PDA

View Full Version : The only thing 'biased' about Oleg's FM



Jetbuff
03-11-2006, 01:52 PM
... is our danged interpretations of it. We fly the exact same sim, and yet come up with such different opinions it's mind-boggling

Ask the average blue pilot and he will say blue is porked, red is uber and Oleg is a biased pinko bastage. They will complain about superb maneuverability of Allied aircraft, their optimistic acceleration and E-bleed, lack of overheat and ridiculous prop-hanging feats. Meanwhile, their planes fly with a giant anchor on-board, have huge bars over the gunsight, bleed E like it's going out of style when turning and can't go toe-to-toe with any Allied counterpart past 1942. How did those aces amass those kill tallies then?

Ask the average red pilot and he will say red is porked, blue is uber and Oleg is a biased nazi bastage. They will complain about the MG151/MK108 being one hit wonders, Axis aircraft being too fast, the 109 having too gentle a stall and climbing like a rocket. Meanwhile, their planes wobble, tip stall at the drop of a hat with no warning, spray useless 0.50 cals and fail to outdive/outrun/outturn the enemy. However did the Allies win the war then?

A few will notice the similarities between these complaints and real life accounts in spite of the limitations of the PC and conclude that Oleg is one brilliant and sneaky bastage!

Ergo, the only correct conclusion is that Oleg is a bastage regardless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


PS: For the record, the blue guys are right of course! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

HuninMunin
03-11-2006, 01:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Chuck_Older
03-11-2006, 01:58 PM
Jetbuff, you're dangerously close to making sense.

Megile_
03-11-2006, 01:59 PM
It always has, and always will be

Haigotron
03-11-2006, 01:59 PM
are u the pariah/messiah/wiseman? because i damn well agree...

it all trickles down to relativity...everyhting is relative, hell...i hate the music in the menu screen...but what do i know...im from montreal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dew-Claw
03-11-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Jetbuff, you're dangerously close to making sense.
Let me check........
Yup,
Thats one of the signs of the Apocolypse.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

RegRag1977
03-11-2006, 02:40 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifCool i needed a new guru: my last one is now in jail... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-11-2006, 02:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

waffen-79
03-11-2006, 02:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And you're right, anyone that thinks the 109 is über, is doing something REALLY wrong with his LA/YAK/Spit

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

jds1978
03-11-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Dew-Claw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Jetbuff, you're dangerously close to making sense.
Let me check........
Yup,
Thats one of the signs of the Apocolypse.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

joeap
03-11-2006, 03:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Blue whiners: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Red whiners: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Real WW2 pilots: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif at above

Us sensible guys: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

UberPickle
03-11-2006, 04:49 PM
Us guys grateful for the sim existing at all: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

carguy_
03-11-2006, 05:12 PM
People can moan how much they like.
The thing weird is that we have such a small online community.

We all are biased though some are biased more than others.

About Oleg Maddox attitude I have my own opinion like we all do I guess.

Bearcat99
03-11-2006, 05:21 PM
Oooo yeah.. Im just counting all the uber Mustang whines in these forums.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And dont get me wrong.. I am not saying that the FMs are intentionally biased... I never have and never will adhere to that notion.. but between the extra umph on some planes and the lack of umph on others..... there are some frustrated fliers out here... frustrated.. but still flying. I may not be completely happy with all of it.. but I am happy with enough of it to keep flying it.

Jetbuff
03-11-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Oooo yeah.. Im just counting all the uber Mustang whines in these forums.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
So, that puts you in the red camp then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I've seen people complain about everything in this sim, a few of my favourites:

- Spitfires/Mustangs are porked and can't take on the 190/109. Correction, only the spitfire/mustang you fly does that.

- 190's were very 'maneuverable', why aren't they in the game? Come back when you figure out what the term really means.

- 109 (or P-51) should out-turn a contemporary spit (or 109), why doesn't it in-game? Definitely, it was well known that Willy (NA) installed a physics-warping engine on the 109 (P-51) that allowed it to temporarily disregard wingloading parameters.

- Nothing should out-turn my yak-3, regardless of the circumstances; it was the undisputed TnB champion. Oh yeah? How about if you're at your straight-and-level stall speed?

- Ace X said plane Y could do Z, why can't I? Err... maybe coz you aren't Ace X and rather than flying plane Y, you're simply piloting a bunch of pixels on a PC?

- And lest we forget, the perennial favourite: 0.50 cals destroying tiger tanks. Disregarding the improbability of that (particularly the 'ricochet off the road' theory) and the absence of supporting evidence, (not a single pic of a Tiger destroyed by 0.50's) they actually can in-game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with questioning the FM and seeking to prove possible issues or even lobbying strongly to get them corrected. Trouble is, 99% of the time, the issue is only "proven" to a small but very vocal, biased minority. Both they and their equally voiciferous opponents are so 100% sure of their positions, I often wonder if we're flying the same sim. In the pinnacle of scientific folly*, both groups will start with the premise that their perceptions are true and then handpick questionable 'evidence' to prove it. They become rather entrenched in their beliefs, feeding of each others' frenzied yet weak arguments and swelling their ranks through the gullible 'followers' who buy into either side's conspiracy theories.

The other problem is that when they don't get their way, which is inevitable since there are two diametrically opposed viewpoints, suddenly Oleg is a biased red/blue bastage.


* Scientifically, if you suppose a hypotesis (H-1), you must treat it as a tentative hypothesis that may very well be incorrect. Then, you must realize that you cannot prove it, you can only either support it or disprove the alternative. (H-0)

Aviar
03-11-2006, 10:08 PM
Jetbuff, I agree with your original post. Unfortunately, you are 'preaching to the choir'.

In other words, the only people who agree with you are the non-whiners, who already knew that in the first place.

-One of my favorite quotes from a whiner: "I'm not whining. I'm simply making an observation" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Aviar

Jetbuff
03-12-2006, 09:37 PM
I may be preaching to the choir Aviar, but once in a while the odd 'atheist' might drop by and get a small dose of perspective eh? Long shot, but possible.

darkhorizon11
03-12-2006, 09:48 PM
Here I go again on my own.

Going down the only road I've ever known.

Like a drifter I was born to walk alone.

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

dravisar
03-13-2006, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Here I go again on my own.

Going down the only road I've ever known.

Like a drifter I was born to walk alone.

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

And I've made up my mind, I ain't wasting no more time
but here I go again, here I go again,
here I go again, here I go.

And I've made up my mind, I ain't wasting no more time!

ROTFL awesome...

GR142-Pipper
03-13-2006, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
- 109 (or P-51) should out-turn a contemporary spit (or 109), why doesn't it in-game? Perhaps you could explain why the game allows 109G-2's to very nearly turn with Spits, Yak-3's and LA-5/7's.


Definitely, it was well known that Willy (NA) installed a physics-warping engine on the 109 (P-51) that allowed it to temporarily disregard wingloading parameters. Oh you mean the physics-warping prop cheat? Yes, that was surreal. It's also surreal how one hit can IMMEDIATELY sieze (static prop) the P-51's and P-47's engine.


- Nothing should out-turn my yak-3, regardless of the circumstances; it was the undisputed TnB champion. Oh yeah? How about if you're at your straight-and-level stall speed? Perhaps you can provide a quote where ANYONE said that "nothing should out-turn my Yak-3".

GR142-Pipper

Tully__
03-13-2006, 03:34 AM
Most of the innaccuracies are due to compromises forced by limitations in the resolution of the physics model. Doing it the way Oleg (and X-Plane) have chosen, we wont get truly accurate performance until desktop/home computers can do real time whole world particle modelling to a resolution of less than a nanometer and that my friends is a loooonnnngggg way away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

vanjast
03-13-2006, 03:34 AM
My only big whinge is that my...
Seriously 'porked' FW190 outflies, outguns your, 'porked' Spitfire, P-51, Yak3, LA7...etc...

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

Ratsack
03-13-2006, 04:08 AM
You're obviously just a game-developer-whiner.

Ratsack

fordfan25
03-13-2006, 09:48 AM
The only thing 'biased' about Oleg's FM
is the FM

Sturm_Williger
03-13-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Perhaps you could explain why the game allows 109G-2's to very nearly turn with Spits, Yak-3's and LA-5/7's.

Sometimes the Spit/Yak3/La5/La7 is flown by a Muppet !


It's also surreal how one hit can IMMEDIATELY sieze (static prop) the P-51's and P-47's engine.

I was quite pleased the other day when my head-on snapshot in a Tempest stopped the prop of the 109 that would shortly thereafter have killed me if he'd continued to fly.

In short - just about everything can and does happen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kapteeni
03-13-2006, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Blue whiners: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Red whiners: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Real WW2 pilots: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif at above

Us sensible guys: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif
And one more thing to us sensible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Cobra-84
03-13-2006, 11:58 AM
I'm sick of indirectly being told I can't fly and thats why the P-47, P-51, ect suck. Of course I've never once flown any other countries' aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I go from a flying bullseye in a P-47, to a killing machine in a FW-190. Don't get me started on the Soviet planes, I could fall asleep in a La-7 and wake up with 3 kills.


Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I am not saying that the FMs are intentionally biased

I would, look at with planes that are under modeled. See a pattern there? Its the US planes and the FW-190. The Fw-190 might actually put up a fight against the Soviet planes at low altitude, of course that can't be allowed to happen. The only good US planes are the P-39/63 series, not surprisingly they were used heavily by the Soviets.

There's another pattern in the over modeled planes. Soviet fighters with off the chart climb rates and top speeds. Then there is the Bf-109, a bit over modeled and its the US planes competition at high altitudes.

Too many coincidences for me to say the flight models are unintentionally incorrect. If the under/over modeling was spread out between the countries I just see it as FM limitations.

If a new US plane with good specs was added, would it be expected to be good or a bad? What a about a Soviet one?

Jetbuff
03-13-2006, 02:02 PM
See exhibit 1 above. I rest my case. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-13-2006, 02:17 PM
that's nothing wait till they releace them rocket boosted Yaks and La too hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Cobra-84
03-13-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
See exhibit 1 above. I rest my case. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Instead of posting that thoughtless smug comment, why don't you prove me wrong.

The yawing desynced guns isn't helping Oleg's case. A problem that only affects US planes and the Hurricane IIB, Oleg completely blows it off saying that its "how is should be" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif . All thats needed is a change to some numbers in a table to balance the rate of fires of the guns in each wing. Such an easy fix, but why does he seem so adamant about not fixing it? Anyone want to bet that it doesn't ever get fixed, dispite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Jetbuff
03-13-2006, 11:47 PM
Exhibit 2. Do we even need to go to trial your honour? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

msalama
03-13-2006, 11:56 PM
Exhibit 2. Do we even need to go to trial your honour? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Not if the weenies all plead guilty. But do you seriously think they've got the brains for that JetBuff? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-14-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
In short - just about everything can and does happen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That's true.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-14-2006, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:
The yawing desynced guns isn't helping Oleg's case. A problem that only affects US planes and the Hurricane IIB, Oleg completely blows it off saying that its "how is should be" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif . All thats needed is a change to some numbers in a table to balance the rate of fires of the guns in each wing. Such an easy fix, but why does he seem so adamant about not fixing it? Anyone want to bet that it doesn't ever get fixed, dispite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Few would take that bet as the later-war U.S. planes haven't ever been fixed. The one that was partially fixed was the P-38. However, in 4.03/4.04 it's once again the sluggish toad it was prior to 4.02. Maddox has no interest in fixing these aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
03-14-2006, 02:38 AM
Maddox has no interest in fixing these aircraft.

Well, if that's so then why not let the matter rest, huh? Because there's hardly any point in looping over the same ol' same ol' day in day out...

Xiolablu3
03-14-2006, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:

I would, look at with planes that are under modeled. See a pattern there? Its the US planes and the FW-190. The Fw-190 might actually put up a fight against the Soviet planes at low altitude, of course that can't be allowed to happen. ?

I cant believe I am hearing this. The FW190 undermodelled? Just HOW is it undermodelled? Its a fantastic plane in the game, probably the best plane available 1941-1943.

The P51 has got much better last patch, I dont know what oyu are expecting from a big heavy plane like the P47 but the only thing it can really expect to do well is dive well and take a lot of punishment, both of which it does.

Its not going to out climb, out roll or outurn a 109, plus if the 109 is carrying a Mk108 that is going to cut the P47 to pieces. Thats not the games fault, thats history.

Also people complaing that a 2 engine plane like the P38 cant dogfight with single engined fighters need to get a grip.

Its not bias, its common sense.

The P51 needs fixing tho, I agree. It needs some time spending on it and tweaking until its correct. BUT many people are aces in that plane AS IT IS and love it.

The US bombers like the B25 and A20 are fantastic. And there is hardly a better mud mover in the game than the p38, its on a par with the Sturmo and a lot faster.

If the game is biased against the West, how do you explain the Spitfire being a great model and a match for any plane in the game?

JG5_UnKle
03-14-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The P51 has got much better last patch, I dont know what oyu are expecting from a big heavy plane like the P47 but the only thing it can really expect to do well is dive well and take a lot of punishment, both of which it does.

Its not going to out climb, out roll or outurn a 109, plus if the 109 is carrying a Mk108 that is going to cut the P47 to pieces. Thats not the games fault, thats history.

Also people complaing that a 2 engine plane like the P38 cant dogfight with single engined fighters need to get a grip.

Its not bias, its common sense.

The P51 needs fixing tho, I agree. It needs some time spending on it and tweaking until its correct. BUT many people are aces in that plane AS IT IS and love it.

The US bombers like the B25 and A20 are fantastic. And there is hardly a better mud mover in the game than the p38, its on a par with the Sturmo and a lot faster.

If the game is biased against the West, how do you explain the Spitfire being a great model and a match for any plane in the game?

This post is "New Best" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack
03-14-2006, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


If the game is biased against the West, how do you explain the Spitfire being a great model and a match for any plane in the game?

It's obviously because when Sir Reginald Mitchell designed the Spitfire, he was actually a Soviet agent of influence. He didn't die, either. No. He slipped away to the Kremlin with all the other pinko lefties.

Ratsack

Bearcat99
03-14-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:
I'm sick of indirectly being told I can't fly and thats why the P-47, P-51, ect suck. Of course I've never once flown any other countries' aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I go from a flying bullseye in a P-47, to a killing machine in a FW-190. Don't get me started on the Soviet planes, I could fall asleep in a La-7 and wake up with 3 kills.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Now that was funny.....

faustnik
03-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I cant believe I am hearing this. The FW190 undermodelled? Just HOW is it undermodelled? Its a fantastic plane in the game, probably the best plane available 1941-1943.

I would extend that date range through '45. The Dora's are excellent late war fighters.

You can pick at nits in the Fw190 version modeling easily if you want to, but, overall the series is great in the sim. Of course, you have to follow some basic tactics when flying them, but, the same can be said for plane.

Jetbuff
03-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Of course, you have to follow some basic tactics when flying them, but, the same can be said for plane.
Unfortunately, I think some people want to go to sleep and wake up with kills. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

crazyivan1970
03-14-2006, 03:39 PM
Very good post Jetbuff, as Tagert would say: Agreed 100%

Unfortunately talking sense into people does not always work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
The only thing 'biased' about Oleg's FM is our danged interpretations of it.
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TX-Zen
03-14-2006, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:

I would, look at with planes that are under modeled. See a pattern there? Its the US planes and the FW-190. The Fw-190 might actually put up a fight against the Soviet planes at low altitude, of course that can't be allowed to happen. ?




Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I cant believe I am hearing this. The FW190 undermodelled? Just HOW is it undermodelled? Its a fantastic plane in the game, probably the best plane available 1941-1943.

The P51 has got much better last patch, I dont know what oyu are expecting from a big heavy plane like the P47 but the only thing it can really expect to do well is dive well and take a lot of punishment, both of which it does.

Its not bias, its common sense.

If the game is biased against the West, how do you explain the Spitfire being a great model and a match for any plane in the game?



I think you are both dancing around the issue...it's not the country(s) receiving the "bias", its the type of aircraft that is, because of how the physics engine is coded.

What do the US and the 190 have in common?
High wingloading/BnZ/Energy Fighers.

What do the VVS and the Spitfire have in common?
Low wingloading/TnB.

