PDA

View Full Version : PF is sooooooo easy that...



BlitzPig_DDT
01-07-2005, 09:33 AM
Haven't been around for awhile because I got sick of listening to the crying over realistic take off distances (I mean, get some maxi-pads and get over it already), the general banality of this place, and not least, warding off advances from some of the types here that clearly have a crush on me.

Kinda fell back into GT3 with GT4 just 'round the corner.

But I haven't lost my interest in flying entirely, and I wanted to relate a recent occurrance that I think a lot of you guys would appreciate (on one level or antoher).

A friend of mine who I haven't seen in some time dropped by my place last weekend. The last "sim" he flew was Lucas Arts' SWOTL. Might have been something a bit more recent, but, either way it would be, at most the 486, pre-Win95 days. So we're talking quite some time ago. And he hasn't played any game at all in a good while (no system really capable of it).

So, just for kicks, I sat him down in front of PF with my Cougar+RCS. I gave him a run down of the most important controls, and asked him to take off in the P-40E I had just landed for him in the QMB. I offered some pointers along the way as well, but as minimal as possible to keep my influence down. Well, that didn't work out too well. He got off the runway (still on the ground), and flipped the plane.

So then I walked him through the commands to restart the mission and this time, rather than taking the time to land it first, asked him to try to land it. Let's just say that the engineers had a lot to clean up and some landscaping to do. lol

So then I walked him through the menu interface again and got him into a Yak3. Arguably one of the easiest planes to fly (can fly slow, very agile and not very stall prone), and asked him to try to land it.

This time he at least was on the runway when he blew up. lol This one wasn't too bad really, he just hit a wee bit too hard.



Seems that PF isn't quite so easy as so many have claimed afterall, eh? Much like Oleg himself pointed out, you've been at this for about 4 years, just on this sim alone, probably more time in other sims as well. The basics of flight, and the necessary coordination for the control set you have, you have down pat. Remember, this guy went off the runway and flipped when trying to take off because he had difficulty getting his brain wrapped around steering with his feet while on the ground, and because he wasn't used to working his limbs in such a fashion.

And now for those of you will will once again try to tell me that landing and taking off aren't any indication (never mind that they are arguably one of the more difficult aspects of basic flight), on the landing attempts, he had to line himself up, and set up his approach. In the process of doing so, he nearly spun the P-40 and even managed to stall the Yak.

I have my sliders toned down, but on a very nice, linear "curve". Offering fine control, and only full control at the back. There are no major jumps in control authority. I spent a lot of time working it out. Had it been 100's across the board, or some of the curves I've seen posted, he'd really have been in trouble. lol

After seeing this experiment, you'd know that there would be no way this guy would be successful in combat. Even in a Yak3, even against Rookie AI in P-47s at Sea Level. He'd end up maneuver killing himself just trying.

I told him the reason for that experiment was because many people here complained that it's "too easy" and "arcadish" (nevermind the stick time they have at this point), and he replied "It's certainly not easy. I think I'll be sticking to space games."

Now, if I was to spend some time with him, and coach him through the basics, I could have him taking off, landing, and even able to shoot at some target drones, no doubt. But then, there were also kids with maybe 10hours of stick time flying late model 109s, and successfully (a reported high loss rate, but it wasn't all).

So the point stands - PF isn't "easy". It's not "arcade". It has not been "dumbed down". If you think it's easy, it's partly because of the sheer amount of stick time you have, and partly because you got much of that in an unrealistically difficult FM, and have truly masted the basics of flight. And if your reference is modern pilot training, you're forgetting all the **** real pilots have to learn, know, and deal with that we don't simply because it is a sim, and how none of that **** FM related.

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

Bearcat99
01-07-2005, 10:17 AM
What he said... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Dexmeister
01-07-2005, 10:29 AM
Well said DDT. I don't think PF is "easy", and in fact recall how hard it once was to get used to the physics built into the game, as well as the ins & outs of successfully pulling off combat maneuvers. Hundreds of hours at the stick helped iron that out a little, at least so I can safely call myself a rookie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That said, comparing IL2/FB/PF/AEP with all the other modern sims I've ever flown, I'm let down with the landings in PF. Simply put, the only way to mess up your approach (once you're experienced with basic flight) is to be too slow, or have too high a rate of descent. In the FS series (yeah, I know, lots here hate MS), there's the added factors of wind, weight, traffic, visibility, and all of this can be widely tweaked via difficulty settings. In FB I've yet to find myself scared during an approach the way I've been many many times in FS2004.

So, while I agree that PF isn't dumbed down, and in fact it's pretty challenging (especially for combat), the landings bite, IMO. Carriers are a different story of course.

Now compared to CFS3 with the 1% FMs, well.. nevermind, ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

madsarmy
01-07-2005, 10:38 AM
Nice post DDT

My M8 gave PF a shot when he was at my place a few weeks ago. He used to fly a bit with the original IL2 so he was not a complete novice.
He was blown away by how much this sim has progressed. He is now looking forward to getting a new rig in the near future to get FB/AEP/PF.
I think he understands why I keep boring everyone with my flying talk.

ps. He jumped about a foot off the chair when his plane was hit by a piece of flak.

murewa
01-07-2005, 10:43 AM
BUMP!

right on.

from time to time I have had the thoughts of "is this arcarde-like" slipping into my head. All I need to do is remind myself of the sim's difficulty is remember that I've had years flying all sorts of flight sims up to now to home flight skills.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif or I can just sit my gf at the controls and watch the nearly tragic array of crashes stalls and single aircraft using the ammo supllies for an entire nation's annual war effort http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I agree blitzpig, this sim seriously rocks and any perception of arcade-ness is balderdash!

crazyivan1970
01-07-2005, 10:49 AM
I can`t believe i am saying this DDT, this is the best post i`v seen in days. Agreed 100%.

Most of us have thousends of hours flying time since IL2 demo was released...

Bearcat99
01-07-2005, 10:51 AM
D@mmit Dex..... You're gonna make me go out and get FS2004 yet. Everytime you post about it it makes me say....should I ...... should I......
and its been a while so you know I havent thought about it in a spell..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KRISTORF
01-07-2005, 10:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 11:01 AM
Well said DDT. There is so much nuance to this sim that we take for granted simply because we have thousands of hours of stick time. I know I personally put in more hours of time in a week than most new LW pilots had in 1945. The nay sayers (suprised none are here yet...)will no doubt be here soon to lay down their pet conspiracy theorys about this sim being dumbed down, and harder = more "real".

Pfffffftttttt..... Their comments only expose their personal agendas to nerf aircraft that they fly agianst.

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

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 11:05 AM
fs2004 is nice, but i prefer how il2 flies..

fs2004 just seems odd

i agree with ddt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
01-07-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Haven't been around for awhile because I got sick of listening to the crying over realistic take off distances (I mean, get some maxi-pads and get over it already), the general banality of this place, and not least, warding off advances from some of the types here that clearly have a crush on me.

Kinda fell back into GT3 with GT4 just 'round the corner.

But I haven't lost my interest in flying entirely, and I wanted to relate a recent occurrance that I think a lot of you guys would appreciate (on one level or antoher).

