PDA

View Full Version : OMG the p51D in 4.071m is awesome!!



GH_Klingstroem
01-02-2007, 05:26 PM
Just to let you guys know! Its all we have all wanted!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

GH_Klingstroem
01-02-2007, 05:26 PM
Just to let you guys know! Its all we have all wanted!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
01-02-2007, 05:34 PM
Indeed - it is a much more enjoyable plane, now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-02-2007, 05:49 PM
Flies the exact same to me as do all the US planes minus the recoil wobble. Exactly what do you feel has changed?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214 The Original Black Sheep Squadron of the IL-2 series are currently recruiting dedicated and mature pilots. Visit us at http://vmf214blacksheep.com/

SithSpeeder
01-02-2007, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">minus the recoil wobble </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is all _I_ wanted for Christmas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

* _54th_Speeder *<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/360x200signew.jpg (http://www.fiftyfourth.com/)
Also, my personal webspace dedicated to WW2 Combat Flight simming can be found at:
simace.com (http://www.simace.com/)

carguy_
01-02-2007, 06:01 PM
Seems like 4071 is a bonus for all such planes.

I like FW190 alot more now also.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Brain32
01-02-2007, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Seems like 4071 is a bonus for all such planes.

I like FW190 alot more now also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Me too FW190 really roXorz now judging by the last few days I tried it out. However I do not notice much improvement on the P51 everybody is talking about. I shot many 51's this days because people flew them like Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-02-2007, 08:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/English157.jpg
================================================== ======
I.O.C.L. (International Online Competition League) (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php?sid=77e1596a8421c8d6f7e717eab883f534)

Bearcat99
01-02-2007, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Flies the exact same to me as do all the US planes minus the recoil wobble. Exactly what do you feel has changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It holds E better... as in a zoom climb... it can actually catch something now if you trim it and use your pitch right.. and it can run if it has to... which it couldn't do very well before.... and now the 6 50s on the Ds are more like the 6 50s on the P-40s.. which they should have been all along.... 6 50s should be 6 50s.

It accelerates better..... E fighting is much better now across the bioard in 4.07... I think this is the best FM of them all.

Mind you I thought the P-51 in particular in 4.05 was the best one of them all up until this.... but this is much more stable.... you still cant yank on the stick.. which is as it should be.... the only major thing that IMO isnt modeled on any of the planes entirely correct is the torque.... I still cant flip a Mustang on TO if I slam the throttle.. which was a common result in real life and cost many pilots their lives. I can live with that though.... I think these FMs are the best out of all the versions and what one would expect from the next to last incarnation of a great sim in any version.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

TAW_Oilburner
01-02-2007, 08:29 PM
I think people that spend a lot of time in the 51 will notice a bunch of little changes which could be called a big change while the casual tourist will just notice the lack of wobble.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-02-2007, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Flies the exact same to me as do all the US planes minus the recoil wobble. Exactly what do you feel has changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It holds E better... as in a zoom climb... it can actually catch something now if you trim it and use your pitch right.. and it can run if it has to... which it couldn't do very well before.... and now the 6 50s on the Ds are more like the 6 50s on the P-40s.. which they should have been all along.... 6 50s should be 6 50s.

It accelerates better..... E fighting is much better now across the bioard in 4.07... I think this is the best FM of them all.

Mind you I thought the P-51 in particular in 4.05 was the best one of them all up until this.... but this is much more stable.... you still cant yank on the stick.. which is as it should be.... the only major thing that IMO isnt modeled on any of the planes entirely correct is the torque.... I still cant flip a Mustang on TO if I slam the throttle.. which was a common result in real life and cost many pilots their lives. I can live with that though.... I think these FMs are the best out of all the versions and what one would expect from the next to last incarnation of a great sim in any version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Propaganda I tell ya! I want facts, spread sheets, charts, and printouts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Seriously though I think the FM as a whole has been tweaked a bit for the better. And the new stick settings make everything smoother. Best so far...be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214 The Original Black Sheep Squadron of the IL-2 series are currently recruiting dedicated and mature pilots. Visit us at http://vmf214blacksheep.com/

BfHeFwMe
01-02-2007, 11:22 PM
There's something much more than simply stick tweaks. No one noticed how kicking rudder in at high speeds no longer increases roll rates or causes a strong roll itself? Every other patch or version you could get your ailerons shot out and stay in a fight rolling with rudder.

How about roll rates themselves? They seem very much different, the Lightning with boosted controls will outroll a Fw-190 at higher speeds. It's probably the best high speed rolling prop plane in the game now. The stick stirring days of the 190 are over, roll rates are very different, much more dependant on speeds across the board now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

Von_Rat
01-03-2007, 12:19 AM
other than it being more stable because i dont have to downtrim it to keep wings on, it doesnt seem very differant to me.