In many ways the physics engine makes the TnB aircraft too good. While they may be competitive relative to each other, they usually have too large of an advantage in vertical manuevering against high wingloaded aircraft.
The same attributes that make them turn well horizontally (low E bleed, good acceleration) make them 'turn well' in the vertical too. Heavier aircraft bleed more energy under all flight conditions in this sim, which by itself is not unrealistic, but since heavier aircraft don't appear to be receiving the benefits of their weight/inertia during dives and zooms, basically a low loaded aircraft is able to do anything they do, only better. This is because their higher acceleration (due to often realistically better power to weight ratio) is not offset by inertia during the zoom or dive.

Thats not country "bias", thats physics "bias"..

IMHO, 1C has always viewed TnB aircraft to be superior to anything else. You can call it whatever you like, but thats the way they see it and because of that perception, BnZ/Heavier aircraft never quite seem to get the needed performance to match historical accounts or be able to truly E fight properly.



(Just my .02 rupees and my very subject viewpoint but hopefully this will change with BoB)

ImpStarDuece
03-14-2006, 05:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

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

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

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
IMHO, 1C has always viewed TnB aircraft to be superior to anything else.
Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right?


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
You can call it whatever you like, but thats the way they see it and because of that perception, BnZ/Heavier aircraft never quite seem to get the needed performance to match historical accounts or be able to truly E fight properly.
The old story "that would be hard to correct" and "+-15% performance error" justification. In some patches the team slipped up and showed us some E-fighters with proper performance. Of course that was altered and sweept under the rug in the very next patch.

faustnik
03-14-2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

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

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cobra-84
03-14-2006, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately, I think some people want to go to sleep and wake up with kills. :Tongue:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Nice reading skills, I don't want any plane to do that. It was an overstated La-7 complaint.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I think you are both dancing around the issue...it's not the country(s) receiving the "bias", its the type of aircraft that is, because of how the physics engine is coded.

What do the US and the 190 have in common?
High wingloading/BnZ/Energy Fighers.

What do the VVS and the Spitfire have in common?
Low wingloading/TnB.

I can agree with that.

TX-Zen
03-14-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right?



And thats my point, 1C appears to have their own take on what really matters in air to air combat, which as far as my historical reading goes, differs from aviation history.

If TnB is inherently superior to BnZ, then why did the trend for flying higher and faster continue to from WW1 through the modern era? The return to agility finally happened because between missiles and practical engineering limits, aircraft could no longer continue the trend of ever increasing speed. Something had to be done to gain the edge and so dogfighting agility returned. but yet look at the F22, which while certainly a manueverable fighter, is primarly designed for....speed.

I think it's hard to argue against the fact that WW1 biplanes were probably the most manueverable aircraft in terms of turn radius...but why did they get surpassed by monoplanes that were less manueverable and why did piston fighters get surpassed by jets that were often even less?

To me it's simple:

Increasing speed.
Increasing climbrate.
Increasing service ceiling.


And thats what the jet age was all about.

In real life if the other guy can fly higher and faster than you, he has an envelope where he can't be engaged and ultimately that means the cards are in his favor. Naturally there are always specific exceptions, but the trend throughout aviation history favored the faster, higher flying aircraft. Yet this sim, imho, views it the other way around...a plane that turn tightly has a refuge from BnZ because he can typically foil the other fellow's aim and use his superior vertical performance against the BnZer's worse E bleed.

What we have is very good make no mistake, but I don't feel there is any question that it's tilted toward the TnB and always has been.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right?
And thats my point, 1C appears to have their own take on what really matters in air to air combat, which as far as my historical reading goes, differs from aviation history.

If TnB is inherently superior to BnZ, then why did the trend for flying higher and faster continue to from WW1 through the modern era? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. Surelly if it was worse it wouldn't have been adopted. We wouldn't need jets, only manouverable triplanes.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
The return to agility finally happened because between missiles and practical engineering limits, aircraft could no longer continue the trend of ever increasing speed. Something had to be done to gain the edge and so dogfighting agility returned. But yet look at the F22, which while certainly a manueverable fighter, is primarly designed for....speed.
Agreed.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I think it's hard to argue against the fact that WW1 biplanes were probably the most manueverable aircraft in terms of turn radius...but why did they get surpassed by monoplanes that were less manueverable and why did piston fighters get surpassed by jets that were often even less?
Couldn't have said it better myself.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
To me it's simple:

Increasing speed.
Increasing climbrate.
Increasing service ceiling.

And thats what the jet age was all about.

In real life if the other guy can fly higher and faster than you, he has an envelope where he can't be engaged and ultimately that means the cards are in his favor. Naturally there are always specific exceptions, but the trend throughout aviation history favored the faster, higher flying aircraft.
Correct. The faster plane commands the engagement and the other cannot disengage at will. This implies a superior survivability for the faster plane.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Yet this sim, imho, views it the other way around...a plane that turn tightly has a refuge from BnZ because he can typically foil the other fellow's aim and use his superior vertical performance against the BnZer's worse E bleed.
Which is the complete opposite of real life performance.


Originally posted by TX-Zen:
What we have is very good make no mistake, but I don't feel there is any question that it's tilted toward the TnB and always has been.
Shhhht. Don't tell that, the fanboys might be listening and they'll start defending Oleg's inescusable position.

jermin122
03-14-2006, 11:07 PM
It seems that there are more blue pilots in this forum than in ORR. BTW, have you all noticed that the blue "whinners" are comparing their rides to the real wwii counterparts, but those red whinners are comparing their planes to the blue ones, wanna make the Allied planes the as œber as possible. So, I have to say the blue posters here are actually trying to make this sim as realistic as possible, they are supporting this sim. Not like the red ones, ruining this sim.

msalama
03-14-2006, 11:57 PM
Examples? Proof? Or more idle talk?

You decide Jermin. We're waiting.

As for Red, or whatever, players ruining this sim: by any means stop playing it if it gives you that much grief. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
IMHO, 1C has always viewed TnB aircraft to be superior to anything else. You can call it whatever you like, but thats the way they see it and because of that perception, BnZ/Heavier aircraft never quite seem to get the needed performance to match historical accounts or be able to truly E fight properly. Zen, then how do you explain the eye-watering performance of the 109G-2 (an aircraft without a reputation for being all that sterling a turner). Respectfully, I just don't buy "it's the modeling engine" that's causing these misrepresentations. It's conscious programming.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
[QUOTE]And thats my point, 1C appears to have their own take on what really matters in air to air combat, which as far as my historical reading goes, differs from aviation history. As far as this game is concerned, no truer words were ever spoken. Concur completely.


If TnB is inherently superior to BnZ, then why did the trend for flying higher and faster continue to from WW1 through the modern era? It's not inherently superior; it's just different. BnZ tactics allowed a lesser caliber pilot (read that: one that's easier to deploy with less flight time) to compete. BnZ tactics tend also to be defensive rather than offensive in nature.
The return to agility finally happened because between missiles and practical engineering limits, aircraft could no longer continue the trend of ever increasing speed.
Something had to be done to gain the edge and so dogfighting agility returned. but yet look at the F22, which while certainly a manueverable fighter, is primarly designed for....speed.. The requirement for agility in a fighter never left. The primary reason for this is the requirement for a VID when entering an engagement. The F-4 Phantom was the pivotal aircraft that underlined the need for a better maneuvering fighter aircraft. Interestingly with advent of modern air-to-air weaponry, the F-4 is once again a very deadly aircraft dispite its age.


I think it's hard to argue against the fact that WW1 biplanes were probably the most manueverable aircraft in terms of turn radius...but why did they get surpassed by monoplanes that were less manueverable and why did piston fighters get surpassed by jets that were often even less? The basic principles of maneuvering have remained the same. The speeds, turn rates, weaponry, etc. have improved/increased but the maneuvering principles have not. What HAS altered the air-to-air tactics has been the introduction of highly effective, all-aspect fire and forget weapons (to wit: AIM-9L, AMRAAM, etc.). Again, the rules of engagement can limit the full utilization of these weapons' capabilities until after a VID has been made (hence the continued requirement for maneuverability).

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
03-15-2006, 02:56 AM
Tully wrote:

Most of the innaccuracies are due to compromises forced by limitations in the resolution of the physics model.

I also suspect some of it is down to the huge number of aircraft and modifications to the code, too. From what I understand of what has been revealed there is a physics model and then some parameterisation by values which are somewhat related to real-world values which then produce the flight behaviour, but given the compromises required to get the physics model to run on a PC these values are only somewhat related to the real-world values and require some level of tweaking to produce all the right numbers. A change in the physics model (to allow it to calculate more, or fix a bug) might need tweak in several of these values for all aircraft to get things back on track, and it might be a job that is just too big now to be done to a high level of accuracy each time.

You see the same thing happening in X-Plane: a plane is fine under one version, then Austin Meyers corrects a bug in the physics model and the plane becomes a UFO until the parameters for it are tweaked. It's a complex relationship between the physics model and the tweaking necessary to make the planes work.

If the physics model was perfect then you could just plug in a structural model of the aircraft, noting the materials used, and the engine strength and control details and it would fly perfectly, but we are a way off from that, even if that level of information was available, and it wouldn't run on a PC. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find information of that detail, and then use a very complex program to derive the paramterisation necessary for a simpler model from that. That's quite a research project, though.

dravisar
03-15-2006, 03:02 AM
I'm going to have to completely agree with those that say that BnZers get screwed by the massive climb rates of some of the TnB aircraft.

I prefer the "cowardly" tactic of diving in on my enemies six or nine, putting a burst into him, and climbing away.

After all, thats how the best pilots of World War 2 preferred to do it. Maximum offense, minimum defense. Against the AI at the moment this is almost impossible, even in a P47! It gets to me, but just makes me a better turning pilot when I have to try to roll the hog onto her back to get into an inverted scissor with a 109.

Aaron_GT
03-15-2006, 03:02 AM
Yet this sim, imho, views it the other way around...a plane that turn tightly has a refuge from BnZ because he can typically foil the other fellow's aim and use his superior vertical performance against the BnZer's worse E bleed.


I think it is partly how people fly as well as the sim. TnB is a more natural way for people to fly the planes, whereas BnZ takes a lot more three dimensional thought, and also works best with the correct team tactics. The team tactics of the AI leaves a bit to be desired, and online the quality can be great or terrible. I've seen groups of pilots use BnZ online VERY effectively, but these groups are not common. If you do get into an online war with one established squadron fighting against another, with training sessions, the way you fight is a lot different and BnZ becomes much more important. The other thing we are lacking is a fear of dying by being shot down. TnB is easy to do and can get you kills but leaves you very vulnerable, but when all that happens is you hit refly, noone fears it.

This having been said, EAW seemed to favour BnZ more with late war aircraft than seems to be the case with IL2, but then the fighter AI in EAW seemed to be very good, and I think it has yet to be surpassed. On the other hand there was AI like Janes WW2F which would do some good BnZ passes in some planes, but was so predictable it became very easy to shoot things down. (Very pretty sim, though).

DIRTY-MAC
03-15-2006, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TX-Zen:
[QUOTE]And thats my point, 1C appears to have their own take on what really matters in air to air combat, which as far as my historical reading goes, differs from aviation history. As far as this game is concerned, no truer words were ever spoken. Concur completely.


If TnB is inherently superior to BnZ, then why did the trend for flying higher and faster continue to from WW1 through the modern era? It's not inherently superior; it's just different. BnZ tactics allowed a lesser caliber pilot (read that: one that's easier to deploy with less flight time) to compete. BnZ tactics tend also to be defensive rather than offensive in nature.

GR142-Pipper


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Jetbuff
03-15-2006, 04:12 AM
Well put Zen! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

One caveat though; I suspect the TnB bias itself is not intentional. i.e. my best guess is that a simplification in the FM somewhere for performance reasons has required "fudges" that, as a byproduct, favour high thrust-to-weight aircraft. It just so happens of course that due to the generally limited thrust of these planes relative to their weights, the lighter TnB aircraft reap the rewards.

Jetbuff
03-15-2006, 04:16 AM
Jermin, whiners know no colours. They come in all shapes and sizes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cobra, my reading skills are fine, hence the tongue smiley. In the meantime, I'd be glad to lend you a sense of humour. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

jermin122
03-15-2006, 04:17 AM
by any means stop playing it if it gives you that much grief
So you are one of those Allied whinners? Isn't that exactly you want? Then you'll be a so-called superb Allied pilot?

Monty_Thrud
03-15-2006, 04:59 AM
^Gamers...gotta love 'em... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

msalama
03-15-2006, 06:51 AM
So you are one of those Allied whinners? Isn't that exactly you want? Then you'll be a so-called superb Allied pilot?

No, no & no, meaning you got it wrong on all counts. Nice going boyo - keep up the good work and who knows, you might even clear primary school before turning 30... What I _am_, however, is a bloke who doesn't take this s**t too seriously. Unlike you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

But hey, each to their own. I myself choose life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
03-15-2006, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">by any means stop playing it if it gives you that much grief
So you are one of those Allied whinners? Isn't that exactly you want? Then you'll be a so-called superb Allied pilot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you talking to? If it's Jetbuff well I think it's clear he's a blue flyer...a few of the others like myself like both (and agree with some problems esp. for BnZ planes). One can easily turn the question around if some red flyers want to be great pilots cause "we won da war1!!!1111" some blue pilots want to emulate the great aces who shot lots of newbs. Don't assume blue or red that's all.

Ratsack
03-15-2006, 07:29 AM
I like to shoot down noobs. Lots of noobs for me: red, blue, green, purple, polka dotted...so long as they're noobs.

I love the way they panic as the gunfire hits them...and the fact they're the only ones I can hit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Ratsack

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
IMHO, 1C has always viewed TnB aircraft to be superior to anything else. You can call it whatever you like, but thats the way they see it and because of that perception, BnZ/Heavier aircraft never quite seem to get the needed performance to match historical accounts or be able to truly E fight properly. Zen, then how do you explain the eye-watering performance of the 109G-2 (an aircraft without a reputation for being all that sterling a turner). Respectfully, I just don't buy "it's the modeling engine" that's causing these misrepresentations. It's conscious programming.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right on the money. Yes, it is conscious programming. OLeg's speech and in-game flight results make it impossible to deny that.

TX-Zen
03-15-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Zen, then how do you explain the eye-watering performance of the 109G-2 (an aircraft without a reputation for being all that sterling a turner). Respectfully, I just don't buy "it's the modeling engine" that's causing these misrepresentations. It's conscious programming.


Never said that all planes were modelled perfectly, but the backbone of the game is the physics engine and there is a clear trend that some kinds of aircraft do well and some kinds don't.

diabloblanco1
03-15-2006, 08:45 AM
Oleg is the least bias person from Russia that has ever made an IL2 flight sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

faustnik
03-15-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
^Gamers...gotta love 'em... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

No.

allmenroder
03-15-2006, 11:16 AM
I don't know about FM's being porked, but the engine management system sure is.

Any fighter you can run on emergency war power for more than about 5-10 minutes without frying the engine is just not correct. There are several a/c in this series, both allied and axis that you can turn on wep, and leave on for a long, long time.

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2006, 11:41 AM
Outside of "arcade" Text Icons, the historical Bounce tactics are disabled by the invisible Dots at medium to high monitor resolutions.

Pippers::
BnZ tactics allowed a lesser caliber pilot (read that: one that's easier to deploy with less flight time) to compete. BnZ tactics tend also to be defensive rather than offensive in nature.
Bounce tactics are offensive attacks -- Flying Tigers for example. Although Flying Tigers did not use the "Z" or zoom but instead dove away afterwards instead.

dravisar::
I'm going to have to completely agree with those that say that BnZers get screwed by the massive climb rates of some of the TnB aircraft.
Old Timer Dogfight webboard myth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif P-40 would be called "energy fighter" in the Old Timer "BnZ" dogfight game language when compared to Zero, but the Zero could outclimb P-40 (ie...Zero superior in the vertical up, not vertical down). Same with Fokker's Triplane as among the top vertical climbers of its time.

If we actually paid attention to our books, we find "BnZ" planes allow, but do not require, high climb rates. Rather, our problem is we can't simulate World War 2 aviation history by programming flight models alone.