A friend of mine who I haven't seen in some time dropped by my place last weekend. The last "sim" he flew was Lucas Arts' SWOTL. Might have been something a bit more recent, but, either way it would be, at _most_ the 486, pre-Win95 days. So we're talking quite some time ago. And he hasn't played any game at all in a good while (no system really capable of it).

So, just for kicks, I sat him down in front of PF with my Cougar+RCS. I gave him a run down of the most important controls, and asked him to take off in the P-40E I had just landed for him in the QMB. I offered some pointers along the way as well, but as minimal as possible to keep my influence down. Well, that didn't work out too well. He got off the runway (still on the ground), and flipped the plane.

So then I walked him through the commands to restart the mission and this time, rather than taking the time to land it first, asked him to try to land it. Let's just say that the engineers had a lot to clean up and some landscaping to do. lol

So then I walked him through the menu interface again and got him into a Yak3. Arguably one of the easiest planes to fly (can fly slow, very agile and not very stall prone), and asked him to try to land it.

This time he at least was on the runway when he blew up. lol This one wasn't too bad really, he just hit a wee bit too hard.



Seems that PF isn't quite so easy as so many have claimed afterall, eh? Much like Oleg himself pointed out, you've been at this for about 4 years, just on this sim alone, probably more time in other sims as well. The basics of flight, and the necessary coordination for the control set you have, you have down pat. Remember, this guy went off the runway and flipped when trying to take off because he had difficulty getting his brain wrapped around steering with his feet while on the ground, and because he wasn't used to working his limbs in such a fashion.

And now for those of you will will once again try to tell me that landing and taking off aren't any indication (never mind that they are arguably one of the more difficult aspects of basic flight), on the landing attempts, he had to line himself up, and set up his approach. In the process of doing so, he nearly spun the P-40 and even managed to stall the Yak.

I have my sliders toned down, but on a very nice, linear "curve". Offering fine control, and only full control at the back. There are no major jumps in control authority. I spent a lot of time working it out. Had it been 100's across the board, or some of the curves I've seen posted, he'd really have been in trouble. lol

After seeing this experiment, you'd know that there would be no way this guy would be successful in combat. Even in a Yak3, even against Rookie AI in P-47s at Sea Level. He'd end up maneuver killing _himself_ just trying.

I told him the reason for that experiment was because many people here complained that it's "too easy" and "arcadish" (nevermind the stick time they have at this point), and he replied "It's certainly not easy. I think I'll be sticking to space games."

Now, if I was to spend some time with him, and coach him through the basics, I could have him taking off, landing, and even able to shoot at some target drones, no doubt. But then, there were also kids with maybe 10hours of stick time flying late model 109s, and successfully (a reported high loss rate, but it wasn't all).

So the point stands - PF isn't "easy". It's not "arcade". It has not been "dumbed down". If you think it's easy, it's partly because of the sheer amount of stick time you have, and partly because you got much of that in an unrealistically difficult FM, and have truly masted the basics of flight. And if your reference is modern pilot training, you're forgetting all the **** real pilots have to learn, know, and deal with that we don't simply because it _is_ a sim, and how none of that **** FM related.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said to Oleg when he made that statement, you only have to fly Il-2 again to see the difference. I'm not a WW2 pilot so I don't know which is correct but it's nothing to do with how many stick hours I have.

When I go back to Il-2, it's harder. This isn't some distant memory; I still have it installed and play it.

As I said, that's not to say it's more realistic but it negates the stick time argument to some extent.

Cheers,
Norris

DarkCanuck420
01-07-2005, 11:19 AM
I dont have many flight hours. it took me many hours to get the hang of taking off, let alone flying and landing...well im still not all that successful. it is not "easy" at all. when i started out i treated it like i was going to fly bf1942 style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif within 10secs i knew that sure was not going to work.
The game is great, challanging, and even though im far from becomming a good flyer it still keeps me wanting to play the game.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-07-2005, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
As I said to Oleg when he made that statement, you only have to fly Il-2 again to see the difference. I'm not a WW2 pilot so I don't know which is correct but it's nothing to do with how many stick hours I have.

When I go back to Il-2, it's harder. This isn't some distant memory; I still have it installed and play it.

As I said, that's not to say it's more realistic but it negates the stick time argument to some extent.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you chose to only focus on one small aspect of that post, but in any event, I disagree.

If you'll recall I fired up the original IL2 FM (the demo) and ran some impromptu tests, doing back to back comparisons with PF.

It was a wash over all. Mostly it wasn't different. The lack of decent energy modeling was a bit more difficult, but, the 109G2 (for example) handled so well you didn't need energy, so if anything, it was actually *easier*.

But let's apply a bit of logic, shall we? You've admitted that you don't know which is more real, so I'm not getting on you about that, but....one would think that the whole point of a sim is to be accurate, not to be difficult (for it's own sake). Now, we know changes have been made, but why? We also know that PC power has increased considerably in the last 4 years or so. Now here comes the logic part - the argument has been that it was made easier to appeal to a wider market. Thing is, this happens most often from one patch to the next, not just in the major releases. And all the releases are very much tied to one another. So....anyone turned off to the series for it's difficulty will *not* come back when a new patch or major version is released, even if it is easier. The reputation is set in their mind and that is that. However, such a change would piss off the loyal core, and possibly drive them away. So really, doing such a thing would not help sales, it would kill the product. On that basis alone it's evident that the changes have been to further enhance accuracy, not to make it easier.

Plus we simply can not ignore the placebo effect. The human mind is a really odd thing. The changes haven't been nearly as great as many old timers here would suggest, yet they are convinced of their suggestions. Why? Their mind is playing tricks on them basically. Knowing (or suspecting) something has changed, combined with their own skill/experience, and the occasional real instance where something was artificially complex being corrected, lead to the conclusion that it was "dumbed down" now, though little, if anything really changed.

Had the same thing happen all the time to us when I worked in a garage. You could change a bulb and customers would come back complaining of a noise from the engine that was "never there before". We'd agree to look at it, wait a bit, then give the car back and they'd be happy. lol

EJGr.Ost_chamel
01-07-2005, 11:38 AM
*ROTFLMAO*

The fact, that someone who hasn't flown a flightsim for years is not able to land a plane in PF makes you think, that the behaviour of the planes in this sim is as realistic and hard as it can get? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
That was really a good one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Greetings
Chamel

P.S.: Plz give us a source for your claim, that 109s were successfully flown with 10 hours of stick time?

Edit: Added the word "successfully"

Blackdog5555
01-07-2005, 11:40 AM
The Unfortunate part of WWII air war for pilots was the lack of training. A recent History Channel Special went through the training of a British Spitfire pilot. Some ground school then 8 hours of air time. They were taught, 1. Take and landing and turning. No Gunnery at all. The pilot flew the plane pretty good after 8 hours but ..it was a two seat trainer and an old Spit veteran flew with the kid. Good show.
But,It was about the same for LW pilots. Worse for IJN IJA pilots. Actual WWII interviews characterized the practice of throwing the young inexperienced to to veteran enemy fighters as tragic/bloody shame, etc. I guess you had a 33% chance of getting wacked on your first sortie. If you survived 5 missions your chances of survival increased dramatically. The virtual flyers here with several hundred hours acrobatic dogfighting and dead on gunnery is what isnt realistic. LOL. Some actual Spitfire pilot stated that 90% of all kills came from unseen enemy. Bushwacking from a Boom and Zoom or out of the sun. Survival was credited to pure luck rather than skill. Also, It seems accidents, mechanical breakdown and friendly shooting, blue on blue was more of a threat than the enemy contact.

