiricy pictures the nose & prop & guns face downwards

those german enginerrs had to have been complete dolts alright . . . . .

http://home.arcor.de/nsu1/TargetTobruk/tt-il2.JPG

^ guns are incorrctly (for level flight) facing downwards

good try boys , but back to the propagada making for joo!

Badsight-
06-30-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by jermin122:
Apparently you haven't read all of this thread. Read it again carefully. apparently you need to not listen to wives tales so much . . .

msalama
07-01-2006, 12:39 AM
Especially in case of software, that is claimed to be a sim!

Yeah, claimed. These claims, however, are just plain BS because no cheap PC game ever was, is, or will be a true simulator.

Badsight-
07-01-2006, 02:06 AM
true simulator. ohh pfft

despite being either good or bad at its job its still a sim

GT sucks as a car racing game but it too is still a sim - prehaps the "true" expectantcy should be getting stuffed up where the sun dont shine . . .

msalama
07-01-2006, 02:51 AM
ohh pfft

Hey, you don't see the difference between real simulators - those used in RL aviation f.ex. that is - and mere games, well that's YOUR problem Sir http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

That said, it is still possible that IL-2 reproduces some aspects of WWII-era aerial combat quite accurately. Or then again maybe not, because the FMs used are in any case largely simplified. And that, again - and according to some pretty well-known critics around here - makes it possible to use some unrealistic combat tactics, ones that would never work IRL, doesn't it?

Thus: this is a nice game with fun FMs and everything, but a real simulator??? Oh pfft, just as you said yourself. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
07-01-2006, 02:55 AM
So in conclusion there are:

1) real simulators,

and then there are

2) PC game simulators.

Wouldn't you agree?

joeap
07-01-2006, 03:24 AM
Guys we are playing with language here, and mixing up a WHOLE bunch of issues. As msalama is trying to say, NO current PC sim (no shame using that word, perhaps "entertainment sim") can be used to train a pilot. Makes even less sense given that no one trains to fly and fight in WWII planes anymore. Even X-plane has to be used under supervision. That said, you guys have to agree there IS a difference between these "sims" and arcade style games like "crimson tide" "heros of the Pacific" or the planes in Battlefield WWII. Would you not agree msalama? I have not tried these games but other flight games for console and yes there is a difference. No reason why one cannot try to simulate certain aspects of flight and try to recreate real world tactics or for MSFS real world procedures...and use it to learn about "how it really was" while in full knowledge of the differences /limitations. Like the silly assertions at the beginning of this thread that this TW model is finally a "real" anton...it is just as much a bunch of code and pixels as 1C's version.

Then there is the throny issue of DELIBERATE bias which so many like to fling at Oleg and company. That I think is BS, bias there is of course like here or at every MS addon makers etc. Finally there is no reason even in an entertainment product not to get big things right...if the prop pitch exploit was that, an exploit not used by the real pilots it should be removed. The FW flight attitude (forget the whole issue of the view and refraction that gives me a headache) is something that can be made right. It could well be possible that the community (and TW) are wrong and 1C right...or the opposite.

Whew, took a bit of typing on my Saturday morning.

msalama
07-01-2006, 03:53 AM
Would you not agree msalama?

Oh, absolutely, because there are arcade PC flight games, PC game flight simulators, and true simulators.

And I'm not saying that better PC game sims are bad, either. It could very well be that they actually DO reproduce some aspects of the real thing quite faithfully, but all of them are still simplified and coarse, because they have to be. There're at least three reasons for this:

1) Gameability. It stops being fun if it gets too hard, so you simplify things a bit.

2) The platform. Real sims use distributed processing and hardware to achieve the degree of realism they do. Can't do this at home!

3) Software complexity. All PC software, simulation or otherwise, is developed within confines of profitability and runnability / useability in an average PC box. So you simplify, again - there's your time-to-market to think about, for one - and qualitywise strive for "good enough", i.e. for a product that is stable / usable / realistic enough for the majority of your user base.


It could well be possible that the community (and TW) are wrong and 1C right...or the opposite.

...or that they _both_ are wrong, no?

joeap
07-01-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by msalama:


...or that they _both_ are wrong, no?

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

He he pleasure to discuss with you, one of the few clear headed posters around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F6_Ace
07-01-2006, 06:51 AM
To Targetware peeps: May I respectfully request that the FW190 forward view and flight attitude is adjusted to be in line with the considerably more accurate Il-2 version because, according to certain sources on this forum, you have it wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Deedsundone
07-01-2006, 07:24 AM
...and delete that red cross http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight-
07-01-2006, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
To Targetware peeps: May I respectfully request that the FW190 forward view and flight attitude is adjusted to be in line with the considerably more accurate Il-2 version because, according to certain sources on this forum, you have it wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif look at the Targetware FW-190

the plane is pointed down

the guns are pointed down

the prop is pointed down

the wings & tail are pointed down

that isnt a plane flying level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
07-02-2006, 01:14 AM
that isnt a plane flying level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, some planes _do_ fly in a nose-down attitude at full throttle. This has to do with wing and tailplane incidences, among other things.

But does the Focke do that IRL? You tell me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
07-03-2006, 03:59 PM
Beside this... the width/height scale is screwed up in Targetware (if not zoomed in). That makes it looking more pointing down than it really is.

BerkshireHunt
07-03-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that isnt a plane flying level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, some planes _do_ fly in a nose-down attitude at full throttle. This has to do with wing and tailplane incidences, among other things.

But does the Focke do that IRL? You tell me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Oleg ("aerodynamically impossible"), or former '190 pilot, Andreas Preusse - who both posted about this controversy years ago.