There is not much to do inside the sim except play dogfight shooter, so the Old Timers still "reverse" and blow all their energy to Rejoin the Dogfight and stay in the fight with guns blazing instead of living through simulated air warfare -- there is little simulated. And we blame Oleg for throwing away all our "BnZ" energy. Good call Jetbuff, you Nailed it! Its our wrong perception of WW2 despite how much we "read." This is fundamental computer gamer psycho behavior. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But it also shows the need for creating a simulation of much larger air warfare far beyond the Perfect Polygon dogfight shooter cockpit.

faustnik
03-15-2006, 11:53 AM
The problem -- there is not much to do inside the sim except play dogfight shooter, so the Old Timers still "reverse" and blow all their energy to Rejoin the Dogfight and stay in the fight with guns blazing instead of living through simulated air warfare -- there is none simulated

I completely disagree with that. You certainly can simulate historic combat with this sim, for instance, the Scorched Earth system does a great job of it. The sim just requires some user effort to let it simulate air warfare.

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2006, 12:00 PM
Yes, I saw that amazing system (Scorch). With a lot of independent 3rd Party effort some cool air-war things can be done. But very few of Oleg's customers even know about it. Shucks, most don't even play Online.

faustnik
03-15-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yes, I saw that amazing system (Scorch). With a lot of independent 3rd Party effort some cool air-war things can be done. But very few of Oleg's customers even know about it. Shucks, most don't even play Online.

Yeah, SE is great, an amazing job job by the develoment team. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://seow.sourceforge.net/

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

Offline can be "realistic" (based on my limited combat flight time knowledge) as well. The Ostfront campaigns are great. Right know I'm running the Murmansk Fw190A4 fighter-bomber campaign. Flak and enemy fighters can be nasty. You get in, drop your load and get out. If you play "fighter ace" and linger your wingmen get shot down quick. So, if you want to fly a long campaign, you fly using conservative tactics.

At the same time I'm flying the P-40C Murmansk fighter campaign. In that one you can hotdog it a little more. Historically, the Soviet pilots got in there and tried hard to out-dogfight the LW, so, in that case you can be less conservative and still be "realistic".

Anyway, my point is that Oleg can't design his sim to work around defective users.

DaimonSyrius
03-15-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Text Icons
As a smiling side note, I have always wondered why the developers, and we users, insist on calling 'icons' what are actually 'labels'. By definition and by etymology, icons are images, used as symbols; generally they are in contraposition to text, and particularly in computer terms. So that 'Text Icons' would be almost an oxymoron. For all I know, "Bf109 White 1" would be prefectly described as a label (and other flight sims call them that, like FS2004 for instance).

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

Cheers,
S.

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2006, 02:44 PM
Thanks faust, also there is Lowengrin's dynamic generator. But for most simmers, the out-of-box experience Online or Offline has been not much more than Dogfight over the life of the FB series. According to csThor, this should not be the case with BoB And Beyond (I don't think the name Sow is going to stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

New Osftront review at the simhqzoo ~> http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_210a.html

Daimon, actually Dot can be considered a form of Icon. I'd love to see "icons" that are used as "dots" and fade out with distance, and like the icons can be configured to match monitor resolution as we move even farther away from 1024x768 gaming from last century. Dots are core for offensive Bounce attacks.

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
There is not much to do inside the sim except play dogfight shooter, so the Old Timers still "reverse" and blow all their energy to Rejoin the Dogfight and stay in the fight with guns blazing instead of living through simulated air warfare -- there is little simulated. And we blame Oleg for throwing away all our "BnZ" energy. Good call Jetbuff, you Nailed it! Its our wrong perception of WW2 despite how much we "read." This is fundamental computer gamer psycho behavior. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But it also shows the need for creating a simulation of much larger air warfare far beyond the Perfect Polygon dogfight shooter cockpit.
You are so off the mark that is like if you were not in the same galaxy...

The E-fighters problem in-game is not imaginary and has been verified against RL reports dozens of times by dozens of different people both "Blue", "Red" or in-between. The game has been made like this intentionally. Just check Oleg's replies on what is "best" about airplane FM behaviour and see how his impressions conflict with RL reports and aircraft battlefield evolution. So, please, do not indulge in patronizing remarks that have little more input than basic fanboy gibberish...

DaimonSyrius
03-15-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Daimon, actually Dot can be considered a form of Icon.
Right, but when you mentioned (and I commented on) 'Text Icons', I assume we were talking about the text and numbers for ID, type, range, etc., that we have optionally displayed next to the properly iconic dots, LODs or rendered planes, hence the thought about oxymoron http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Anyway, it was just a smile on something I thought the very first time I read the documentation for IL2, and these forums too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I'd love to see "icons" that are used as "dots" and fade out with distance, and like the icons can be configured to match monitor resolution as we move even farther away from 1024x768 gaming from last century. Dots are core for offensive Bounce attacks.
The 'thick' dots of earlier versions would be great to have as an option (as a server option too), but I understand that the corresponding big drama was already performed some time ago, complete with polls and all, so...

As things are now, I'm quite alright using grey 'icons' (labels http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) at 2-5km for type only and dots at 10-20km, and going to servers with similar settings for online. It's even better when I can set just ID 'icons' showing only plane number and + for Axis and * for Allies, but this only works with some Air Force/flight combinations, others show flight colour names or letter combinations. Having the option of showing only + and * would be fair enough for me.

Cheers,
S.

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2006, 09:07 PM
Aymar, if you are correct (and you may be), your flight model energy test data will prove this to all -- don't forget E-bleed. I "feel" Fw-190 E-bleed is the same as other planes, but I don't try to convince anybody at this Fw webboard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and I may be wrong unless I did some numbers testing but I have largely moved on from this sim and don't care anymore. I think all of Oleg's planes need far greater E-bleed including Fw. And don't forget, Stiglr tried to tell you that Fw should lose energy like "mac truck" -- like a whale -- a Mac trucks are those giant 18 wheeled trucks.

Many FB/PF pilots are very successful "energy" fighters against slower "TnB" planes, but "energy" fighting takes very high skill to be successful with, far more than "turn" fighting, and HERE is where Pipper made a mistake (unless he/she made a typo mistake). Most "BnZ" players -- including those dozens of Red and Blue players -- don't know how to do energy fighting, and they BLOW IT, because to do it successfully requires high skill and an ability to abandon a dogfight to fight again another day. Recall that Russian article claiming Luftwaffe pilots could not "tolerate" prolonged combat. They can write that, because general Luftwaffe tactics were to kill but avoid risk and kill again and again. Dogfights are extreme Risk.

Gamers want Kill Score, and can fly again if we get shot down after we blow our energy hoping to get a kill in every dogfight, so face no Risk. The "air war" simulation soluton is giving players a reason to run from a dogfight to fight again another day -- faustnik had some good points there about Ostfront I think (have not tried it).

The Flying Tigers were the most famous and successful "energy" fighters in history -- and they dove away out of the fight instead of "zoom" for another "pass" to gain kill score. This is where all those history books are not connecting with some. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, if we have flight model energy test data provided by simmers who are interested in flight models, then we may have something to talk about (don't forget E-bleed).

With no flight model test data ~~> Spot on Jetbuff -- you nailed it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-15-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
... is our danged interpretations of it. We fly the exact same sim, and yet come up with such different opinions it's mind-boggling

Ask the average blue pilot and he will say blue is porked, red is uber and Oleg is a biased pinko bastage. They will complain about superb maneuverability of Allied aircraft, their optimistic acceleration and E-bleed, lack of overheat and ridiculous prop-hanging feats. Meanwhile, their planes fly with a giant anchor on-board, have huge bars over the gunsight, bleed E like it's going out of style when turning and can't go toe-to-toe with any Allied counterpart past 1942. How did those aces amass those kill tallies then?

Ask the average red pilot and he will say red is porked, blue is uber and Oleg is a biased nazi bastage. They will complain about the MG151/MK108 being one hit wonders, Axis aircraft being too fast, the 109 having too gentle a stall and climbing like a rocket. Meanwhile, their planes wobble, tip stall at the drop of a hat with no warning, spray useless 0.50 cals and fail to outdive/outrun/outturn the enemy. However did the Allies win the war then?

A few will notice the similarities between these complaints and real life accounts in spite of the limitations of the PC and conclude that Oleg is one brilliant and sneaky bastage!

Ergo, the only correct conclusion is that Oleg is a bastage regardless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Which is why I have been saying what I have been saying.. *feelings* mean nothing, only *numbers* mater. That is to say Stigler may *feel* that targetware is a better simulation of flight, but that is just his *feelings* on the mater, he has provided nothing to support his statments about his *feelings*.

faustnik
03-15-2006, 09:25 PM
Many FB/PF pilots are very successful "energy" fighters against slower "TnB" planes, but "energy" fighting takes very high skill to be successful with, far more than "turn" fighting, and HERE is where Pipper made a mistake (unless he/she made a typo mistake). Most "BnZ" players -- including those dozens of Red and Blue players -- don't know how to do energy fighting, and they BLOW IT, because to do it successfully requires high skill and an ability to abandon a dogfight to fight again another day. Recall that Russian article claiming Luftwaffe pilots could not "tolerate" prolonged combat. They can write that, because general Luftwaffe tactics were to kill but avoid risk and kill again and again. Dogfights are extreme Risk.

Had to quote is again because it was so good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


As a side note, good turn-fighting takes a lot of skill too.

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar, if you are correct (and you may be), your flight model energy test data will prove this to all -- don't forget E-bleed.
Why am I going to beat a dead horse? Let's analyse:

-Is there lack of evidence in the forums? No. Lots of threads and tests have been done about it here and in other forums.
-Is my data going to change anything? Nope. Oleg's position is clear. The planes are fine and there are no errors (like +-15% in AC performance is acceptable, since fine-tunning is so hard).


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I "feel" Fw-190 E-bleed is the same as other planes, but I don't try to convince anybody at this Fw webboard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
You "feel" that E-bleed is the same percent wise in proportion to wing loading, not the same in absolute value? Obviously, it can't be a constant value...


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
and I may be wrong unless I did some numbers testing but I have largely moved on from this sim and don't care anymore.
Same here. And tests would't make a difference due to the dogmatic position of the dev. Understand now why it's a waste of time? I could be testing all year. It's redundant.

I only express my opinion in these matters because I get fed up with the amount of people here that think FB/AEP/PF to be an actual accurate historical representation of WW2 air combat and ac performance... Not!!


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think all of Oleg's planes need far greater E-bleed including Fw. And don't forget, Stiglr tried to tell you that Fw should lose energy like "mac truck" -- like a whale -- a Mac trucks are those giant 18 wheeled trucks.
And Stigler is? A test pilot for Grumman? For Lockheed, maybe?

The amount of energy bleed for each aircraft is different according to their wing loading and wing aerodynamics. I know the FW should bleed a lot more than a Bf109 or Spit but Stigler's analogies are ludicrous because they aren't specific to any table of values or tests. The "mac truck" e-bleed can amount to any value. It's his "feel" only that he is portraing here.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Many FB/PF pilots are very successful "energy" fighters against slower "TnB" planes, but "energy" fighting takes very high skill to be successful with, far more than "turn" fighting, and HERE is where Pipper made a mistake (unless he/she made a typo mistake). Most "BnZ" players -- including those dozens of Red and Blue players -- don't know how to do energy fighting, and they BLOW IT, because to do it successfully requires high skill and an ability to abandon a dogfight to fight again another day. Recall that Russian article claiming Luftwaffe pilots could not "tolerate" prolonged combat. They can write that, because general Luftwaffe tactics were to kill but avoid risk and kill again and again. Dogfights are extreme Risk.
If it takes so much more skill than TnB, why only the aces really apreciated the Bf109? And all the rookies much prefered the FW190? The Bf is much more a TnB than the FW. Or was it just the automated systems of the FW and the vices of the 109?


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Gamers want Kill Score, and can fly again if we get shot down after we blow our energy hoping to get a kill in every dogfight, so face no Risk. The "air war" simulation soluton is giving players a reason to run from a dogfight to fight again another day -- faustnik had some good points there about Ostfront I think (have not tried it).
I'm not refering to risk taking or kill score. I'm refering to ac performance. And that is not subjective.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The Flying Tigers were the most famous and successful "energy" fighters in history
In your book.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
-- and they dove away out of the fight instead of "zoom" for another "pass" to gain kill score. This is where all those history books are not connecting with some. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If they did it in IL2 with an E-fighter they would get shot down... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Now, if we have flight model energy test data provided by simmers who are interested in flight models, then we may have something to talk about (don't forget E-bleed).

With no flight model test data ~~> Spot on Jetbuff -- you nailed it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
If you're so interested in this by replying to my posts why don't you present it yourself? Or do you see that the tests serve no purpose and change nothing? Because they don't. And in my view, when Oleg does not present his own sources for ac data (even if he is an aerospace engineer) he is doing just the same as what you and Jetbuff are implying everyone does. Unsubstanciated claims...

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2006, 10:34 PM
Thanks faust.


Aymar::
-Is there lack of evidence in the forums? No. Lots of threads and tests have been done about it here and in other forums.
I said flight model test data. Of course the dozen Red or Blue computer players will claim their webboard descriptions of losing dogfights are "evidence." This is natural competitive computer gamer behavior although it can reveal directions to conduct tests that either confirm or deny the claims.

You claim you have flight model test data, but you never post it.

Aymar::
And tests would't make a difference due to the dogmatic position of the dev. Understand now why it's a waste of time?
I don't understand because robban and I once provided Oleg with test data that he acted upon, as have others. I don't think you have tried this, possibly because you have never tested any flight models and you have no data -- talk to Tagert.

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Outside of "arcade" Text Icons, the historical Bounce tactics are disabled by the invisible Dots at medium to high monitor resolutions.

Pippers:: [QUOTE]BnZ tactics allowed a lesser caliber pilot (read that: one that's easier to deploy with less flight time) to compete. BnZ tactics tend also to be defensive rather than offensive in nature.

Bounce tactics are offensive attacks -- Flying Tigers for example. Although Flying Tigers did not use the "Z" or zoom but instead dove away afterwards instead. I think there's a misunderstanding. The Flying Tigers used bounce tactics primarily because they were limited in numbers and were therefore required to use such tactics. In this manner the tactics were employed because the force itself was in a defensive situation. It's a general truism that those forcing an engagement are generally operating in an offensive mind-set because they can afford to do so.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Many FB/PF pilots are very successful "energy" fighters against slower "TnB" planes, but "energy" fighting takes very high skill to be successful with, far more than "turn" fighting, and HERE is where Pipper made a mistake (unless he/she made a typo mistake). Most "BnZ" players -- including those dozens of Red and Blue players -- don't know how to do energy fighting, and they BLOW IT, because to do it successfully requires high skill and an ability to abandon a dogfight to fight again another day. Recall that Russian article claiming Luftwaffe pilots could not "tolerate" prolonged combat. They can write that, because general Luftwaffe tactics were to kill but avoid risk and kill again and again. Dogfights are extreme Risk. Let's be clear about a couple of things. A full blown engagement is THE most demanding fighting environment there is. No exceptions, it's fact. For the most part, it commits those who indulge in it to a "winner take all" contest. Given that this is a game and NOT real life, my experience has been that those who typically fly BnZ only just aren't that competitive in an all-out engagement. Are there exceptions to that statement? Sure. However, I've found it to be generally true. It's one thing to take off your robe and climb into the ring...and another to simply do a drive-by.

Oh, and by the way, to be successful in full blown engagements ALL the collective skills of maneuver and energy fighting are required in addition to other necessary disciplines and abilities (to wit: good gunnery, spacial awareness, raw talent, fuel, engine and ammunition management, section flying ability, etc.)

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
.... And tests would't make a difference due to the dogmatic position of the dev. Understand now why it's a waste of time? I could be testing all year. It's redundant. Very true. This is underscored by the wildly swinging flight models we've experienced from 4.0 to 4.04. One thing's for sure: there is no beta program...that matters.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
03-15-2006, 11:45 PM
Statements about B&Z or T&B being an indicator of pilot skill or character are rediculous. Some aircraft require B&Z tactics, some require T&B tactics, a few allow both. The "best" pilots will adapt their tactics to suit the plane they are flying at the time.

Claiming to be a more competitive gamer is really funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Statements about B&Z or T&B being an indicator of pilot skill or character are rediculous. Some aircraft require B&Z tactics, some require T&B tactics, a few allow both. The "best" pilots will adapt their tactics to suit the plane they are flying at the time.

Claiming to be a more competitive gamer is really funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Faustnik, I used to do this in real life. I know what I'm talking about. There's no comparing drive-by BnZ flyers with those who are able to engage as far as talent is concerned. Those who engage can easily BnZ but those who only BnZ are nearly always easy pickin's when it comes to an engagement. You're welcome to your opinion but that doesn't change those very real facts.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
03-15-2006, 11:54 PM
-Is there lack of evidence in the forums? No. Lots of threads and tests have been done about it here and in other forums.