TooFastForLove.
01-07-2005, 11:50 AM
this is late in posting but that reminds me of a time when I used to base my life around Grand Prix Legends. A sim even though made in 1998 that has been improved by the community and is widley still considered the most realistic racing sim around.

I would let friends/family try it and they were frusturated and fuming that they couldn't even get out of the pits without wrecking the car. Some of my lesser intellegent friends said "the game is too hard" or "It sucks." I couldn't help but to be annoyed by their ignorance, they think Grand Tourismo is true to life racing.

A simmilar experiance with the older Papyrus Nascar racing games. They didn't have a rev limitor and people couldn't understand why the engine would blow in the first few seconds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

My dad would watch over my shoulder in awe as I could whip around the track with proper use of the racing line, controlling 4 wheel drifts, passing other cars without locking wheels...etc.

Its been a couple years since I've last played a racing sim. I havn't had a decent working steering wheel since.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-07-2005, 11:52 AM
Nice DDT

Basicly the same thing happened to me. As most know I played WarBirds and Aces High for some years. Those guys just thought I cursed a lot. They should have listened to me when trying to take off for the first time in IL-2, in an I-16 of all things. You want Arcade, go check out Aces High. IL-2 far surpasses those games when it comes to flight models. The most realistic yet! Sure, I bicker and complain about the small things, but its the total amount of small things that make this game so awsome.

BTW I flew two coops last night. Each coop lasted a little over an hour. Each time I came back to the CV and busted up bad on landing. I couldnt figure it out. The F4U just flew like ****. I guess I was all shot up or something but probably just TIRED and FATIGUED. Tried a trip around the CV pattern today and had no problems. A little battle damage and an hour of "work" makes for an interesting landing in the F4U...I love it!

Old_Canuck
01-07-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
D@mmit Dex..... You're gonna make me go out and get FS2004 yet. Everytime you post about it it makes me say....should I ...... should I......
and its been a while so you know I havent thought about it in a spell..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bearcat, FS9 is alright for those mellow moments when you want to practice instruments and procedures on the heavies. I've been enjoying it since it came out but not for awhile since PF was released. I don't think you'd regret it if you bought it.

Back on topic: if PF was "too easy" we'd have more nOObs from CFS3 to babysit.

horseback
01-07-2005, 12:14 PM
About six months ago, I went up to my folks' house with my 'traveling rig' (I work on the road a lot, so I have a cpu & monitor optimized for travel with it's boxes and speaker set and my HOTAS - I just copy my Users file from my main gaming setup into the traveling computer so I can continue my campaigns). My siblings were all there with their sons, three of which were over 12, which seems the age at which the flightsimmer 'switch' can be turned on.

I set up the rig in the game room, did the first 109 single mission from the original Il-2 copied into FB/AEP, and just rocked, killing both late model LaGG-3s and three of the four Il-2s, and still being able to return to base (for only the second time!).

Like a classic bastage, I had made it look easy.

My brothers, brother-in-law and their sons, as well as my Dad, all took a try (actually several tries) at that mission and the other single missions (especially the Mustang and P-80 missions) over the course of the next two days. My Dad, youngest brother and brother in law have all held private pilots' licenses (all but the brother in law's expired at this time, but still...), and they were no more successful than my nephews, which is to say, there were lots of stalls and crashes until I showed them how to set up the QMB for solo practice flights and then shooting down friendlies for target practice, and got the message across that sudden moves = sudden death.

By the end of the second day, the nephews at least could take off and usually land. My poor old Dad and brothers never quite got the hang of it (although, to be honest, the kids were hogging the computer). They loved the graphics and respected the flight modeling, but recoiled at the investment necessary to get their computers and controllers up snuff. The kids of course, had no issues with the costs, but they were somewhat miffed that it wasn't available for their xBox, Gamecube, or PS2s.

I had gone from CFS2 and Red Baron 3D (with torque) to the original Il-2 Sturmovik, and had had my troubles with takeoffs and landings in the 109, although most of the others were relatively forgiving, so I had an 'edge' when I started over my family members. However, I have no natural advantages in the eye-hand coordination department by any means. I've always thought that the FB/AEP/PF series' FM was easier, but I recently revisited Il-2 1.2, and it was a walk in the park. The trim inputs are immediate(a plus, IMO), and the planes are much slower and frankly underpowered compared to RL figures. I won't even go into the AI's behavior, except to say that things are better in the FB series.

I've been working at this sim for almost 3 years, and I imagine that I'm a much better sim pilot than I was when I was playing the original Il-2 with a Logitech Wingman 2. If I'm not, I've wasted a hell of a lot of time.

cheers

horseback

NorrisMcWhirter
01-07-2005, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
As I said to Oleg when he made that statement, you only have to fly Il-2 again to see the difference. I'm not a WW2 pilot so I don't know which is correct but it's nothing to do with how many stick hours I have.

When I go back to Il-2, it's harder. This isn't some distant memory; I still have it installed and play it.

As I said, that's not to say it's more realistic but it negates the stick time argument to some extent.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you chose to only focus on one small aspect of that post, but in any event, I disagree.

If you'll recall I fired up the original IL2 FM (the demo) and ran some impromptu tests, doing back to back comparisons with PF.

It was a wash over all. Mostly it wasn't different. The lack of decent energy modeling was a bit more difficult, but, the 109G2 (for example) handled so well you didn't need energy, so if anything, it was actually *easier*.

But let's apply a bit of logic, shall we? You've admitted that you don't know which is more real, so I'm not getting on you about that, but....one would think that the whole point of a sim is to be accurate, not to be difficult (for it's own sake). Now, we know changes have been made, but why? We also know that PC power has increased considerably in the last 4 years or so. Now here comes the logic part - the argument has been that it was made easier to appeal to a wider market. Thing is, this happens most often from one patch to the next, not just in the major releases. And all the releases are very much tied to one another. So....anyone turned off to the series for it's difficulty will *not* come back when a new patch or major version is released, even if it is easier. The reputation is set in their mind and that is that. However, such a change would piss off the loyal core, and possibly drive them away. So really, doing such a thing would not help sales, it would kill the product. On that basis alone it's evident that the changes have been to further enhance accuracy, not to make it easier.

Plus we simply can not ignore the placebo effect. The human mind is a really odd thing. The changes haven't been nearly as great as many old timers here would suggest, yet they are convinced of their suggestions. Why? Their mind is playing tricks on them basically. Knowing (or suspecting) something has changed, combined with their own skill/experience, and the occasional real instance where something was artificially complex being corrected, lead to the conclusion that it was "dumbed down" now, though little, if anything really changed.

Had the same thing happen all the time to us when I worked in a garage. You could change a bulb and customers would come back complaining of a noise from the engine that was "never there before". We'd agree to look at it, wait a bit, then give the car back and they'd be happy. lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I did focus on a small part but it was mostly about your conclusion on stick time.

I agree about the human mind; as an engineer, I not only have to second guess what people have done but think what they will do, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regardless, I also made the point to Oleg that, when released, Il-2 won a lot of praise from pundits/pilots etc about how realistic it was. Now, however, you get people questioning how accurate it is (and giving it low scores for being 'easy' in reviews). Oleg said at the time that he never said Il-2 was realistic but that pilots did.

Of course, Oleg must have forgotten that he had pilots involved in it's development so, logically, he is either saying that he ignored what they said and just did what he thought was right or something else occurred. He has also said that PF is much more realistic than Il-2 (and I agree wrt to some of the plane FMs etc) but there has been a lot of suggestion that it isn't.

I suppose the thing to settle this would be to get someone who has actually flown one of these warbirds recently to vouch on which is more correct. Of course, people will then try to say that is invalid because planes flying today are not the same (no guns/different radio etc etc) but, broadly speaking, they could give an indication of what is right and what is wrong with it.

TBH, I stopped regarding this game as a sim some time ago (about v2.04, I think) so admittedly I am a little biased...but I still have no real idea on which is the most correct (Il-2 or PF) but I do know it's not because of stick time that *I* regard PF as 'easier' .

Of course, you also have to factor in my marketing conspiracy theory that, with CFS out of the picture, Oleg has the option to make things a little more 'approachable' for people new to this game (and who are used to it) by dumbing things down.

Cheers,
Norris

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 12:35 PM
compared to IL2:Sturmovik . . . . FB is easy

the enviroment is moddeled in FB & that alone throws more at you IRL than what we have to deal with . . . . FB/PF is eaiser than flying IRL

as far as driving games go . . . . GT3 sucks balls

R_Mutt
01-07-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
*ROTFLMAO*

The fact, that someone who hasn't flown a flightsim for years is not able to land a plane in PF makes you think, that the behaviour of the planes in this sim is as realistic and hard as it can get? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
That was really a good one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Greetings
Chamel

P.S.: Plz give us a source for your claim, that 109s were successfully flown with 10 hours of stick time?

Edit: Added the word "successfully" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would be a good litmus test than?

Perhaps the ability to go on a forum and chuckle at someone elses excellent post while personally offering nothing substantial to back up a translucent argument to a non-existant point? That would be a good one!

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Pfffffftttttt..... Their comments only expose their personal agendas to nerf aircraft that they fly agianst. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so when was the last time you ground looped a Corsair LOL !

real flying takes more skill than FB flying

FACT

Supr
01-07-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
*ROTFLMAO*

The fact, that someone who hasn't flown a flightsim for years is not able to land a plane in PF makes you think, that the behaviour of the planes in this sim is as realistic and hard as it can get? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
That was really a good one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Greetings
Chamel

P.S.: Plz give us a source for your claim, that 109s were successfully flown with 10 hours of stick time?

Edit: Added the word "successfully" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, what wrong with you amigo? it was an interesting post and discussion untill you decided to dribble in. I guess you just prove the old saying, "theres one in every crowd"

KarayaEine
01-07-2005, 01:10 PM
Spot on!

Bump~


Johann

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 01:48 PM
real flying would take some extra skills, and pc flyin some different skills..

pilots flew camels and other ww1 aircraft on 11hours stick time in combat, there actully pretty hard to fly (engine roates with prop so all kinds of gyro effects going on)

driving in a pc game and driving irl are similer, its just the stakes are WAY higher irl, u do the same things but u have less feedback, and if u go wrong ingame it doesnt matter really (u not gonna kill someone)

whatmademe
01-07-2005, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Haven't been around for awhile because I got sick of listening to the crying over realistic take off distances (I mean, get some maxi-pads and get over it already), the general banality of this place, and not least, warding off advances from some of the types here that clearly have a crush on me.

Kinda fell back into GT3 with GT4 just 'round the corner.

But I haven't lost my interest in flying entirely, and I wanted to relate a recent occurrance that I think a lot of you guys would appreciate (on one level or antoher).

A friend of mine who I haven't seen in some time dropped by my place last weekend. The last "sim" he flew was Lucas Arts' SWOTL. Might have been something a bit more recent, but, either way it would be, at _most_ the 486, pre-Win95 days. So we're talking quite some time ago. And he hasn't played any game at all in a good while (no system really capable of it).

So, just for kicks, I sat him down in front of PF with my Cougar+RCS. I gave him a run down of the most important controls, and asked him to take off in the P-40E I had just landed for him in the QMB. I offered some pointers along the way as well, but as minimal as possible to keep my influence down. Well, that didn't work out too well. He got off the runway (still on the ground), and flipped the plane.

So then I walked him through the commands to restart the mission and this time, rather than taking the time to land it first, asked him to try to land it. Let's just say that the engineers had a lot to clean up and some landscaping to do. lol

So then I walked him through the menu interface again and got him into a Yak3. Arguably one of the easiest planes to fly (can fly slow, very agile and not very stall prone), and asked him to try to land it.

This time he at least was on the runway when he blew up. lol This one wasn't too bad really, he just hit a wee bit too hard.



Seems that PF isn't quite so easy as so many have claimed afterall, eh? Much like Oleg himself pointed out, you've been at this for about 4 years, just on this sim alone, probably more time in other sims as well. The basics of flight, and the necessary coordination for the control set you have, you have down pat. Remember, this guy went off the runway and flipped when trying to take off because he had difficulty getting his brain wrapped around steering with his feet while on the ground, and because he wasn't used to working his limbs in such a fashion.

And now for those of you will will once again try to tell me that landing and taking off aren't any indication (never mind that they are arguably one of the more difficult aspects of basic flight), on the landing attempts, he had to line himself up, and set up his approach. In the process of doing so, he nearly spun the P-40 and even managed to stall the Yak.

I have my sliders toned down, but on a very nice, linear "curve". Offering fine control, and only full control at the back. There are no major jumps in control authority. I spent a lot of time working it out. Had it been 100's across the board, or some of the curves I've seen posted, he'd really have been in trouble. lol

After seeing this experiment, you'd know that there would be no way this guy would be successful in combat. Even in a Yak3, even against Rookie AI in P-47s at Sea Level. He'd end up maneuver killing _himself_ just trying.

I told him the reason for that experiment was because many people here complained that it's "too easy" and "arcadish" (nevermind the stick time they have at this point), and he replied "It's certainly not easy. I think I'll be sticking to space games."

Now, if I was to spend some time with him, and coach him through the basics, I could have him taking off, landing, and even able to shoot at some target drones, no doubt. But then, there were also kids with maybe 10hours of stick time flying late model 109s, and successfully (a reported high loss rate, but it wasn't all).