Tests? Evidence? About energy matters being off? Where?

All I've seen so far is inconsequential chitchat based on assorted half- or misunderstood - and in many cases unscientific - sources. But evidence? Where? Care to post a couple of links or something, please?

Now I'm _not_ saying energy matters CANNOT be wrong in this game. Of course they can, but to claim all this bulls**tting qualifies as _evidence_ for the case is a bit, erm... strong?


You claim you have flight model test data, but you never post it.

C'mon Lexx, of course he doesn't have it, because he would've POSTED it if he had it. But instead of that he just CLAIMS it's wrong and refers to some dubious "evidence" which he doesn't even present...

GR142-Pipper
03-15-2006, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
C'mon Lexx, of course he doesn't have it, because he would've POSTED it if he had it. But instead of that he just CLAIMS it's wrong and refers to some dubious "evidence" which he doesn't even present... Like Maddox does when he refers to "fine tuning", no?

GR142-Pipper

msalama
03-15-2006, 11:59 PM
Like Maddox does when he refers to "fine tuning", no?

There's that, granted. But as I've said before they SHOULD be more open about those things, because that would go a long way in defusing some endless flamewars around here...

msalama
03-16-2006, 12:16 AM
But OK, let's be totally frank here.

Maddox is very secretive about the alleged source data he bases he's decisions on. Now being the cynical b4stards that we are, we can of course suspect him of claiming he's got the goods while in reality he just goes and estimates stuff in there... but who's gonna PROVE that? Where's the evidence? The problem with these debates is that there's lots of stuff where our so-called "evidence" just doesn't hold water at all, or wouldn't in any scientific environment at least... and so we go around in circles, merely CLAIMING s**t day after day after soddin' day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 12:42 AM
I think what Pipper is saying is modern US AirForce/NAVY pilots are already -- from first principle -- well trained in electronic "bounce" from long range and high speed using radar, missiles, and GCI/AWACS -- the preferred method of fighting. Close in engagement Dogfight does require extra training/experience beyond the basic long range electronic engagement skills.

Pipper::
Faustnik, I used to do this in real life. I know what I'm talking about. There's no comparing drive-by BnZ flyers with those who are able to engage as far as talent is concerned. Those who engage can easily BnZ but those who only BnZ are nearly always easy pickin's when it comes to an engagement. You're welcome to your opinion but that doesn't change those very real facts.
That's a snipe at long range BVR missile pilots with no "dogfight" training. You can see it in Alexander Zuyev's book (VVS MiG-29 Defector) who Whined about PVO Su-15 interceptor pilots as nothing more than robotic button pushers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Interestingly, Victor Belenko, an Su-15 pilot before moving to MiG-25s, seemed a decent pilot, and as Zuyev was VVS, one wonders how much this was interservice rivalry (or western propaganda).

Also, we also stopped training pilots how to "dogfight" sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s. That didn't last long when the cannon armed MiGs showed up (Vietnamese not Soviet) and USA had to operate under Rules of Engagments that invited dogfight engagements and our pilots did not have the training, or the cannon, for that (AirForce not NAVY). I think that's what Pipper is talking about here.

GR142-Pipper
03-16-2006, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Maddox is very secretive about the alleged source data he bases he's decisions on. Now being the cynical b4stards that we are, we can of course suspect him of claiming he's got the goods while in reality he just goes and estimates stuff in there... but who's gonna PROVE that? Where's the evidence? Actually, Maddox himself has proven it. Just look at the significant flight model changes that have occurred since the release of 4.00. If there was ever proof that there really is little to no "obtained" information, it's there for all to see.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
03-16-2006, 03:23 AM
Actually, Maddox himself has proven it. Just look at the significant flight model changes that have occurred since the release of 4.00. If there was ever proof that there really is little to no "obtained" information, it's there for all to see.

Well maybe, maybe not. Define "significant" in this context http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And they _are_ testing things with v.4.xx, regardless of their approach to the testing process (or lack of it)!

Now I'm _not_ saying there's no basis whatsoever in these claims. But suffices to say that I've usually suffered more dramatic changes in AC handling characteristics meself when I've tinkered with my controller settings than when Maddox has tweaked this, that or the other! Well there's been exceptions to that rule - and big FM changes too of course every now and then like with this godforsaken wobble episode just now - but still...

So in conclusion I'd say that part of what you say is true, and the rest is just over-sensitiveness. And I'm _not_ getting lippy here either, it's just that we the simmers - Yours Truly most certainly included - are quite the primadonnas aren't we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
03-16-2006, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Many FB/PF pilots are very successful "energy" fighters against slower "TnB" planes, but "energy" fighting takes very high skill to be successful with, far more than "turn" fighting, and HERE is where Pipper made a mistake (unless he/she made a typo mistake). Most "BnZ" players -- including those dozens of Red and Blue players -- don't know how to do energy fighting, and they BLOW IT, because to do it successfully requires high skill yes LEXX , E-fighting is the pinnacle of air-combat

it requires much more skill than hard manouver combat , . . . . . hard turning DF's are in-close stall riding trying to gain angle

on the other hand , E-Fighting is where YOU manipulate your bandit , staying more than just one move ahead . making it work is the most skill-required form of combat , because your relying on much more than your ability to mistake-minimise in manouvers

BnZ in this game also isnt as easy as it should be , managing E-bleed so you always come out on top - But! where you also manage to remain in position to re-engage is an art-form in planes that bleed speed heavily

anyone who says otherwise either has no clue about it , or is talking right out of their behinds

El Turo
03-16-2006, 04:06 AM
There is no BnZ.

There is no TnB.

There is only the almighty E.

Badsight.
03-16-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It's one thing to take off your robe and climb into the ring...and another to simply do a drive-by. statements like that are based on resentment , its a whine reaction at being blowen out of the sky , if you cant handel being shot at , go play a nice safe game , like Barbies playhouse or FS2004 - but please - in the process of being wasted dont think willingness to manouver hard means your the better pilot

a in-close hard TnB fight does not require the most amount of skill - all your doing is riding the stall edge till someone makes a mistake - no fights are perfect manouvers where someone makes more skillfull counters

although the ego likes to think thats what we are doing , 99.9% of DF's are someone gaining on a person who has stuffed up

in other words , most fights are lost , rather than having been won

Brain32
03-16-2006, 05:22 AM
Badsight, pssssssst don't promote BnZ, let them turn on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TX-Zen
03-16-2006, 06:00 AM
BnZ is not easy, though it's not all that hard either, but thats because of the difficulty in gunnery angles and approach speeds. Setting up the bounce and making the run is not particularly challenging. Some discipline is required which most gamers don't have, but thats another point for another time. The main difficulty with BnZ is seeing targets below you because of the dots if you have a significant E advantage and in keeping your advantage if you aren't that much higher than the target when it is very easy to see them.

TnB is by far the easiest way to get a kill in this game...why do you think so many people fly them online? It takes the least skill, the least tactical thinking and yields the quickest results. Overall TnB allows tracking shots with low deflection, making gunnery much easier, shots are at closer ranges, it's harder to lose sight of the target and most of the time all you have to do is follow what the other guy does and try to pull a little bit harder than he does. I have no problem saying that TnB is virtually all about letting your aircraft's performance do the work, I can and do fly all kinds of TnB aircraft and have for years.

A lot of people confuse E fighting with BnZ...it's not, and never was the same thing. True E fighting is the most difficult way to fly in this game and requires the most experience and skill by far. E fighting is what you do when flying an inferior aircraft during a close range dogfight, if you don't, you get shot down pretty easily. E fighting requires a true understanding of the energy model and the difference between angles vs energy, of the performance capabilities of the aircraft involved and requires thinking 2,3 or more steps ahead of the other guy. In the case of an inferior aircraft against a superior one, it requires intimate knowledge of the capabilities of your plane and is an inherently defensive style because you can't just bull your way out of a bad situation with superior performance and are typically inside the best envelope of the other guy's plane. It takes discipline to fly right on the edge at a disadvantage...and come out on top.

To use the analogy of getting into the ring, I definately don't see TnB as getting into it anymore than BnZ does. If the measure of pilot skill is how difficult it is to fly and win, then E fighting IS the ring.

DaimonSyrius
03-16-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
in my view, when Oleg does not present his own sources for ac data (even if he is an aerospace engineer) he is doing just the same as what you and Jetbuff are implying everyone does. Unsubstanciated claims...
Heh, that one made me smile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well, your view is as good a priori as any, as a personal point of view, but my own is very different (and no less good a priori): O.Maddox is not "doing just the same as (...) everyone does". I'll point out a couple of important differences (IMO as most of what I say here):

-We forum members and IL2 users keep discussing about flight models and how they may or may not differ from historic reality. There may be some exceptions, but most people in that group (including myself) don't have an aeronautical engineering background nor actual experience as pilots. Most importantly, none of us is a successful designer of complex computer aircraft models within a no less complex combat flight simulator software (I'd be very surprised if there is an exception to that). In the course of forum discussions, we need to substantiate our opinions about computer aircraft FM with tests, historical data, aeronautically sound explanations, etc., if we want to sustain an argumentation and convince others that our personal point of view is more valid than some other.

-On the other hand, O.Maddox works on the very subject we are discussing, and has worked on it for a long time, earning a living for himself and providing jobs for a number of other expert people. For all I know (it might be all a hoax, but I very much doubt it), he has an engineering degree, has worked in real aeronautical engineering before getting into simulation software and is a pilot. Most importantly, his work with IL2 has earned a reputation that makes the marketing standard line "critically acclaimed" (see the recent Ubi announcment (http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php) of the Complete Edition) a good description, for once. Indeed it was that reputation, which kept reaching me from different points, what moved me to have a closer look at IL2 some time ago, and to buy it and enjoy it thereafter.

There are a number of reasons that explain (to me) that O.Maddox doesn't just put all his data on the table for everyone to see and discuss, I'll mention just two major ones:

-Business reasons: a simulator is, almost by definition, restricted in what it can or cannot do because of the way the software is designed and built, so detailed explanations about why something appears in some particular way in IL2 very possibly should include mentions of how IL2 models are designed and built. See a recent (march 3 2006) comment on this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3281061814/r/2661037814#2661037814) by O.Maddox himself.

-Peculiar 'community' reactions to every single word O.Maddox releases to the public. For a good example of that, see the same recent thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3281061814) I just mentioned. It isn't a long one, only three pages, and after Oleg kindly replied, it quickly degenerated and ended being locked up. Not that this is any news, just a very recent example, and a good one because of Enthor1's insight on page 1, 8th post, before O.Maddox actually posted there.

The way you choose to compose your posts on this thread (the style, the tone) seems to assume that O.Maddox is under some obligation to substantiate his work (since he's not just 'claiming' something, he's producing actual work that we can all examine and discuss). Other forum users have argued (I think it has been Pipper recently, but I'm not doing an extensive search and check, so my apologies if I'm wrong here) that 1C:Maddox should provide detailed information about what's changed in patches/updates and why, 'like good software developers do'. While I would appreciate more extensive and comprehensive documentation, in my experience this is a universal trend in commercial software, especially in the later years, when thick printed manuals and detailed software documentation have generally (and regrettably) become obsolete. Particularly, I disagree with the view that the developers have some kind of obligation to 'substantiate' the 'rightness' of their work in forums or e-mails or interviews; the work itself speaks volumes.

As to us users, we're free to use or not that piece of work, and also we're free to discuss it forever on forums, and some interesting discussions may eventually occur. If the community keeps it civil, perhaps even the developer might feel inclined to join in. If someone believes that some earlier version was better, they're free to use that patch offline and to set up the corresponding server to play online with all the users that would have been convinced by the supposedly good reasons argued. If someone believes that the developer is so terribly biased towards one side/air force/type of plane/type of combat that this is spoiling the fun, there are other flight sims around. Of course, even if that would be the logical course of action, everyone is free to keep being a forum member and have an opinion and voicing it.

But, in conclusion, your statement quoted above contains the implicit statement that you, and I, and everyone else in these forums, are doing just the same thing as Oleg Maddox does in relation to the IL2 series. And that's... I'll refrain from qualifying it, so I'll just say again that it made me smile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar:
-Is there lack of evidence in the forums? No. Lots of threads and tests have been done about it here and in other forums.
I said flight model test data. Of course the dozen Red or Blue computer players will claim their webboard descriptions of losing dogfights are "evidence." This is natural competitive computer gamer behavior although it can reveal directions to conduct tests that either confirm or deny the claims.

You claim you have flight model test data, but you never post it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was talking about flight test data, not "red" or "blue" claims. And you keep insisting there is no posted data? Then read these forums:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...s&file=viewforum&f=8 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)

I have lots of aicraft data and reports. One only needs to get a calculator and start comparing power loading, wing loading and engine performance to get the same results you see in that forum. Why make the same all over again to post here?


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar:
And tests would't make a difference due to the dogmatic position of the dev. Understand now why it's a waste of time?
I don't understand because robban and I once provided Oleg with test data that he acted upon, as have others. I don't think you have tried this, possibly because you have never tested any flight models and you have no data -- talk to Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gah! Read the above reply and read Oleg's replies about the aircraft data. If you still think it will change anything you're either stubborn or deluded...

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
Maddox is very secretive about the alleged source data he bases he's decisions on. Now being the cynical b4stards that we are, we can of course suspect him of claiming he's got the goods while in reality he just goes and estimates stuff in there... but who's gonna PROVE that? Where's the evidence? Actually, Maddox himself has proven it. Just look at the significant flight model changes that have occurred since the release of 4.00. If there was ever proof that there really is little to no "obtained" information, it's there for all to see.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. How much more proof than that is required?

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
in my view, when Oleg does not present his own sources for ac data (even if he is an aerospace engineer) he is doing just the same as what you and Jetbuff are implying everyone does. Unsubstanciated claims...
Heh, that one made me smile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well, your view is as good a priori as any, as a personal point of view, but my own is very different (and no less good a priori): O.Maddox is not "doing just the same as (...) everyone does". I'll point out a couple of important differences (IMO as most of what I say here):

-We forum members and IL2 users keep discussing about flight models and how they may or may not differ from historic reality. There may be some exceptions, but most people in that group (including myself) don't have an aeronautical engineering background nor actual experience as pilots. Most importantly, none of us is a successful designer of complex computer aircraft models within a no less complex combat flight simulator software (I'd be very surprised if there is an exception to that). In the course of forum discussions, we need to substantiate our opinions about computer aircraft FM with tests, historical data, aeronautically sound explanations, etc., if we want to sustain an argumentation and convince others that our personal point of view is more valid than some other.

-On the other hand, O.Maddox works on the very subject we are discussing, and has worked on it for a long time, earning a living for himself and providing jobs for a number of other expert people. For all I know (it might be all a hoax, but I very much doubt it), he has an engineering degree, has worked in real aeronautical engineering before getting into simulation software and is a pilot. Most importantly, his work with IL2 has earned a reputation that makes the marketing standard line "critically acclaimed" (see the recent Ubi announcment (http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php) of the Complete Edition) a good description, for once. Indeed it was that reputation, which kept reaching me from different points, what moved me to have a closer look at IL2 some time ago, and to buy it and enjoy it thereafter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, he is an aeronautical engineer. Most forumites aren't. I am a Mechanical Engineer. I too work with with aerodynamic and termodynamic data for a living. That isn't new to me. Although my expertise isn't airplane projects. So, does this make me a forumite like the others? Not really. I can see more clearly where there is a problem.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
There are a number of reasons that explain (to me) that O.Maddox doesn't just put all his data on the table for everyone to see and discuss, I'll mention just two major ones:

-Business reasons: a simulator is, almost by definition, restricted in what it can or cannot do because of the way the software is designed and built, so detailed explanations about why something appears in some particular way in IL2 very possibly should include mentions of how IL2 models are designed and built. See a recent (march 3 2006) comment on this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3281061814/r/2661037814#2661037814) by O.Maddox himself.

-Peculiar 'community' reactions to every single word O.Maddox releases to the public. For a good example of that, see the same recent thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3281061814) I just mentioned. It isn't a long one, only three pages, and after Oleg kindly replied, it quickly degenerated and ended being locked up. Not that this is any news, just a very recent example, and a good one because of Enthor1's insight on page 1, 8th post, before O.Maddox actually posted there.
I'm asking for FM data included in WW2 reports, etc. Oleg can present it just to apease people. He does not need to present IL2's implementation. He doesn't need to explain anything. "Seeing is believing" the old saying goes...