So the point stands - PF isn't "easy". It's not "arcade". It has not been "dumbed down". If you think it's easy, it's partly because of the sheer amount of stick time you have, and partly because you got much of that in an unrealistically difficult FM, and have truly masted the basics of flight. And if your reference is modern pilot training, you're forgetting all the **** real pilots have to learn, know, and deal with that we don't simply because it _is_ a sim, and how none of that **** FM related.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[b]Well i just boaght the game and have about 1 hour fligth time and I can tell you the game isn't easy.

I have b-17 which utterly stinks as a sim, and gets on my nerves because I have to constantly heal my crew (There are to stupid to heal the guy next to them).

That game is easy and "dumbed down" as far as the physics go. Even on the highest level you may break off the wings if you go to fast, but stalling isn't that easy.

So I bought PF yesterday. I know from the other WWII games I have played that the rudder is alot more important on props than on jets. So I knew that I had to watch my rudder (My joystick has the twist for the rudder controls).

however, the first attempt at taking off, I ran right of the side of the carrier, broke off my landing gear, and went face first into the water (the effects are quite nice). I think this is due to the fact that I hit the chocks, after putting the power up to 110 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

It took me about three times to get the feel right. I haven't play IL2 so I don't know if the feel was like that, but it wasn't like the other sims I have played. It's quick to respond, but also quicker to stall.

After a few attempts I got the plane in the air without breaking off the landing gear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and from that point started plaing with the controls. I found that the plane will go into a spin pretty quick if you over compensate which ended up in another splash.

I have yet to learn how to land. Is there no time skip? sorry guys but i get bored sitting in the plane for two hours only to splash. I know you can speed it up, but auto pilot seems to crash real fast.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ruxtmp
01-07-2005, 03:11 PM
I tried this experiment with my father with the complete opposite result. He has flown 152s but that was over 15 years ago and has not flown anything since. I had received PF for Christmas and had loaded up the 3.03m patch and while flying around waiting for dinner he informed me that PC flying is a joke (the guy hates computers). I said that PC simulators have come a long way and that they do require some skill to takeoff and land. So after an hour of berating his air combat knowledge and flying ability he took up the challenge. (Full Real settings with HOTAS and rudder) For his first try a Bf-109g6. I got the engine started for him and then said go for it, before doing anything he asked how to set the flaps. Oops, showed him the flaps, trim sliders, and gear. After that he gently released the brakes and pushed the throttle forward executing a perfect tail dragger takeoff. All the time saying that he would have though a 109 would require more rudder on takeoff then a cessna. So then he flew around in circles for a while and noted that the trim responce was weird and all stalls resulted in a spin. He then expertly returned to the field and did a perfect landing all with no instruction from me execpt for the fact that I had already explained the 3 flap positions. He then turned to me and said that if flying a 109 was this easy all flight schools should convert to from cessna 152s to 109s. I had expected that he would be able to takeoff and land but it would not be the prettiest of maneuvers. Oh well, I still think IL2FB/AEP/PF is the closest approximation to WWII air combat that is available for a PC. I too have my private pilot and glider licence and must agree with him that flying a real aircraft certainly requires more skill then flying this sim or any PC sim for that matter.

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 03:37 PM
hey Blitzpig_DDT . . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruxtmp:
He then turned to me and said that if flying a 109 was this easy all flight schools should convert to from cessna 152s to 109s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I too have my private pilot and glider licence and must agree with him that flying a real aircraft certainly requires more skill then flying this sim or any PC sim for that matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh yea . . . . . RL flying is just as easy as FB is . . . . . . for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

R_Mutt
01-07-2005, 03:41 PM
The question is; who thinks they could jump into a REAL, beginner aircraft with the same minimal explanation of controls and perform a takeoff and landing. And when (or if) you land do you think you'd say to yourself, after the tremendous build up and expectations, "boy, that was easier than I thought it would be?"

I think I could, but I'm completely full of myself.

GT182
01-07-2005, 03:45 PM
Great post DDT.

As for being easy, not really. It's what you make of it and what you learn that makes it easy, and the amount of time you put in it. Some can master it easier than others. I've flown Forgotten Battles since it came out and I'm still learning. I just wish I hadn't put off geting IL2 when it came out. I missed a lot of flight time and fun.

This series is still better than anything out there for online flying. We have to hand it to Oleg for all the fun we're having and what we be learning too.

Treetop64
01-07-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
D@mmit Dex..... You're gonna make me go out and get FS2004 yet. Everytime you post about it it makes me say....should I ...... should I......
and its been a while so you know I havent thought about it in a spell..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bearcat, FS9 is alright for those mellow moments when you want to practice instruments and procedures on the heavies. I've been enjoying it since it came out but not for awhile since PF was released. I don't think you'd regret it if you bought it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The retail version of FS9 is OK. The terrain mesh level of detail isn't fantastic, terrain texturing and landclass is acceptable, and some of the default aircraft can have some slightly quirky flying qualities. However, once you add custom high-res terrain mesh, landclass, user aircraft, AI aircraft, sound packages, etc., then FS9 truly becomes a jewel. Yes, upgrading FS9 does involve some loosening of purse strings, but trust me my friends, if you have the funds to spare, it is well worth it! Besides, there are tons, TONS of very high quality freeware products out there for the picking as well. I've customized FS9 to the point that it is now occupying more than 10 GB of hard drive space.

I am admittedly biased, but I vigorously recommend purchasing FS9. Subsequent upgrades to aircraft, AI traffic, and terrain are crucial if you are to get the most out of this sim, however. The aircraft upgrades are especially important for those who may be slightly put off by the flying qualities of some of the FS9 default aircraft, since they generally come with vastly improved airfiles over the default panes.

Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have one hell of a rig to run it on, either!

Treetop.

SeaFireLIV
01-07-2005, 04:02 PM
I don`t often agree with DDT, but his first post is right. I had a similar situation with a 38 year old friend who was impressed by my flight recordings of FB/PF (thanks for flight recordings, Oleg!)

Anyway, after some coaching from me he actually managed to get into the air, but he just couldn`t handle dogfighting. We here might put down the AI`s effectiveness, but those 109s were running rings around him!

He mentioned how I make it look easy, turning but like I was held up by wires while he`s stalling every time he tries to do anything.

Eventually, I let him fly with `no stalls` (sacrilege) and the AI 109 still kicked his butt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Flying an aircraft DOES take a new way of thinking and perceiving. Something I guess we`ve learned without realising it.

He`s never tried it since. I think my laughing put him off for good! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Dexmeister
01-07-2005, 04:19 PM
DDT, do you remember way back when FB first hit our PCs? The first and most significant thing we both noticed and commented on was that landings were WAY harder than in IL2. How this relates to PF I have no idea.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone think that PF might be a little easier since it's being ported to XBox? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

As for FS9, I still can't fathom how any simmer could not own it. I've logged far too many hours in that sim, and while there's piles of crappy FMs and planes out there, all it takes are one or two good payware ones (PMDG Boeing 737, FlightOne Piper Meridian, Cessna 310, etc), and you're dealing with an entirely new and much more impressive sim. Come to think of it, I remember how blown away I was when I first flew the PMDG Boeing. That thing is a Boeing Simulator in itself which happens to use FS2004 to render scenery.

Well, back to my CFS3 campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

CRSutton
01-07-2005, 04:31 PM
I'm only a causual user but have been flying the sim since IL2 came out. I remember my first takeoff (no tutorial for me, of course). It was a 109 and I rolled her right over before getting off the ground. My friend was watching over my shoulder and we both laughed like little girls. I new right then that I was not in Kansas anymore.

Like I said. I have a few hours under my belt but am not a die hard user. I would have to say that more than half of my flights end up with me losing control of my bird and augering in. This sucker is hard, but I expect it to be.

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Pfffffftttttt..... Their comments only expose their personal agendas to nerf aircraft that they fly agianst. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so when was the last time you ground looped a Corsair LOL !

real flying takes more skill than FB flying

FACT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no misconceptions that real flying is not easier than sim flying. Simply put, a real airplane can kill you, a virtual one cannot.

The rest of your statement makes no sense when contrasted to the quote from my post. In fact, it kind of proves my point. You brought up the current whine machine of choice (Corsair), so I must assume that you feel it is somehow not to your liking. Yes?

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 04:42 PM
hey ! nice assumption !

when was the last time you seen 2000 Hp props go 100% throttle at stand still ?

are you going to post another load of dribble about people who say FB is too easy are wrong ?

Dexmeister
01-07-2005, 04:50 PM
Come on guys, clearly sims are harder to fly than real planes. I mean in real life you don't have the added challenge of the action trickling by like a slideshow, like PF does when too much flak goes off, right? When was the last time a real life plane slowed down just because there were 40 planes on the ground? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Have you ever had a real-life 172 overheat and cause the entire world to freeze, requiring a reboot? Or when real-weather downloads fail and you need to keep pressing 'OK' every 15 seconds as you make final approach? Not in an easy-schmeezy real-life Cessna, no sir!

If I can land a wounded 109 in PF at 2 FPS due to the slowdown caused by incompatible pixel-shaders rendering the green smoke I'm trying to see through, I figure I could land a real plane while wearing goggles full of water, no problem!

Okay, really back to my CFS3 campaign now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

icrash
01-07-2005, 04:59 PM
If it were easy, I'd be able to land something beyond the B25 and He111 on a regular basis and not become a crew chief's nightmare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 05:03 PM
Well, since you asked...


You are wrong.

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

And don't think for an instant that I believe things are 100% perfect in the sim. Torque is incorrectly modeled, if it is modeled at all. The flap deployment times on several aircraft are not correct. Ground handling is bizzare to say the least. I could go on, but that is outside the scope of this thread.

I simply do not believe that harder necessarily means more accurate.

And so far you have posted nothing persuasive to the contrary.

faustnik
01-07-2005, 05:21 PM
Real fighter piloting took more muscle.

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 05:55 PM
Indeed faustnik. The kinds of stick force applications necessary on real WW2 aircraft would destroy my computer desk in short order....

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

Bearcat99
01-07-2005, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
*ROTFLMAO*

The fact, that someone who hasn't flown a flightsim for years is not able to land a plane in PF makes you think, that the behaviour of the planes in this sim is as realistic and hard as it can get? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
That was really a good one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Can you find something more realistic than FB 3.0?

Greetings
Chamel

P.S.: Plz give us a source for your claim, that 109s were successfully flown with 10 hours of stick time?

I have read similar stuff i just cant find the book at the moment but this, which doesnt say specifically 10 hrs but it is interesting.

Flieger-HJ Pilots
In the final months of the War in 1945 young boys, members of the Fliger-HJ were pressed into service. Everything was falling to pieces in Germany during March and April of 1945. HBU asked Rob de Bie, who has put together a wonderful web site on the ME-163B Komet, if he had any information about using Flieger-HJ boys as pilots in the closing months of the War. Given the dangers of the Komet, you would think they might have been reluctant in using increasingly hard to find trained pilots. Rob replied, "That's a very good point, which I hadn't considered for this page. I've made a note to update the page with some remarks about it. The only HJ-related things I can come up with are the following. I did get a question once whether I could confirm that a certain HJ member had actually flown a Komet at Peenemunde. But that turned up nothing. The links page contains a link to "Joe Valmar's story" which sounds like HJ pilots being readied for Komet operations. And possibly Mr Kurz, the man who built the flying replica, was in a similar situation. That's all!" [DeBie]


Hans' Flieger-HJ Group
Han's group was pressed into the war effort. He was only 16 years old at the time. He just turned sixteen and the rest of his group were in the same age bracket. Hans was made a pilot of the ME-163B Komet rocket plane. He had no qualifications other than his membership in the Fliger-HJ and the fact that he had begun flying gliders.

Training
Hans' commanders rushed him into flying the rocket 163. This plane was launched by a rocket sled and had six rocket pods for propulsion. Two to gain altitude then glide in a hovering position; two pods were used to attack the bombers, and two pods to get back to base. Hans indicated his instructors tried to make them fly in formation, but the rocket pods had a different burning ratio and some flew faster which did not suit their flying instructors. Hans spoke mostly of German regimentation, everything had to be done according to the rules and regulation. Just like flying in formation, but the rocket burning ratio was different for each plane.



Edit: Added the word "successfully" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
01-07-2005, 07:16 PM
Well, just getting to take another look at this. Interesting how it's progressed. Though not unexpected. lol

Dex, I don't recall any fuss about landings when FB came out. What I do recall is that we finally had some energy modeling, and planes that could actually accelerate and approach their real combat speeds, and most importantly of all, planes that actually flew like planes and not like objects in space. And it was those changes that so many railed against, and are still railing against. Almost certainly it's because they drank the IL2 kool aid. They didn't understand that all claims of realism were relative and that it was only the best for it's time. So naturally the changes that added realism and ever so slightly decreased difficulty for those who had experience suddenly spelled arcade. The horror! lol But speaking of landings, I have found that landings have not really changed at all. If anything, I remember people kvetching about how *difficult* it was to land in FB because planes were carrying energy in a more realistic manner, so it took them longer to slow down than they liked and couldn't dive straight for the runway anymore.



Now, as for Dudeness....oh wait, let me address him in the same unnecessarily long manner - "CV8_Dudness". lol

I suggest you (and the others in your camp) go back and re-read the thread starting post. I'll try to explain it though - nothing was said about PF vs RL. It was about PF vs IL2. I'm not sure how you missed that, especially with all the direct references. But whatever.

As for the RL comparison, that is ALWAYS an issue. How can it not be for anything billed as a simulation? But, even though it wasn't the primary point, since you brought it up, might as well look at it specifically.

Certain aspects of reality are not currently modeled. That's obvious. I didn't realize we had to bother pointing stuff like that out. However, the fact is that they are minor in the grand scheme of things. That is, they would easily be assimilated when checking out in the real thing.