By doing so he could still protect his FM implementations without the competition having any chance to copy his work.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
The way you choose to compose your posts on this thread (the style, the tone) seems to assume that O.Maddox is under some obligation to substantiate his work (since he's not just 'claiming' something, he's producing actual work that we can all examine and discuss). Other forum users have argued (I think it has been Pipper recently, but I'm not doing an extensive search and check, so my apologies if I'm wrong here) that 1C:Maddox should provide detailed information about what's changed in patches/updates and why, 'like good software developers do'. While I would appreciate more extensive and comprehensive documentation, in my experience this is a universal trend in commercial software, especially in the later years, when thick printed manuals and detailed software documentation have generally (and regrettably) become obsolete. Particularly, I disagree with the view that the developers have some kind of obligation to 'substantiate' the 'rightness' of their work in forums or e-mails or interviews; the work itself speaks volumes.
If we were discussing an arcade game I would be in total and absolute agreement with you. But we are not. We are discussing a WW2 combat simulator. As such, all that is within the simulation needs to be accurate in regard to what it was in WW2. And it has to be tested, verified and changed if necessary. Or else we are not reproducing history, just fooling around with a "what if" combat game. That is why it is perfectly legitimate to ask the developper for data and explanations to game implementations. At the very least data...

Or am I wrong and this is an arcade game? If it is so, I apologize to everyone for any polemic content in my posts and refrain to post in this forum ever again.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
As to us users, we're free to use or not that piece of work, and also we're free to discuss it forever on forums, and some interesting discussions may eventually occur. If the community keeps it civil, perhaps even the developer might feel inclined to join in. If someone believes that some earlier version was better, they're free to use that patch offline and to set up the corresponding server to play online with all the users that would have been convinced by the supposedly good reasons argued.
But don't you see that is preciselly the point? In many ways no previous version was better. Understand? So, we cannot go to a particular patch if they all model it wrong.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
If someone believes that the developer is so terribly biased towards one side/air force/type of plane/type of combat that this is spoiling the fun, there are other flight sims around. Of course, even if that would be the logical course of action, everyone is free to keep being a forum member and have an opinion and voicing it.
That would be possible and logical if the other sims were worth a damn. Guess what? They are not and are much worse than IL2. Does this mean IL2 is correct? Not by a long shot...


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
But, in conclusion, your statement quoted above contains the implicit statement that you, and I, and everyone else in these forums, are doing just the same thing as Oleg Maddox does in relation to the IL2 series. And that's... I'll refrain from qualifying it, so I'll just say again that it made me smile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
So, you don't understand when someone is making an exagerated, caricatural example to explain a concept - in this case the concept of "substantiated proof"?

Besides, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said "I, and everyone else in these forums, are doing just the same thing as Oleg Maddox does in relation to the IL2 series". I made an example to show that lack of substantiated proof is valid to deny claims regarding anyone, including Oleg Maddox.

msalama
03-16-2006, 07:59 AM
Exactly. How much more proof than that is required?

A lot, actually, because we really don't know jack s**t about what Oleg bases his decisions on, be his approach to tweaking / testing haphazard or not! And what's more, none of this would have a snowball's chance in h3ll ANYWAY if real scientifical proof was required, not even those precious charts and numbers presented around the boards. Here're some reasons why:

1) The testing environment is undefined / variable. For starters we'd need identical computers, controllers, SW environment etc. for everyone if we wanted to get really serious about this.

2) The quality of the testers is undefined / variable. It could be there're geezers around here who misunderstand even the basics of AC testing, and still claim they've gotten X/Y/Z as irrefutable results after they've, erm... "tested" a plane.

3) Nobody EVER takes into account things like computational granularity when doing RT calculations such as aerophysical states of an AC, etc. What if lesser computational power results in co4rser physical modelling?

So as you can see, everything's just too vague... But then again, you MIGHT very well be right in everything you say too! It's just that we really don't _know_ with any certainty, do we?

PS. And yes, there're of course many places in this game where Oleg has cut a corner or two. Every SW developer does that...

msalama
03-16-2006, 08:06 AM
Or am I wrong and this is an arcade game? If it is so, I apologize to everyone for any polemic content in my posts and refrain to post in this forum ever again.

This is an arcade game, yes. They all are. These things plain _cannot_ be true simulators (at least yet), because developing one would be too expensive and we don't have the necessary horsepower anyway.

So maybe we should be content with the fact of PC games being GAMES at least for the time being, no?

rnzoli
03-16-2006, 08:34 AM
I'm asking for FM data included in WW2 reports, etc. Oleg can present it just to apease people. He does not need to present IL2's implementation. He doesn't need to explain anything.

Doesn't need to? You are overly optimistic on this one. Input parameters + IL2 FM = aircraft behaviour.

rnzoli
03-16-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
Maddox is very secretive about the alleged source data he bases he's decisions on. Now being the cynical b4stards that we are, we can of course suspect him of claiming he's got the goods while in reality he just goes and estimates stuff in there... but who's gonna PROVE that? Where's the evidence? Actually, Maddox himself has proven it. Just look at the significant flight model changes that have occurred since the release of 4.00. If there was ever proof that there really is little to no "obtained" information, it's there for all to see.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. How much more proof than that is required? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I am missing the point, but where do the changes in the 4.0x patch series prove Oleg's bias?

To me the patch changes only proved the big difficulties to reign in a new FM implementation, but all in all I have to admit, it was good idea to do some mass beta-testing with these patches before BoB.

msalama
03-16-2006, 09:07 AM
Input parameters + IL2 FM = aircraft behaviour.

Exactly, and the first term of the equation is always, ALWAYS, overlooked in these debates... though it's not the _only_ one by any means, sad as it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But shouldn't the equation be written as "The pilot + IL-2 FM = AC behaviour", actually?

Brain32
03-16-2006, 09:09 AM
What I see in this thread is some people having brain fart. You guys cerainly know more about planes, flight aerodynamics,bla,bla,...(although to my understanding no one of you actually flew any of the birds we have in game in wartime conditions and operations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif).
But you obviously know nothing about computers, you are basically expecting a 1000$ home PC and a 40$ software to completely accurate simulate behaviour of 200 60years+ old planes in wartime conditions and combat operations. You are INSANE, if you take this into account IL2 series is actually amazingly good, good beyond belief. Also it's not an arcade game, that's plain BS it's game simulator, and actually you guys comparing it with proffesional military simulators are only confirming how actually good it is.

Separate comment:
Also this seems to be another "Oleg why can't I shoot everybody down in my fav plane type of comments". Sorry Piper but your previous posts made you look that bad. And what many of you guys are neglecting is the fact that proper modelling of pilot stress in extreme flight conditions is still somewhat lacking, that's why you see "strange" things happen, and some fights don't end like your favourite roll modell pilot described them... But guess what, that's how it is for everybody...

msalama
03-16-2006, 09:14 AM
But you obviously know nothing about computers, you are basically expecting a 1000$ home PC and a 40$ software to completely accurate simulate behaviour of 200 60years+ old planes in wartime conditions and combat operations.

Exactly mate.

DaimonSyrius
03-16-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
So, he is an aeronautical engineer. Most forumites aren't. I am a Mechanical Engineer. I too work with with aerodynamic and termodynamic data for a living. That isn't new to me. Although my expertise isn't airplane projects. So, does this make me a forumite like the others? Not really. I can see more clearly where there is a problem.
Please mark my words, or rather, allow me to mark them for you:

Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Most importantly, none of us is a successful designer of complex computer aircraft models within a no less complex combat flight simulator software (I'd be very surprised if there is an exception to that).
And now, please consider that in relation with the rest of what I posted. Of course you can disagree with me as much as I disaggree with you, nevertheless. We're just discussing personal opinions here, after all.

By the way, maybe you'd like to expand on how your engineering background supports this statement you made earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right?
I'm assuming you meant 'grievous' here, and, since English is not my first language, I checked in a standard dictionary what 'grievous' means (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/grievous.html). When the 'extremely serious or significant' departure from reality seems to be derived from your analysis on someone's "personal preferences", I'm curious about the extent of training on personal opinion analyis in mechanical engineering curricula http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
So, you don't understand when someone is making an exagerated, caricatural example to explain a concept - in this case the concept of "substantiated proof"?
Oh yes, I understand your exaggerated, caricatural argumentation (to put it in your own words) quite well, indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

faustnik
03-16-2006, 09:29 AM
Some posts in this thread are really helpful in understanding where the claims of bias come from. A large number of people like to get into hard maneuvering dogfights. It looks like some even consider it to be the measure of a "skilled" pilot. When they can't get their favorite plane to excel at that type of fight, they cry "Oleg is biased".

Treetop64
03-16-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
BnZ is not easy, though it's not all that hard either, but thats because of the difficulty in gunnery angles and approach speeds. Setting up the bounce and making the run is not particularly challenging. Some discipline is required which most gamers don't have, but thats another point for another time. The main difficulty with BnZ is seeing targets below you because of the dots if you have a significant E advantage and in keeping your advantage if you aren't that much higher than the target when it is very easy to see them.

TnB is by far the easiest way to get a kill in this game...why do you think so many people fly them online? It takes the least skill, the least tactical thinking and yields the quickest results. Overall TnB allows tracking shots with low deflection, making gunnery much easier, shots are at closer ranges, it's harder to lose sight of the target and most of the time all you have to do is follow what the other guy does and try to pull a little bit harder than he does. I have no problem saying that TnB is virtually all about letting your aircraft's performance do the work, I can and do fly all kinds of TnB aircraft and have for years.

A lot of people confuse E fighting with BnZ...it's not, and never was the same thing. True E fighting is the most difficult way to fly in this game and requires the most experience and skill by far. E fighting is what you do when flying an inferior aircraft during a close range dogfight, if you don't, you get shot down pretty easily. E fighting requires a true understanding of the energy model and the difference between angles vs energy, of the performance capabilities of the aircraft involved and requires thinking 2,3 or more steps ahead of the other guy. In the case of an inferior aircraft against a superior one, it requires intimate knowledge of the capabilities of your plane and is an inherently defensive style because you can't just bull your way out of a bad situation with superior performance and are typically inside the best envelope of the other guy's plane. It takes discipline to fly right on the edge at a disadvantage...and come out on top.

To use the analogy of getting into the ring, I definately don't see TnB as getting into it anymore than BnZ does. If the measure of pilot skill is how difficult it is to fly and win, then E fighting IS the ring.

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

Personally I prefer BnZ in the P-47s and F4-Us. Once you're set up properly, and you can correctly manage the aircraft's zoom-climb ability after the dive, then you become a virtually unstoppable machine. Of course, it helps a lot once you get the hang of deflection shooting at long ranges; You can't risk getting too close to your target while thrashing down upon him at a gazillion miles per hour!

It took a long time for me to learn how to BnZ. Sure, I could do the initial climb and dive at first, but I ususally turned too many times trying to stay on the target and consequently nerfed the zoom climb phase. Or I just simply didn't know how to shoot properly.

I think it's definitely more difficult to score kills using BnZ than it is in the "knife fights", especially against an aggressively maneuvering target. However, my hide stays safer, and I can always come around for another dive. Also, BnZ against AI bombers - even considering their sniper gunners - is BY FAR the best way to take them down without geting yourself shot. Even though they are great marksmen, the AI gunners cannot pan their weapons quickly enough to take proper aim at you. BnZ against bombers makes you darned near invincible against them! Besides, your rounds hit the bomber at a more acute angle, and do more damage. I used to park behind them for the easy kill, but I would get lit up by the rear gunners, and God help me if they had a 20mm pointed at me!

While "booming and zooming", the BnZ pilot is ALWAYS on the offensive! This is even more true if one BnZ dude has another BnZ dude helping. The TnB dudes are certainly scoring more kills, but they are also getting shot at - and shot down - much more often.

Just my take... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
03-16-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But you obviously know nothing about computers, you are basically expecting a 1000$ home PC and a 40$ software to completely accurate simulate behaviour of 200 60years+ old planes in wartime conditions and combat operations.

Exactly mate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AGree 9349342342.6454%

msalama
03-16-2006, 10:33 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

bolillo_loco
03-16-2006, 11:12 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/chunder.jpg

GR142-Pipper
03-16-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
yes LEXX , E-fighting is the pinnacle of air-combat

it requires much more skill than hard manouver combat , . . . . . hard turning DF's are in-close stall riding trying to gain angle As always, Badsight, you're quick to jump in when you really should be listening and learning. Being cognizant of one's energy state and being in a turning engagement are not mutually exclusive circumstances. Quite the contrary. Secondly, just because a fight is close in doesn't necessarily mean both aircraft are in a near-stall situation. If you knew the first thing about the dynamics of engagements you'd know that. Lastly, energy fighting is not when you "manipulate the bandit". Energy fighting is when you keep your aircraft at or near the sweet spot of its performance envelope which permits the widest availability of engagement options.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 06:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Aymar_Mauri::
That would be possible and logical if the other sims were worth a damn. Guess what? They are not and are much worse than IL2. Does this mean IL2 is correct? Not by a long shot...
I agree with this. Totally. If its not too late, we can start from here. Maybe Aymar is coming across wrongly to some of us, and he/she *is* an Offline player. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif From long ago...


Aymar_Mauri (old thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif)
And, once again, I state the fact that it's the best combat sim NOT because of moding or no-moding policy (it has little to do with it) but because of Oleg and his team's technical ability, dedication and historical interest.

~ http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9691094004/p/2

Aymar_Mauri this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif)::
fanboy gibberish
Aymar, what happened? It is, or it was, a 40$ box of PC software.


For me StrikeFighters offers content I prefer far more and so that's where I am now. But, Oleg hates jets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-16-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
[QUOTE]Exactly. How much more proof than that is required?


A lot, actually, because we really don't know jack s**t about what Oleg bases his decisions on, be his approach to tweaking / testing haphazard or not! Respectfully, keep in mind that the flight characteristics themselves are all over the chart. That's proof-positive that flight model information is either: 1) absent, 2) concocted, or 3) consciously manipulated. The flight characteristic variances are simply too great between patch releases to come to any other conclusion.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 08:38 PM
Pippers::
Respectfully, keep in mind that the flight characteristics themselves are all over the chart. That's proof-positive that flight model information is either: 1) absent, 2) concocted, or 3) consciously manipulated. The flight characteristic variances are simply too great between patch releases to come to any other conclusion.
Respectfully, keep in mind that 4.xy flight characteristics themselves are beta flight characteristics for BoB And Beyond. That should be number (4) on your list.

Jetbuff
03-16-2006, 09:53 PM
For those who believe the FM changes are some kind of 'proof' of Oleg's biases, let me clarify a very key point here: IL-2/FB is a physics-based FM not a table-based one. i.e. to get planes to perform according to historical specs you need to input key parameters that are quite likely simply not available. Throw in some calculation shortcuts required to get it running on an average PC and it is obvious that some fudging will be required along the way. Finally, some variables apply to the entire planeset and fixing them so that one plane flies just right might screw up the others.

So, to get plane X to reach speed Y in level flight at a certain altitude we need, at least, Cd0, thrust and cross-sectional/wetted area for the plane, not to mention temperature, pressure, density for that altitude. In a perfect physics environment, getting them spot on would mean that each plane would perform pretty accurately throughout its envelope. However, in the presence of the shortcuts (mentioned earlier) required to get the game to run on a standard PC, chances are that you fix one thing and something else gets out of whack. That is why Oleg constantly refers to "FM tunings". Indeed, no one, least of all Oleg, is suggesting the IL-2 FM is perfect. However, it is the opinion of many that it is as good as it gets given the current technology. Even the multi-million dollar simulators used to train pilots/test new aircraft are no substitute for the real thing.

For a good analogy, take the IAS to TAS conversion rules of thumb many pilots use. (+2% for every 1000 feet was it?) That only holds true for certain conditions and certain altitudes and requires the IAS to be accurate in the first place. (instrument calibration error) The resulting number is almost always 'off' but it's good enough considering it allows the pilot to estimate TAS without too many complex calculations. Substitute flight parameters for IAS, data sources for instruments, the average PC for the pilot and in-game performance for TAS and you have the IL-2 FM in a nutshell.

msalama
03-16-2006, 09:56 PM
The flight characteristic variances are simply too great between patch releases to come to any other conclusion.

Sorry, but there're other possibilities as well.

It _is_ a beta version we're talking about, be their approach to the process a bit haphazard or not, and weird things / abrupt changes always happen with betas. So maybe it's just that it's difficult to get the thing right, no? Though it seems they would've made everyone a favor if they'd approached the thing in a more coherent manner, granted...

But we still don't KNOW, do we? Which has been my point all along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or am I wrong and this is an arcade game? If it is so, I apologize to everyone for any polemic content in my posts and refrain to post in this forum ever again.

This is an arcade game, yes. They all are. These things plain _cannot_ be true simulators (at least yet), because developing one would be too expensive and we don't have the necessary horsepower anyway.

So maybe we should be content with the fact of PC games being GAMES at least for the time being, no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok. Then, since this is an arcade game, I'll just stop posting. No need to comment on the decisions of a dev when talking about an arcade game. After all, it's just gameplay balance, right?

crazyivan1970
03-16-2006, 10:07 PM
What is all this beta talk lol. It just several formulas that calculate flight characteristics that were designed for BOB. There is no beta FM lol. IL2 series has maybe 15% of BOB complexity, that`s about it. Beta shmeta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Input parameters + IL2 FM = aircraft behaviour.

Exactly, and the first term of the equation is always, ALWAYS, overlooked in these debates... though it's not the _only_ one by any means, sad as it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But shouldn't the equation be written as "The pilot + IL-2 FM = AC behaviour", actually? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. Aircraft data is more important than the pilot. And ac data is also detached from FM data although influencing it.

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 10:19 PM
Aymar_Mauri::
And, once again, I state the fact that it's the best combat sim NOT because of moding or no-moding policy (it has little to do with it) but because of Oleg and his team's technical ability, dedication and historical interest.

~ http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9691094004/p/2

I can see your point, but right now I do prefer StrikeFighters for its 1960s era content.

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2006, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
By the way, maybe you'd like to expand on how your engineering background supports this statement you made earlier in this thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When did I claim that my "engineering background" supports my sentence "Making something behave better than it should in RL because of a "personal preference" view of the things is grevious, specially considering a simulator. This was supposed to be one, right?"

And what is the logical point to your question? Care to explain?


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
I'm assuming you meant 'grievous' here, and, since English is not my first language, I checked in a standard dictionary what 'grievous' means (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/grievous.html). When the 'extremely serious or significant' departure from reality seems to be derived from your analysis on someone's "personal preferences", I'm curious about the extent of training on personal opinion analyis in mechanical engineering curricula http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
What does mechanical engineering curricula have to do with personal preferences? Everybody has opinions and many prejudice. And Oleg has too...


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
So, you don't understand when someone is making an exagerated, caricatural example to explain a concept - in this case the concept of "substantiated proof"?
Oh yes, I understand your exaggerated, caricatural argumentation (to put it in your own words) quite well, indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! If only that wasn't so far off the mark.

Think whatever you wish. You're the one making assumptions about me. On how I'm stating a biased opinion...

GR142-Pipper
03-16-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pippers:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Respectfully, keep in mind that the flight characteristics themselves are all over the chart. That's proof-positive that flight model information is either: 1) absent, 2) concocted, or 3) consciously manipulated. The flight characteristic variances are simply too great between patch releases to come to any other conclusion.
Respectfully, keep in mind that 4.xy flight characteristics themselves are beta flight characteristics for BoB And Beyond. That should be number (4) on your list. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you have a point. I guess I'll have to grudgingly choke that down. Assuming this is true, then it's pointless to expect anything other than ficticious flight modeling for the remainder IL-2 PF's product life. Rhetorically, one wonders if the flight modeling in BoB will "really" be any better than it is in this game.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 11:28 PM
Well if you wish to see better flight models in the future you can talk to Tagert or even Oleg and start testing the flight models. You "claim" to be some kind of "real life" navy pilot, or "retired" or something. Assuming that's true you should know what you are doing and maybe you won't need Tagert's help. Respectfully, instead of crying in your empty glass of milk, start acting like a sailor and test fly. Consider it something to do in retirement if you are deep enough into the game to play in a internet squad. Do it.

LEXX_Luthor
03-16-2006, 11:40 PM
Also, to be honest, it is, or was, a 40$ PC software box that has to calculate dozens of AI combat aircraft FMs too in Offline or "coop" play (I think), and I don't let it bend me out of shape like Gumby when I "feel" something is wrong -- well I do get bent a little, everyone does to some extent, but not about flight models in my case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-16-2006, 11:50 PM
What is all this beta talk lol. It just several formulas that calculate flight characteristics that were designed for BOB. There is no beta FM lol. IL2 series has maybe 15% of BOB complexity, that`s about it. Beta shmeta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"No beta"? "Beta shmeta"?

Hey Ivan, you should read the patch docs every now and then. An excerpt from Readme_v401: "V4.01 introduces the next generation pre-Battle of Britain Flight Model (FM). In this add-on we are introducing a part of the FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide open beta test in our current engine."

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

rnzoli
03-16-2006, 11:55 PM
lol msalama, I was about to look up exactly that rererence to the beta-testing... thanks for saving a few minutes for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

of course, this type of testing is not the same as patch beta testing. but the wording implied to me, that the development team embarked on making substantial channges for improving the flight model, but they were far from sure that it would go without side effects... what can I say... they were wise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2006, 12:12 AM
I dunno. 4.00 New FM was major enough to require the return of elevator trim to the flight models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

horseback
03-17-2006, 12:45 AM
Of course there is bias in this Flight sim/game.

Bias is inherent in any human endeavor, no matter how pure the intent. Only God can generate a truly random number, as anyone who has played computer Solitaire can attest.

The fact is that there are favored aircraft in this sim/game, because Oleg and his team, for whatever reasons, have an unshakeable belief that these aircraft were truly superior. Since the developer won't share with us his reasoning on the comparitive qualities of the various fighters of the Second World War, we are in the dark as to why things are the way they sometimes are.

The Il-2 series has clearly favored the 'stars' of the Eastern Front throughout its life; in my opinion, the Me 109E-K, the La-5/7, and P-39 have gotten consistantly, umm, shall we say, more than fair treatment. That certainly seems reasonable in that hey, they're Russian, that's going to be their area of interest, and they have done the sim so well in that context that I am quite happy with it just to fly campaigns in that theater.

Things start falling apart when we go to Western Allied fighters, from DMs to handling issues, and some, no doubt are due to the basic 'rules' of modeling that Oleg put in place from the beginning. The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51, Corsair, or to a lesser extent, the FW 190, for instance. There has also been a clear 'size-ist' prejudice against bigger fighters like the P-47 and P-38, particularly in the DM department.

If there were a comparable competitor for my WWII flight sim dollar that was as good in the ETO as Oleg and co are in the Great Patriotic War, they'd (also) have my business in a New york minute. The problem for me and those like me is that there IS REALLY NO PLACE ELSE TO GO FOR A NON-ARCADE WWII FLIGHT SIM.

Therefore, we will point out those more blatant disparities like the ludicrous DMs on aircraft with R-2800 engines, or micro fine precision (even with grossly filtered and reduced sensitivities) required to successfully control the P-51 in the 4.0x patch series and the absolutely silly 'gunshake' effect that continues to plague certain aircraft, and hope that someone will listen and make a change to our liking.

For the less mature, that will inevitably result in name-calling and churlishness on all sides of an issue.

Without an outside competitor, though, it is our only option. I always assumed that player/customer feedback was the main reason 1C and Ubisoft keep these forums going.

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2006, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Without an outside competitor, though, it is our only option. I always assumed that player/customer feedback was the main reason 1C and Ubisoft keep these forums going. It is as long as you don't point out flaws in the modeling.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Well if you wish to see better flight models in the future you can talk to Tagert or even Oleg and start testing the flight models. You "claim" to be some kind of "real life" navy pilot, or "retired" or something. Assuming that's true you should know what you are doing and maybe you won't need Tagert's help. Respectfully, instead of crying in your empty glass of milk, start acting like a sailor and test fly. Consider it something to do in retirement if you are deep enough into the game to play in a internet squad. Do it. Easy there, Lexx. Yes, I was a USN pilot and yes I do know what I'm doing. Regarding "testing" (I find that term rather humorous on this forum), if Maddox was really interested in fixing the flight and damage models it would have been accomplished long before now based on what others here have already provided as well as the well-documented real world capabilities of many of these aircraft...and he hasn't. So, if you want to invest your time "testing", have at it but don't be disappointed when absolutely nothing comes of it regardless of how worthy your findings may be.

As an aside, I do find it interesting how the dialog has altered from many calling this a "sim" to now relegating it to nothing more than a "beta" for BoB. No matter. It's a game, folks...just a game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2006, 02:01 AM
Oleg responded to robban and I providing test data, and that's all I can offer you in this particular subject.

What did you test?

rnzoli
03-17-2006, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Il-2 series has clearly favored the 'stars' of the Eastern Front throughout its life; in my opinion, the Me 109E-K, the La-5/7, and P-39 have gotten consistantly, umm, shall we say, more than fair treatment. That certainly seems reasonable in that hey, they're Russian, that's going to be their area of interest,

Could this be explained without intentional bias? Perhaps there was more accessible information available for the development team for these planes. However, when they moved into the PTO, they surely knew that they have to please the American buyers. (If they didn't realize, UbiSoft must have bluntly told them.) For the purchasing power of the average European player and the American player, I would expect a different interest, that is, to make the American planes favoured.


Originally posted by horseback:
Things start falling apart when we go to Western Allied fighters, from DMs to handling issues, and some, no doubt are due to the basic 'rules' of modeling that Oleg put in place from the beginning. The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51, Corsair, or to a lesser extent, the FW 190, for instance. There has also been a clear 'size-ist' prejudice against bigger fighters like the P-47 and P-38, particularly in the DM department.

This sounds to me as a consistent showing of deficiencies in the FM resolver, not a hand-picked selection of favoured/unfavoured aircraft.

Summary: if you feel bias, how do you know it is intentional, not just the shortcoming of the FM/DM implementation?

Taking the question from a different angle: are the maps for PTO and Western Europe worse in quality than the maps on the Eastern Front?

DaimonSyrius
03-17-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
When did I claim that my "engineering background" supports my sentence .../...
You did it here:

I am a Mechanical Engineer. I too work with with aerodynamic and termodynamic data for a living. That isn't new to me. Although my expertise isn't airplane projects. So, does this make me a forumite like the others? Not really. I can see more clearly where there is a problem.
That's a very broad statement on how your engineering background enables you to see 'more clearly' (more clearly than the majority of forum posters) 'where there is a problem'. It logically follows that this should apply to, and explain, your identification of problems, problems in as broad a sense as you're making your broad statement. It happens that, earlier, you had strongly stated that a very serious, severe (i.e., grievous (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/grievous.html)) problem was about O.Maddox's "personal preferences". Hence the logic of my question.


What does mechanical engineering curricula have to do with personal preferences?
That's precisely what I was asking, see above for the reason of my asking you. I was hoping you would explain, but I'm satisfied that you're now asking that yourself.

Before proceeding to my final point, I'd like to make clear again that all I'm saying here is just my view, from my perspective, which is not better or truer a priori than anyone else's. And I believe this applies to what every poster posts here. We all are users of a software exchanging our personal opinions about that software, in an internet forum provided for that purpose.


Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
If we were discussing an arcade game I would be in total and absolute agreement with you. But we are not. We are discussing a WW2 combat simulator. As such, all that is within the simulation needs to be accurate in regard to what it was in WW2. And it has to be tested, verified and changed if necessary. Or else we are not reproducing history, just fooling around with a "what if" combat game. That is why it is perfectly legitimate to ask the developper for data and explanations to game implementations. At the very least data...
Let me first state how I see the general frame of reference:

-Developers develop software, according to their own expertise, their own technical/commercial criteria, and of course, their own personal preferences. Expertise, criteria, and preferences that apply, not only to WWII aircraft performance, but to the whole process of developing a complex software which includes many other areas (graphics, artificial intelligence, user interfacing, networking, etc.) and which has to be able to perform well in an average desktop PC, and which has to be sold to the final user for a few dozen "/$.

-Users use the software. Period. Alright, that was possibly too concise, I'll rephrase it: users buy the software and use it, and they form a personal opinion about it in the process. If the users are reasonably satisfied, they will keep using the software for their enjoyment, and possibly they will further buy other software creations by the same developers. If they're not satisfied, they won't. This is very much the same process that applies to books, car makes, home appliances, cinema films, rock bands, word-processing software, you name it.

-Exceptionally, some developer shows an outstanding dedication to their subject, so that they keep working on an already sold out product and they keep releasing patches and updates. The process for the users is the same I just outlined, except that we can skip the buying step because the patches/updates are free. Once in a while, the developer packs a big set of new additions and puts it on shops shelves to be sold, and the whole process keeps going.

-Exceptionally, some developer is kind enough to pay real attention to users' opinions and feedback, in the form of forum/email opinions (but I don't think that mere opinions weigh much, and rightly so) and, especially, in the documented form of thorough tests of the software and relevant historical research. This means, not just to fly a lot online or offline, not just to read many books about WWII and then post in a forum; but to carry out systematic, meaningful testing and to trace and retrieve and analyse relevant documentation, again meaningfully.

Now, Aymar_Mauri, when I read your posts, I get the impression that you see yourself as having a right to be involved in the developing process just because you have an opinion, a right that somehow would be unfairly being taken away from you. I deeply disagree with that view. You say in the paragraph I quoted above: "That is why it is perfectly legitimate to ask the developper for data and explanations to game implementations". Well, of course asking is legitimate, there isn't any law against it and it is within reasonable developer/user interaction. However, I think the demanding tone is not legitimate in that sense, it is not within reasonable interaction, considering that Maddox Games are, IMO, one of the very few developers committed enough and kind enough to have a long record of improving the software and paying attention to -reasonable, meaningful, thorough- user feedback.

Throughout this thread, Lexx_Luthor has mentioned several times how himself and robban75 have done user-side meaningful, constructive work and they have had positive responses from Maddox Games. I believe I can mention at least a couple of other users, Faustnik and Tagert (I'll stand corrected if I'm not right in mentioning them), who have obtained similarly positive responses to their testing or researching, and I'm positive I've read a number of other users, that I don't remember by name, reporting similar experiences. I would suggest trying the same course of action with all due respect and courtesy towards the developer, bearing in mind that if it is legitimate that you ask data and explanations from them, it is equally legitimate (if not more so) that they choose not to provide them to you (I would make the same suggestion to Pipper, along the same lines Lexx was doing).

Instead of that, what I see you're choosing to do is to engage in (perennial) forum debates where you're strongly holding your own opinions. We all agree that there is no better WWII airwarfare simulator for PC around (with the possible exception of Stigler here); while at the same time we also agree that this fact doesn't magically turn IL2 into the ultimate truth, aeronautical or historical. In this situation, when you have also stated that no previous version of IL2 is better than the current, and simultaneously it appears that you are more than mildly dissatisfied with current, 4.04 version of IL2 (you find it a grievous situation), what would be the better options for a plain user as you are (as we all are here)?
-Stop playing IL2 at all, stop worrying about it too.
-Keep playing and enjoying IL2, while at the same time addressing the problems you see in a constructive manner (testing, researching, interacting respectfully with the developer)
-Keep playing IL2 but not enjoying it, while at the same time putting quite some effort in forum debates where you explain how you consider that Oleg Maddox's personal preferences put IL2(by Maddox Games) in a grievous situation.

These were in no particular order, but you seem to opt for the latter. You're welcome to have your own choice, but what good are you expecting as an outcome?

Finally, about the demanding tone that I'm perceiving in your posts:

Or am I wrong and this is an arcade game? If it is so, I apologize to everyone for any polemic content in my posts and refrain to post in this forum ever again.
This is a recurring argument in your posts here, and to me, it appears to be the bottom-line of your whole argumentation. As I understand it, it all boils down, ultimately, to that: Either the developers do what you think is the right thing to do, or else you, the user Aymar_Mauri, will judge and sentence that IL2 be considered a mere, childish arcade game, instead of a respectable flight simulator software.

As I hope I have made clear, I deeply disagree with that view and tone. Of course you may reply that you didn't write those exact words, but that's my view on what your posts mean, and I won't go into further iterations of this particular discussion. All we are doing here is exchanging opinions (we're not shaping the flight models or designing software at all here), and that was mine.