It's amazing how so many people think flying is so difficult. No matter how many times you point out that nobody taught the Wrights how to fly, that, as p1ngu pointed out, the Camel was *nasty* to fly and never had a 2 seater model and was still flown by *very* low hour (even single digit) trainees, that the Red Baron had only 24 hours of training from Cavalry to front lines, that nearly all WWI kites were death traps compared to WWII planes for the novice pilots that flew (and learned on) them, that WWI trainees took their first flights SOLO, that the first training sims were little more than modern kiddy rides in the mall, that most pilot training is relating to everything OTHER than actual flying, that sim students often surprise (and occasionally irk) their flight instructors due to their skill (I know of at least one occasion where a student was asked if he had flown before and he said only in sims, and the instructor said "that's it") (phew, getting tired lol) - they just can't wrap their brains around the concept.

The unfortunate part is that they keep badgering us with their false notions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

EJGr.Ost_chamel
01-07-2005, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

Can you find something more realistic than FB 3.0?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never claimed I could. But I think, that in the field of flight dynamics, Targetware is on the way to become more realistic. But still this is not a complete game - just WIP in early stage. Anyway I encourage everyone to have a look at it.

Just let me make one point clear: I am an absolute addict to the IL-2 Series and spend many hours every week, flying PF. No other PC game has ever given me so much Fun for such a long time.
But it's a GAME and I am absolutely convinced, that flying a WWII fighter was in many aspects way harder than it is in PF.

Thanks for your text about the HJ boys. Of course we all know the stories about badly trained german pilots flying fighters at the end of the war. But I don't know any sources, which give exact numbers, how many stick hours these guys typically had, before they went out for their first combat mission.
If someone claims, that they could successsfully fly a 109 with only 10 stick hours, I think, that this is a big exageration and therefore I ask for sources. If you have them, prove me wrong. I am open to learn something new.

Greetings
Chamel

willyvic
01-07-2005, 08:48 PM
Get FS2004 Bear. You know ya want it. Can't get along without it. It's in your blood bro. Your a flight simmer for cryin out loud. Ya NEED to try it out..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And with your rig, you will not be disappointed me thinks.

WV

Kannaksen_hanu
01-07-2005, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
D@mmit Dex..... You're gonna make me go out and get FS2004 yet. Everytime you post about it it makes me say....should I ...... should I......
and its been a while so you know I havent thought about it in a spell..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, when Realair released its highly-praised Spitfire I decided to try FS2004 again with 6DOF. I bought the Spitfire and flyed it for a few evenings. -It is sufficient to say that I respect Oleg Maddox even more every time I try other sims.

IMO FS2004 landings may be exciting because it doesnt "feel" like flying. FM's at least for single-engined planes are funny.

Bearcat99
01-07-2005, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

Can you find something more realistic than FB 3.0?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never claimed I could. But I think, that in the field of flight dynamics, Targetware is on the way to become more realistic. But still this is not a complete game - just WIP in early stage. Anyway I encourage everyone to have a look at it.

Just let me make one point clear: I am an absolute addict to the IL-2 Series and spend many hours every week, flying PF. No other PC game has ever given me so much Fun for such a long time.
But it's a GAME and I am absolutely convinced, that flying a WWII fighter was in many aspects way harder than it is in PF.

Thanks for your text about the HJ boys. Of course we all know the stories about badly trained german pilots flying fighters at the end of the war. But I don't know any sources, which give exact numbers, how many stick hours these guys typically had, before they went out for their first combat mission.
If someone claims, that they could successsfully fly a 109 with only 10 stick hours, I think, that this is a big exageration and therefore I ask for sources. If you have them, prove me wrong. I am open to learn something new.

Greetings
Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr.. Point taken..... I have been hearing about Targetware from Stiglr..... I do intend to get 2K4.. I cant resist it anymore.. I was just so pissed at MS because of CFS3..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CV8_Dudeness
01-08-2005, 01:15 AM
Targetware isnt that big to DL , 480 Mb , & thats with all the different theaters installed

DL the GUI then let it access the internet , it does it all itself after you have selected which theater you want

might as well seeing how its free & all

Flydutch
01-08-2005, 02:01 AM
Good remarks Blitzpig,
But where did you get the idea that people think PF is easy?
Are you listening to those many underaged loudmouths who only like to Brag on these forums and 'Show' how superior they are to anybody else?
I think any 'mature' (I'm Noth revering to age!)honest sim pilot who's kicks aren't bragging to ohters will agree that PF is far from easy. Even if there good at it themselfs!

The 'Mature'Pilots are less eager to give there opinion Maybe becuase they don't feel the urge to give their opinion all the time espescialy if the audience 'seems'to be dominated by Gung Ho Roger Ramjets & Pixel Experten! ( Lets not forget where talking about pixels here!)

Any way I remember the time I was fliyng that wounderful Lucas Arts Sim very enthousasticly And remeber that I Inmaturly Liked to show my friends my tracks of my Air Victorys (Not telling them about how my many failed missions it took before I became this 'Good')
Then one day I invited my father to have A go At it becuause he He could not Understand my excitment at such a "Game" He Never played one doesn't like anything to do with War...And to my Amazment he Shot down the two opponents and landed sucsefully!
And Concluded: "You see it is just A game, Easyier then real live!"

e5kimo
01-08-2005, 02:53 AM
this observation of a normal person with prolly little computer exposure in terms of its entertainment potential is very interesting.
i dont care much about FM/realism politics but somehow the initial post made me remember why i enjoy the il2 series so much.
it is a very challanging game. the only computer game that has captivated me to a point that years on it is still as complex and demanding to conquer as it was on its first day.
i wasnt much into flight sims before although in my youth i spent considerable time with comanche and fa18 interceptor.
flight sims are probably the likes of backgammon or chess, poker, skat or bridge.
the multiplayer aspect unlike other computer games is an interaction on a very sophisticated level. it requires far more than reflexes but strategy, improvisation, coordination and imagination.
strike me pink, i reckon they should teach sturmovik at school.

TX-Zen
01-08-2005, 04:44 AM
Certain aspects of the sim are too easy right now however and sorely need a re-examination.

In IL2 original it took at least basic understanding of stick forces and energy to perform a spiral climb which when performed properly was a solid way to seperate the skilled from the new. This kind of understanding rewarded people who chose to fly one particular aircraft exclusively (the P39 and the 190A5 are probably the two best examples) and this phenomena correlates with real life pilot accounts of how important experience was in flying and tactics. "It's the man, not the machine" as Chuck Yeager used to say. IL2 original did a better job at least for climbing situations than PF does imho because now in many ways "It's the machine, not the man" when you have at least a half baked understanding of energy.

As far as PF goes, most planes can climb too well at speeds above and below documented best climb speeds. Currently 190's tend to favor high speed climbs but not because they climb faster at those speeds, its because they climb the same at 240km/h as they do at 400km/h so given the choice it's better to be at a higher speed. In IL2 original things were much tighter, the 190 needed to be closer to 280km/h to hit best climb rate..anything lower and vertical rate decreases, anything higher and speed bleed occurs during what is effectively a zoom climb.