Cheers,
S.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2006, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Of course there is bias in this Flight sim/game.

Bias is inherent in any human endeavor, no matter how pure the intent. Only God can generate a truly random number, as anyone who has played computer Solitaire can attest.

The fact is that there are favored aircraft in this sim/game, because Oleg and his team, for whatever reasons, have an unshakeable belief that these aircraft were truly superior. Since the developer won't share with us his reasoning on the comparitive qualities of the various fighters of the Second World War, we are in the dark as to why things are the way they sometimes are.

The Il-2 series has clearly favored the 'stars' of the Eastern Front throughout its life; in my opinion, the Me 109E-K, the La-5/7, and P-39 have gotten consistantly, umm, shall we say, more than fair treatment. That certainly seems reasonable in that hey, they're Russian, that's going to be their area of interest, and they have done the sim so well in that context that I am quite happy with it just to fly campaigns in that theater.

Things start falling apart when we go to Western Allied fighters, from DMs to handling issues, and some, no doubt are due to the basic 'rules' of modeling that Oleg put in place from the beginning. The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51, Corsair, or to a lesser extent, the FW 190, for instance. There has also been a clear 'size-ist' prejudice against bigger fighters like the P-47 and P-38, particularly in the DM department.

If there were a comparable competitor for my WWII flight sim dollar that was as good in the ETO as Oleg and co are in the Great Patriotic War, they'd (also) have my business in a New york minute. The problem for me and those like me is that there IS REALLY NO PLACE ELSE TO GO FOR A NON-ARCADE WWII FLIGHT SIM.

Therefore, we will point out those more blatant disparities like the ludicrous DMs on aircraft with R-2800 engines, or micro fine precision (even with grossly filtered and reduced sensitivities) required to successfully control the P-51 in the 4.0x patch series and the absolutely silly 'gunshake' effect that continues to plague certain aircraft, and hope that someone will listen and make a change to our liking.

For the less mature, that will inevitably result in name-calling and churlishness on all sides of an issue.

Without an outside competitor, though, it is our only option. I always assumed that player/customer feedback was the main reason 1C and Ubisoft keep these forums going.

cheers

horseback
Spot on. Nothing to add.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2006, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Without an outside competitor, though, it is our only option. I always assumed that player/customer feedback was the main reason 1C and Ubisoft keep these forums going. It is as long as you don't point out flaws in the modeling.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehehe. Quite true.

joeap
03-17-2006, 09:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2006, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
When did I claim that my "engineering background" supports my sentence .../...
You did it here:

I am a Mechanical Engineer. I too work with with aerodynamic and termodynamic data for a living. That isn't new to me. Although my expertise isn't airplane projects. So, does this make me a forumite like the others? Not really. I can see more clearly where there is a problem.
That's a very broad statement on how your engineering background enables you to see 'more clearly' (more clearly than the majority of forum posters) 'where there is a problem'. It logically follows that this should apply to, and explain, your identification of problems, problems in as broad a sense as you're making your broad statement. It happens that, earlier, you had strongly stated that a very serious, severe (i.e., grievous (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/grievous.html)) problem was about O.Maddox's "personal preferences". Hence the logic of my question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If one notices certain discrepancies of in-game ac behaviour in regard to RL data sheets and reports, procedes to make some calculations and then compares them to the in-game behaviour and finds disparities focusing on certain types of ac that keeep not beeing adressed patch after patch, one tends to use Ocham's Razor rule = "the easiest solution is the most truthfull one". People who have physics intuition and are used to analysing physics data just tend to be more sure of what they are analysing when in regard to their own area of knowledege.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
What does mechanical engineering curricula have to do with personal preferences?
That's precisely what I was asking, see above for the reason of my asking you. I was hoping you would explain, but I'm satisfied that you're now asking that yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, you are saying that having engineering background implies one is more inclined to bias? Where did I ever refered that? I refered the exact opposite. When one is dealing with scientific data there is no room for interpetation. But also, when the correct theoretical data is introduced, and influencing factors are accounted for, the results match expected empirical data. Not so when data is manipulated to fit certain preconcieved ideas of the expected results.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
If we were discussing an arcade game I would be in total and absolute agreement with you. But we are not. We are discussing a WW2 combat simulator. As such, all that is within the simulation needs to be accurate in regard to what it was in WW2. And it has to be tested, verified and changed if necessary. Or else we are not reproducing history, just fooling around with a "what if" combat game. That is why it is perfectly legitimate to ask the developper for data and explanations to game implementations. At the very least data...
Let me first state how I see the general frame of reference:

-Developers develop software, according to their own expertise, their own technical/commercial criteria, and of course, their own personal preferences. Expertise, criteria, and preferences that apply, not only to WWII aircraft performance, but to the whole process of developing a complex software which includes many other areas (graphics, artificial intelligence, user interfacing, networking, etc.) and which has to be able to perform well in an average desktop PC, and which has to be sold to the final user for a few dozen "/$.

-Users use the software. Period. Alright, that was possibly too concise, I'll rephrase it: users buy the software and use it, and they form a personal opinion about it in the process. If the users are reasonably satisfied, they will keep using the software for their enjoyment, and possibly they will further buy other software creations by the same developers. If they're not satisfied, they won't. This is very much the same process that applies to books, car makes, home appliances, cinema films, rock bands, word-processing software, you name it.

-Exceptionally, some developer shows an outstanding dedication to their subject, so that they keep working on an already sold out product and they keep releasing patches and updates. The process for the users is the same I just outlined, except that we can skip the buying step because the patches/updates are free. Once in a while, the developer packs a big set of new additions and puts it on shops shelves to be sold, and the whole process keeps going.

-Exceptionally, some developer is kind enough to pay real attention to users' opinions and feedback, in the form of forum/email opinions (but I don't think that mere opinions weigh much, and rightly so) and, especially, in the documented form of thorough tests of the software and relevant historical research. This means, not just to fly a lot online or offline, not just to read many books about WWII and then post in a forum; but to carry out systematic, meaningful testing and to trace and retrieve and analyse relevant documentation, again meaningfully. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The users have a saying on matters in any game. They are the supporters that feed the developers. Period.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Now, Aymar_Mauri, when I read your posts, I get the impression that you see yourself as having a right to be involved in the developing process just because you have an opinion, a right that somehow would be unfairly being taken away from you. I deeply disagree with that view. You say in the paragraph I quoted above: "That is why it is perfectly legitimate to ask the developper for data and explanations to game implementations". Well, of course asking is legitimate, there isn't any law against it and it is within reasonable developer/user interaction. However, I think the demanding tone is not legitimate in that sense, it is not within reasonable interaction, considering that Maddox Games are, IMO, one of the very few developers committed enough and kind enough to have a long record of improving the software and paying attention to -reasonable, meaningful, thorough- user feedback.
Once again: The users have a saying on matters in any game. They are the supporters that feed the developers. Period.

And regarding "reasonable, meaningful, thorough data in the documented form of thorough tests of the software and relevant historical research" this is where we disagree. It seems it isn't all created equal. Only the specific data that fits one's particular views.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Throughout this thread, Lexx_Luthor has mentioned several times how himself and robban75 have done user-side meaningful, constructive work and they have had positive responses from Maddox Games. I believe I can mention at least a couple of other users, Faustnik and Tagert (I'll stand corrected if I'm not right in mentioning them), who have obtained similarly positive responses to their testing or researching, and I'm positive I've read a number of other users, that I don't remember by name, reporting similar experiences. I would suggest trying the same course of action with all due respect and courtesy towards the developer, bearing in mind that if it is legitimate that you ask data and explanations from them, it is equally legitimate (if not more so) that they choose not to provide them to you (I would make the same suggestion to Pipper, along the same lines Lexx was doing).
Why shall I waste time presenting "reasonable, meaningful, thorough data in the documented form of thorough tests of the software and relevant historical research" that has already been posted several times by other people (Crump and Faustnik included) and has been ignored although apparently accepted? Is there any logic in beating up a dead horse?


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Instead of that, what I see you're choosing to do is to engage in (perennial) forum debates where you're strongly holding your own opinions.
Because when a dev ignores the particular subject at hand continuosly, one sometimes vents frustration at the situation.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
We all agree that there is no better WWII airwarfare simulator for PC around (with the possible exception of Stigler here); while at the same time we also agree that this fact doesn't magically turn IL2 into the ultimate truth, aeronautical or historical. In this situation, when you have also stated that no previous version of IL2 is better than the current, and simultaneously it appears that you are more than mildly dissatisfied with current, 4.04 version of IL2 (you find it a grievous situation),
Incorrect. I find the developer's def ears a grievous situation. Not the 4.04 patch. Although it's obvious I'm not entirelly pleased by it.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
what would be the better options for a plain user as you are (as we all are here)?
-Stop playing IL2 at all, stop worrying about it too.
If I wasn't passionate about WW2 aerial warfare since an early age I would just do that.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
-Keep playing and enjoying IL2, while at the same time addressing the problems you see in a constructive manner (testing, researching, interacting respectfully with the developer)
What interaction? Replies like "That won't be changed." and "Takes too much time." ? Are you blind?


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
-Keep playing IL2 but not enjoying it, while at the same time putting quite some effort in forum debates where you explain how you consider that Oleg Maddox's personal preferences put IL2(by Maddox Games) in a grievous situation.
I really don't spend much energy in it. But typical fanboy "Oleg is GOD!!" and "This is an exact representation of WW2. Be Sure!!" behaviour really vexes me.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
These were in no particular order, but you seem to opt for the latter. You're welcome to have your own choice, but what good are you expecting as an outcome?
I stopped expecting any unclouded approach by this developper quite a while ago. I do not have the time to waste to fall in the pits other people have. So, read the previous reply.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Finally, about the demanding tone that I'm perceiving in your posts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Or am I wrong and this is an arcade game? If it is so, I apologize to everyone for any polemic content in my posts and refrain to post in this forum ever again.
This is a recurring argument in your posts here, and to me, it appears to be the bottom-line of your whole argumentation. As I understand it, it all boils down, ultimately, to that: Either the developers do what you think is the right thing to do, or else you, the user Aymar_Mauri, will judge and sentence that IL2 be considered a mere, childish arcade game, instead of a respectable flight simulator software. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is your interpretation. And pretty twisted it is.

If one is serious and truthfull about the objectives he claimed to the public that a product is this and that, one has to keep his word and take the correct position in regard to that particular project. Or else he is not beeing correct with the public. And this means not ditching historical reports and data that has been presented. When one does not have that attitude it just stains the inicial purpose of the project in the first place.

And you're wrong about my position: it's really not my argument. Many more people much more involved than me here have posted the data and reports about the matters I refered before. They were the iniciators and they were ignored. I'm actually a guy in the back bench looking at the field of games.


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
As I hope I have made clear, I deeply disagree with that view and tone. Of course you may reply that you didn't write those exact words, but that's my view on what your posts mean, and I won't go into further iterations of this particular discussion. All we are doing here is exchanging opinions (we're not shaping the flight models or designing software at all here), and that was mine.
You can interpret whatever you want. What is your opinion in regard to my posts really doesn't matter to me. I've already explained that I'm not "opiniating" anything, just stating clear facts. Too bad so few see them as just opinions...

msalama
03-17-2006, 11:14 AM
No. Aircraft data is more important than the pilot.

Well... it's not that simple really.

AC data is most certainly important in defining its operational limits in the game, but how the bugger behaves _within_ those limits in any given situation depends on many variables. And pilot skill is _the_ most important variable there, as it is IRL.

And this of course applies to game AC testing as well. How do we know whether people run their tests correctly at all?

Another undefined - and HUGE - variable is the environment where the game is run. Is it possible to get contradicting results in different computers?

Now I'm _still_ not saying Oleg has gotten it down pat and you're just a bunch of disposable whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif All I'm trying to point out is that there isn't much credibility in unscientific "testing", be it in gaming context or wherever... because how the heck do you TEST something unambiguously when even the testing _environment_ is largely unknown and wildly variable, and preliminary conditions for the tests largely undefined?

crazyivan1970
03-17-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is all this beta talk lol. It just several formulas that calculate flight characteristics that were designed for BOB. There is no beta FM lol. IL2 series has maybe 15% of BOB complexity, that`s about it. Beta shmeta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"No beta"? "Beta shmeta"?

Hey Ivan, you should read the patch docs every now and then. An excerpt from Readme_v401: "V4.01 introduces the next generation pre-Battle of Britain Flight Model (FM). In this add-on we are introducing a part of the FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide open beta test in our current engine."

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

Ohhhhh, sooo busted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry mate, i did not read that....wait i wrote that readme LOL Well...hell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

msalama
03-17-2006, 11:52 AM
Ohhhhh, sooo busted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gotcha Ivan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Cheers mate...

rnzoli
03-17-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Without an outside competitor, though, it is our only option. I always assumed that player/customer feedback was the main reason 1C and Ubisoft keep these forums going. It is as long as you don't point out flaws in the modeling.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehehe. Quite true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it? Were topics locked because of pointing out flaws only, in a civilized, educated manner? Links, please.

I can also repeat a question that puzzles me: what's your goal with the whining on this forum? Trash-talking about Oleg, the dev team and the game alone will lead nowhere. Oleg is not reading this. No one from the development team is reading this. If you want to change something for the better, you have to start acting - testing, structuring the data, submitting to 1C e-mail address etc.

What do you want and why don't you do something for it?

carguy_
03-17-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Il-2 series has clearly favored the 'stars' of the Eastern Front throughout its life; in my opinion, the Me 109E-K, the La-5/7, and P-39 have gotten consistantly, umm, shall we say, more than fair treatment. That certainly seems reasonable in that hey, they're Russian, that's going to be their area of interest, and they have done the sim so well in that context that I am quite happy with it just to fly campaigns in that theater.


Agree on this part.It is obvious the most popular planes in the war get most attention from the devs and get better "treatment".
IMO all of them have some offs in their performance as in their favor.I guess it`s just a marketing thing and even if it`s sad,it`s legitimate so to speak.
I believe however that the game promotes light aircraft more than any other.



The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51, Corsair, or to a lesser extent, the FW 190, for instance. There has also been a clear 'size-ist' prejudice against bigger fighters like the P-47 and P-38, particularly in the DM department.

Hardly so.I fly all of those planes regulary except the P38.FW190 has by far the greatest penalty whent it comes to light controls.It loses much more energy in all maneuvers than any American plane.All American planes are more universal and friendly then the Focke Wulf.We have the bar which renders deflection shots unsuable too.

Above mentioned planes have a common flaw - the dive acceleration.Even if it has been proven thaw weight is modelled,those planes will not leave their enemies behind when it comes to diving or zoomclimbing.
And may I say that hardly anyone disagrees that planes like FW190,P47,P51 were tech wonders of their age and presented new,future art of 'dogfighting' though it hardly resembles what the word literally means.

That said I also want to stress that when it comes to offensive aswell as defensive qualities of American planes,they exceed the FW190 one class at least.
IMO the P38 is undermodelled in low level performance as it was historically an agile plane even for a fighter.
As for P47/P51 - both rule at their historical altitudes which is above 5500m.
Both have good energy retention and are able to perform T&B for a limited (but by far longer than FW190) time even at low altitudes.Below 5500m both lose to the 109 in circumstances resembling those historical.
As for 50cal I have my own opinion about what is wrong and who is responsible for making it so.

Summing it up,IMO USAAF aircraft are(with few flaws) very accurately modelled and so very good with a pilot not really experienced but a pilot who knows what advantages they present.

In other`s opinions about them (P47/P51) stating them unhistorical, I see the national bias.

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oleg responded to robban and I providing test data, and that's all I can offer you in this particular subject.

What did you test? And what specifically got changed in the game based on what you submitted?

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
....I've already explained that I'm not "opiniating" anything, just stating clear facts. Too bad so few see them as just opinions... As you've probably already discovered, there are some here who will incorrectly attribute a point of view to you. They will then sermonize you about that non-existant perspective and tell you why you shouldn't have it. Never mind that you never held it in the first place, your clear explanations to the contrary notwithstanding. Employment of this nonsensical tactic is a signature trait of those who really have no idea what they're talking about...but like to be heard anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142-Pipper

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2006, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Some posts in this thread are really helpful in understanding where the claims of bias come from. A large number of people like to get into hard maneuvering dogfights. It looks like some even consider it to be the measure of a "skilled" pilot. When they can't get their favorite plane to excel at that type of fight, they cry "Oleg is biased". bingo

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
If one notices certain discrepancies of in-game ac behaviour in regard to RL data sheets and reports, procedes to make some calculations and then compares them to the in-game behaviour and finds disparities focusing on certain types of ac that keeep not beeing adressed patch after patch, one tends to use Ocham's Razor rule = "the easiest solution is the most truthfull one". People who have physics intuition and are used to analysing physics data just tend to be more sure of what they are analysing when in regard to their own area of knowledege. I see you're in need of a "forum glossary". What you've accurately described is referred to here as "whining", particularly so if used to showcase the sorry state of later-war U.S. aircraft. Of course, if your remarks are in full support of Maddox' thoroughly hosed-up flight models then it's...(drum roll)..."testing". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper

horseback
03-17-2006, 11:11 PM
quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51, Corsair, or to a lesser extent, the FW 190, for instance. There has also been a clear 'size-ist' prejudice against bigger fighters like the P-47 and P-38, particularly in the DM department.


Hardly so.I fly all of those planes regulary except the P38.FW190 has by far the greatest penalty whent it comes to light controls.It loses much more energy in all maneuvers than any American plane.All American planes are more universal and friendly then the Focke Wulf.We have the bar which renders deflection shots unsuable too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>While I agree that the 190 loses more E in sharp maneuvers than the P-51, I'm not so sure that the same holds true with the P-47 or P-38, and that is as it should be.

However, my complaint was not about E loss, which the FW could regain more easily than all the Americans but possibly the P-38, but about the loss of precision control.

When the slightest stick movement has you rocketing up or down, ands any attempt at correction leads to overcorrection unless you grossly reduce the stick sensitivities and crank up the filtering just for those aircraft, that's a problem. It becomes impossible to fly straight and level, much less line up your shot, and even with all the adjustments, it's twice as much work to fly the US planes as their contemporaries, when historically, it was the other way around.

Vision and E issues aside, the FW has always been more controllable in the 4.0x patch series than the late war Yank fighters.

I understand it's been at least partially fixed in 4.04, but I spend my time in offline campaigns, and the AI are so thoroughly execrable in 4.04 that I've repatched to 3.03.

The 4.0x series has not been kind to me or most offline players. I for one will be glad to see the end of it.

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
03-17-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oleg responded to robban and I providing test data, and that's all I can offer you in this particular subject.

What did you test? And what specifically got changed in the game based on what you submitted?

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well we all know what GR142_Pipper "tested" , he tested how many kills he (didnt) manage to score hourly while flying airquake under 2000 feet in DF rooms

on the other hand , real testing produces applicable numbers that you can use to compare real in-game performance

something you cannot do in the middle of a DogFight looking out of your cockpit - which is a Fact that Pipper really bites at acknowledging - because its far eaiser to whine & takes less time , & when your done you can see you "frustration" in text form to help make yourself feel better , doesnt it Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
03-18-2006, 12:11 AM
Pipper, sometime in FB 2.xy we tested La-7 max sea level climb rate, using the Robban75 Method. Oleg talked to us about it in Oleg's Recovery Room, and he reduced the climb rate in the next Patch which was releaced possibly a week later.

LEXX_Luthor
03-18-2006, 12:12 AM
horseback, goto WalMarts and spend 20$ on Saitek Cyborg Graphite joystick. It has 6 inches of stick top throw distance. Thus, I have no problems with fine roll and pitch control in any plane in the sim. If you think about it, anything Oleg does may be restricted by the insanely tiny joystick control movement made by the joystick manufacturers. Flight sim Devs will never be able to offer truly realistic World War 2 Warbird flight models using computer game controller, at least for the FM parts that respond to plastic joystick inputs.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2006, 12:52 AM
The modelling of stick forces to movement has absolutely penalized aircraft with 'light' stick forces like the P-51,

That's not true of the P51 in all envelopes, at least not according to USN pilot reports and Mark Hanna.

Anyway, that's a little beside the point. With every patch there seem to be some planes that start behaving outside their figures. If they are noticed enough it seems that often they are brought back into limits subsequently. This makes me think (and Oleg hints at this too) that there is a physics engine, and parameters to control the behaviour that are somewhat related to real life properties but require tweaking to make sure the planes hit the correct performance numbers. A new FM tweak throws those out in some instances (See Oleg's comments about a year ago about climb rate) and I get the impression that they don't have enough staff to test all the aircraft are behaving correctly before releasing a patch, especially since this is an old project and I wouldn't be surprised if Ubi is breathing down Oleg's neck to finish of BoB. Where the bias might come in is that favourite aircraft might get more testing, or the benefit of the doubt when checking performance, which would be a fairly soft form of bias, and more a bias of oversight or neglect of some aircraft. And here whining might be counterproductive if it annoys the development staff.

Given the number of bugs that hang around between releases I get the impression that there is not enough effort available to fix everything. The sim itself is very stable in terms of its overall operation, which is quite impressive, but there is a huge amount of data to check. The last 10% of checking takes 90% of the work (as a rule of thumb).

Maybe what is needed is some sort of faster feedback loop between developers and beta testers, or a way some testers can tweak the parameters to spread the load of data tweaking.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2006, 12:57 AM
horseback, goto WalMarts and spend 20$ on Saitek Cyborg Graphite joystick. It has 6 inches of stick top throw distance. Thus, I have no problems with fine roll and pitch control in any plane in the sim. If you think about it, anything Oleg does may be restricted by the insanely tiny joystick control movement made by the joystick manufacturers. Flight sim Devs will never be able to offer truly realistic World War 2 Warbird flight models using computer game controller, at least for the FM parts that respond to plastic joystick inputs.

You can get some long-throw stick extenders that make the joystick around 2 feet or more long. A simple expedient is sticking the joystick to a wooden board, put your chair on the board, providing a stable bass, then taping a broom handle to the joystick. Reaching the buttons is a problem, but it is amazing the amount of control you can get. I've heard of people taking the stick handle and placing it on the end of broom handles with long extension wires. If you have an X45 throttle or something you'd probably have enough buttons on that not to miss the ones on the base of the stick. I wouldn't want to take apart an expensive stick, though. I have a spare Sidewinder Pro (no FFB). Maybe I should dissect it and stick the handle on the top of a broom handle.

There's a flight sim show on round here later today so I might go and ask about this there if I go.

GR142-Pipper
03-18-2006, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
well we all know what GR142_Pipper "tested" , he tested how many kills he (didnt) manage to score hourly while flying airquake under 2000 feet in DF rooms Did your squad mates put you up to this? I bet they did. Good doggie.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:lYtbaKoPj1zosM:www.vhs-oe.de/Images/politik/burka.jpg

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2006, 09:05 AM
An interesting gathering of info:


Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

Captured enemy hardware testing, in modern times, labled by many modern military-industrial organizations as "Foreign Material Exploitation", is fraught with potential errors.

The RAE and USAAF testing on captured hardware has always fascinated me, due to my personal involvement in such tests and the operational application of test results during the cold war.

Foreign Material Exploitation testing results are subject to error due to many factors, including:

1) Physical condition of the aquired hardware
2) Expendable chemical compound residue from fuels and explosives
3) Technical proficiency of the aquiring nation, particularly the test facility personnel involved in such testing
4) Strategic status of the testing nation (at war, peace)
5) Inspectable condition of testing data and hardware.

It continually amazes me how people take such testing at face value, when in my experience, there are so many factors which prejudice the written conclusions of such tests.

Concerining Faber's FW-190 and USAAF testing the "rough running" comments never made sense to me, until Crump provided the fuel analysis documents.

In peacetime such tests may be compromised by a nations self-interest with respect to foreign weapons sales. If for example, I depend on F-16 sales to fund development of new fighter aircraft, then the agencies involved in funding such testing may be somewhat compromised by their stake in the results.

In wartime such tests can and are effected by the operational impact of the results.

Let's say for instance (I'm not saying this happened, as I have no direct evidence, this is just an example), that the RAE realized that Faber's FW was derated. The engineers found the screw while examining the throttle. If they realized it's purpose then perhaps it would have been left in and the test pilots not informed for two rational reasons.

1) Maximizing the engine time to complete testing. Can't just order a new BMW-801 from Germany, now can we.

2) Providing confidence to pilots flying combat missions on existing, inferior hardware. We can't just stop the war because the enemy has better stuff. Business must proceed. How many pilots would fly agressively against an opponent they percieved to have all the advantages?

I wish I had access to the complete notes and testing results from the RAE's experience with that Anton. Unfortunately, all I've ever read, in copy or in published work is the same, single report that everyone else has seen.

With respect to the IL2 software, I'm afraid that far too much of the basis for our FW, comes from Russian sources. In my opinion, these sources suffer from errors 3 and 5 above, and are clearly weighted to give Soviet pilots some reason to climb into their aircraft and take off on a mission.

I don't think Oleg has a prejudiced bone in his body, but I think his data is suspect.

carguy_
03-18-2006, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
When the slightest stick movement has you rocketing up or down, ands any attempt at correction leads to overcorrection unless you grossly reduce the stick sensitivities and crank up the filtering just for those aircraft, that's a problem. It becomes impossible to fly straight and level, much less line up your shot, and even with all the adjustments, it's twice as much work to fly the US planes as their contemporaries, when historically, it was the other way around.


Well I dunno what to say,horseback.I can only say that problem you described dissapeared for me in 4.02.I have no problem with control smoothness on any American aircraft.All are very stable and controllable giving the feel of controls.

As for the FW190,it`s very twitchy compared to them.In A4/5/6/8 any horizontal maneuver creates buffeting.The behaviour doesn`t appear to be on the A9/D9 Focke Wulfs.I think because they`re very well powered giving good power reserves even at sea level.

P47/P51/P38 are just as stable as 109 on my PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif




Originally posted by Badsight.:
well we all know what GR142_Pipper "tested" , he tested how many kills he (didnt) manage to score hourly while flying airquake under 2000 feet in DF rooms

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Monty_Thrud
03-18-2006, 09:21 AM
Is that you Roland?

horseback
03-18-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
When the slightest stick movement has you rocketing up or down, ands any attempt at correction leads to overcorrection unless you grossly reduce the stick sensitivities and crank up the filtering just for those aircraft, that's a problem. It becomes impossible to fly straight and level, much less line up your shot, and even with all the adjustments, it's twice as much work to fly the US planes as their contemporaries, when historically, it was the other way around.
Well I dunno what to say,horseback.I can only say that problem you described dissapeared for me in 4.02.I have no problem with control smoothness on any American aircraft.All are very stable and controllable giving the feel of controls.

As for the FW190,it`s very twitchy compared to them.In A4/5/6/8 any horizontal maneuver creates buffeting.The behaviour doesn`t appear to be on the A9/D9 Focke Wulfs.I think because they`re very well powered giving good power reserves even at sea level.

P47/P51/P38 are just as stable as 109 on my PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[QUOTE]Damn. Wanna trade rigs? The 190 is still harder than the 109, but lightyears ahead of the Yanks on both my rigs.

I had very similar problems on both my computers-a 3.06GHz P4 and an Athlon 64 3500+, with a Gb of RAM and 9800Pro/128 and GF6800GS/256 video cards, respectively. Admittedly, my budget doesn't allow for a new set of controllers, so I used the same CH HOTAS and Pedals setup on each.

In the 4.02 patch, I had to crank my stick sensitivities waaaaay down and add a couple notches of filter (something I had never needed to do before) to have any hope of running the Mustang or Corsair with even a moderate sense of control, although the P-47 was a bit better. On the base set of sensitivity settings, I found the 190 to be a couple of notches more twitchy than the 109, but nothing on the order of even the P-47, much less the Mustang. With things cranked back, it was MUCH improved (although I too, hate the forward view, not so much due to the 'bar' as to the thickness of the windshield/canopy framing in the one-eyed view -and where the hell's my nose down attitude?).

I had noticed very little change in the 109 or P-40 (which were the campaigns I was running at the time of the Big Change) from the 3.03 patch to the new 4.0x FMs, so when I switched to the 2 Little DUCs campaign flying Mustangs, I was flabbergasted. I was literally unable to fly it in a straight line or make a coordinated turn until I was tipped off about radically lowered joystick settings on these boards -several weeks after the patch was released.

Even then, microscopic applications of rudder made way too much difference, and I was far too dependent upon the Turn & Bank indicators (which lie like a cheating wife half the time), and the keystroke trim input effects were inconsistant: no effect with one or two taps, way too much with just one more.

As we say in the defense business, if you document major adjustments and inform the customer beforehand, it's a FEATURE. If he has to find out about it, document it and figure out a workaround for himself, it's a BUG. We have to give the customer some of his money back if there are too many bugs.

4.03/4.04 seems much improved in the FMs, from my short stint with them, but as I said, the AI are so bad as to make offline campaign play a painful trial rather than a pleasant and challenging diversion. I was forced to throw up my hands in disgust and backpatch to 3.03, which has its own list of shortcomings.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
03-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Its starting to get on my nerves everyone registering about 20 names to add 'weight' to their argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight.
03-18-2006, 05:00 PM
yes , while they are truely pathetic whiners , they are too scared to show the rest of the online community where their squad stands on certian issues - because they know posting as such makes them a laughing stock

too chicken-sh*t to stand up & show everyone how petty & game-points orientated they are , they make pseudonyms like HayateAce - who was a Troll from his first post onwards - in the hope their posts with their proper squad-tags will be taken seriously

so pathetically lame its amazing

horseback
03-19-2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
horseback, goto WalMarts and spend 20$ on Saitek Cyborg Graphite joystick. It has 6 inches of stick top throw distance. Thus, I have no problems with fine roll and pitch control in any plane in the sim. If you think about it, anything Oleg does may be restricted by the insanely tiny joystick control movement made by the joystick manufacturers. Flight sim Devs will never be able to offer truly realistic World War 2 Warbird flight models using computer game controller, at least for the FM parts that respond to plastic joystick inputs. Gee, Lexx, do ya think my CH Combatstick is inadequate? The throw is 8 or 9 inches side to side, front to back, and I'd like to use all of it, but on this sim (at least with the current series of patches), with the Mustang or Corsair, if I move it an inch or two, things get radical, even with the grossly reduced sensitivities.

The fact that it's only those aircraft that enjoy the teensy stick throw makes me think it's an abortive attempt to emulate the lighter stick forces at high speeds that made these particular aircraft successful in combat.

I'm sure the Saitek is a fine stick, but they're so damned ugly...like something out of a Japanese cartoon. I'd have to replace the handle at the very least (or cover my portait of John Wayne when I take the stick out of its box).

No, I think I'll stick with the CH Hotas and Pedals, thank you anyway.

cheers

horseback

LEXX_Luthor
03-20-2006, 02:06 AM
horseback, I don't have the control problems you are having. I'll try again...

Saitek Cyborg Graphite is not among the lineup of Saitek junk at CompUSA or Best Buy -- you know -- the "normal" Saitek stuff like "evo" "x42" (whatever) etc... and you are right they are Ugly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The Graphite is a beautiful yet simple WW2 style 20$ joystick found on shelf at WalMarts and comes with no software but is the most massive joystick made. I am wondering if all the Fancy Software in these expensive Pro Simmer sticks is causing all the flight model control problems. I have the simplest stick possible, but the largest and most massive stick, and I am Happy simmer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Try flying the I-16.

what is I-16?



horseback::
When the slightest stick movement has you rocketing up or down, ands any attempt at correction leads to overcorrection unless you grossly reduce the stick sensitivities and crank up the filtering just for those aircraft, that's a problem. It becomes impossible to fly straight and level, much less line up your shot, and even with all the adjustments, it's twice as much work to fly the US planes as their contemporaries, when historically, it was the other way around.
Its kinda funny. I was in (*ugh*) WalMarts and saw a "cheap" 20$ stick, so I got it as my first joystick for my first Windows flight sim (FB). I would get a "real" Flight Sim joystick later. Well that some time later I was in CompUSA and hand tested ALL the joysticks they had. They all felt like wet fish and I recoiled in horror, especially when I looked at the prices they want for these semi-Pro Simmer sticks. The Pro Simmer sticks run into the hundreds of dollars I guess. That's how life works sometimes. The humble Graphite is the best stick made for WW2 simming -- very simple control columns used back then.

LEXX_Luthor
03-20-2006, 02:53 AM
*oops* .. Unless you are talking about the Wobbles. Testing indicated much yaw wobbling (rudder) in the heavy USA fighters in Patch 4.03 (along with Bf-110G heavy fighter).