I've flown IL2 original quite a bit lately and I've found the 190 to be much less of a monster than it used to be for a couple of reasons. One, it's been 3 years of constant flying which naturally makes a big difference and two I have much better stick settings now than I did back then (thanks to all these years of experimentation). On the other hand it was quite refreshing to out spiral climb Yaks and La's because my mastery of the 190 has increased so much as opposed to the same match ups in PF where the spiral climb is a risky tactic at best. In 3.04 my favorite ride the D9 is difficult with our current energy model, but even in FB 1.22 this same plane (who's FM has barely changed amazingly enough) was a deadly weapon when flown with sound energy tactics. Even then the planes rewarded adherance to proper climb speeds more so than it does now.

What has changed to cause such a discrepancy in 3.0+ compared to IL2 original? My answer is simple but probably not popular.

The FM has been changed to allow low speed climbs in order for aircraft to take off from carriers because if the adherance to Vy was done like it used to be in IL2 original, probably few of us could make it off the deck even with a headwind. Even now it appears its a choppy compromise at best because few of us can get off the deck with any kind of ordinance if the carrier is stationary, effectively giving us the worst of both worlds: Carriers that don't work properly (and thereby fail to simulate properly) and a distorted energy model that favors point and shoot over flying right on the edge of the envelope (and again fails to simulate properly imho).

Dumbed down? Hard to say if thats even the right terminology really. Definately changes have been made to accomodate the carriers and those changes appear to be the root of this overall 'easier' feeling engine that we have now and the root of why so many aircraft get maximum performance so easily.


Thankfully rumors are that Oleg is going to rework these issues and personally I can't wait. Lots of us are saying that harder isn't more realistic and while I think that is true in a general sense certainly, I also don't think that PF is a good representation of easier being more realistic. There's a better balance somewhere between the old and the new I think and so truthfully I feel certain aspects of PF need to be harder in order to be more realistic and the primary area is climb rate.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
01-08-2005, 08:22 AM
@TX-Zen: Thank you for this great post!

Greetings
Chamel

ElAurens
01-08-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I feel certain aspects of PF need to be harder in order to be more realistic and the primary area is climb rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zen, you don't fly the P40c much do you?

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

carguy_
01-08-2005, 09:44 AM
We all know that FM controls in FB/PF aren`t so difficult as real life piloting but I bet an experienced FB pilot certainly doesn`t need so much time to learn the real thing.

About those "FM IS TOO EASY,THER IS NO FM!!!" guys I`m entirely sick of`em.I don`t understand why they play the game and yet brag about so called too easy FM all the time.How can you play it if you don`t have a good time with it?!

I say,propose some new features that would reflect the real thing closer,post some data,in other words help make it more realistic.

I know they`re aviation experts and all those "PF is great!" guys are just stupid mortals but I say play the game,help some or simply STFU.

TX-Zen
01-08-2005, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I feel certain aspects of PF need to be harder in order to be more realistic and the primary area is climb rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zen, you don't fly the P40c much do you?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dabble in it from time to time, but really I'm a 190 guy.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-08-2005, 12:51 PM
This is honestly the first time I've heard the 190 being talked about as a spiral climber. Rather the 109, with it's amazing slow speed climb ability (that it had IRL) allowing it to climb right on the edge of a stall, and then go that extra little bit and add a turn into it, causing the enemy, trying to pull lead on you, to stall out, fall, and allow you to roll over and pounce on him.

The sluggish climb rate the 190 has always had would make it about the *last* thing I'd ever try that with. Even in IL2, where I was flying the 190 exclusively.

Zen, I know people love to read your tomes, but I'm going to disagree with you for the most part. Planes in IL2 had no acceleration, the E-bleed was excessive to the point of ridiculousness so they could not maintain speeds the real ones routinely fought at, dives were the same, the FM stopped at 3Km, zooms were the same, and worst of all, planes like the 109 didn't fly. Not in air as we know it at least. If you touched the stick, it pitched in place without changing it's direction of flight, kinda like the shuttle in orbit blipping the pitch up thrusters, there was then a delayed reaction while the plane pulled streamers (even from the gentlist of movements), buffeted, and bleed all it's speed away, then it started to fly in the new direction. But!!! Only the LW planes suffered this fate because IL2 was designed for TnB. And we still have much of that legacy today, though it's importance is diminishing because it is now more realistic than it has ever been. (bear in mind that PF was never something 1C:Maddox intended to do, so you can't claim it was being "made easier" for carriers for all of FB/AEP)

1 thing that has changed however is the gap between the 190 and other planes. In FB, the 190 lost almost all of it's edge. And since you are a 190 nut.....well...

In 3.04 though, the A6 and D9 are absolute beasts. I kinda like the A6 better because if doesn't need as much speed for turns, but the raw speed of the D9 is just bloody impressive. Just (as I'm certain you know) stay high, stay fast and you'll either win, or disengage with impunity.

No, it is still now the man, not the machine, where as before it was the other way. If the Laughin driver decided to fly high, you were toast because at 3Km, they still had the advantage, and since in IL2 even 12Km = 3Km, there wasn't much you could do. You're only hope was that they stayed in the weeds. Fortunately (and ironically, since the altitude modeling sucked), they often did because their prey did as well.

TX-Zen
01-08-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
(bear in mind that PF was never something 1C:Maddox intended to do, so you can't claim it was being "made easier" for carriers for all of FB/AEP)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am claiming that actually, though the claim may be misinterpreted so let me be clear. What I mean is that unless there were changes to the code to work the carriers in, the original engine couldn't handle that. It was fairly tight and had little room for growth, because that is the nature of a PC based sim which cannot calculate all real world variables. Fair enough, I have no issue with that at all. Compromises must be made to allow the game to be playable, but when the range of the sim changes to include things it was not designed for, naturally the overall balance is changed and PF is showing some of that shift.

I do agree with you that the game was never designed for carriers but I think we can see what happened when they were introduced...one side effect is that climb speeds are way off. This is not a slam on Oleg mind you, its just an observation. He's free to make the game as he sees fit and I continue to enjoy the heck out of it, its still my #1 habit. Also I make no personal judgement or push any kind of agenda in any direction (other than I aim always for accuracy and realism tempered with some common sense), I just point out what I see and draw as logical a conclusion I can about why. To me the carrier physics are the most logical culprit about the change in the physics engine that allows such a shift in climb rates and I think this stands out even more compared to Oleg's history of having done a very good job with specific data like that in the past. That was one of the pleasures of the sim, you really needed to know your mount to get the most out of it and that really had a nice correlation with real life and pilot accounts.



As for the original point I was making about harder not necessarily being realistic, I definately stand behind my comments that IL2 original was more realistic in climbing situations because of a more accurately modelled Vy, which translated to it being more difficult to climb properly. Many of the other aspects of the game were not nearly so well done and as I said I am not claiming IL2 original is more realistic on the whole, only that certain parts of it were. In an ideal sim tailored to me, we'd bring back the climb accuracy and find some other way to make the carriers workable, I strongly feel the chosen compromise has taken us a step away from the spirit of accuracy that the game has always been known for.

johann63
01-08-2005, 04:08 PM
A good test for me is not doing this sim much anymore and then trying a quick mission with a quick landing. Its amazing how quickly I loose my edge and abilities.

Makes sense DDT, too much stick time and some folks get cocky after awhile.


I know a few good real pilots have done this, and died.