.50s do seem take off wings easier though. but i still had times were fws soaked up 200+ rounds before going in.

Manu-6S
01-03-2007, 12:38 AM
Damned postal shipment!!! I want my 1946!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

NonWonderDog
01-03-2007, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
How about roll rates themselves? They seem very much different, the Lightning with boosted controls will outroll a Fw-190 at higher speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's been like that from the beginning, actually. I'm really not sure why so few noticed.

B0lloX
01-03-2007, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
...
How about roll rates themselves? They seem very much different, the Lightning with boosted controls will outroll a Fw-190 at higher speeds. It's probably the best high speed rolling prop plane in the game now. The stick stirring days of the 190 are over, roll rates are very different, much more dependant on speeds across the board now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the P-38 ever have trouble with the FW190?

I like my placebos sugar flavoured, myself.

B0llox<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

MALIM PRAEDARI

La7_brook
01-03-2007, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There's something much more than simply stick tweaks. No one noticed how kicking rudder in at high speeds no longer increases roll rates or causes a strong roll itself? Every other patch or version you could get your ailerons shot out and stay in a fight rolling with rudder.

How about roll rates themselves? They seem very much different, the Lightning with boosted controls will outroll a Fw-190 at higher speeds. It's probably the best high speed rolling prop plane in the game now. The stick stirring days of the 190 are over, roll rates are very different, much more dependant on speeds across the board now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> what have u been smoking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
01-03-2007, 02:35 AM
Methinks some(most) people failed to fiddle with their controls/settings earlier...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
01-03-2007, 02:44 AM
Maybe....

I for example have wobbles now.Had to remake stick settings from the start(thanks IL2Sticks!!!).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Capt.LoneRanger
01-03-2007, 03:12 AM
I am still familiarizing myself with the P51 and I found the new patch was a leap forward for me. It runs faster, feels more stable and more like a real plane and you can actually down an aircraft quickly instead taking it apart bit by bit, hoping for a pilot-kill as before.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

F19_Ob
01-03-2007, 03:31 AM
Bearcat...

Regarding torque effects in the sim, we had both the wingtilt on the 109 G2 in FB aswell as the noseover on Fiat cr42 in AEP when power was abruptly applied on the ground, but these effects was removed after the complaints of the customers.
We also have the power-pull when a power up is made on the ground (or air) with the p38.

So possibilities to have several Engine-torque- typical effects of course still are there. The question is why we 'don't' want them.

The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

joeap
01-03-2007, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Bearcat...

Regarding torque effects in the sim, we had both the wingtilt on the 109 G2 in FB aswell as the noseover on Fiat cr42 in AEP when power was abruptly applied on the ground, but these effects was removed after the complaints of the customers.

So possibilities to have several torque-effects of course still are there. The question is why we 'don't' want them.

The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look when did we have them? Which patch, I think you are right, but what I don't recall is the fact customers complained. Got any links to threads or posts complaining of too much torque???

SeaFireLIV
01-03-2007, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Bearcat...

Regarding torque effects in the sim, we had both the wingtilt on the 109 G2 in FB aswell as the noseover on Fiat cr42 in AEP when power was abruptly applied on the ground, but these effects was removed after the complaints of the customers.
We also have the power-pull when a power up is made on the ground (or air) with the p38.

So possibilities to have several Engine-torque- typical effects of course still are there. The question is why we 'don't' want them.

The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this.

When people shout that `Tej P51 is awesome!" I sigh, because I know that it`s probably not realistic any more. And, joeap, ever since the P51 came out EVERYTHING was complained about the P51 from old communist bias to porked Fms to torque. This was on the old and new forum. Do the search. I think it`s sad when something`s changed not because it`s wrong but because people just WANT it changed to suit their mob view. It`s as bad as politics.

Most people live in a fantasy and I guess Oleg`s beginning to realise this.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

F19_Ob
01-03-2007, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:

Look when did we have them? Which patch, I think you are right, but what I don't recall is the fact customers complained. Got any links to threads or posts complaining of too much torque??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry... I can't recall wich patches but at the time there was discussions about the wingtilt of the 109G2 and it took some time to get it removed. I think it was in early FB though.

Regarding the cr42 people couldn't get off the ground because it nosed over, aswell as was hard to turn on ground. perhaps this was in early AEP.

Maybe u can find some posts with the searchfunction, but it seems to leave out posts.
I can't be sure excactly wich forum I read what either but it irritated me then, and I guess it's why I remember the effects now.

As U may know the dev team really don't make anouncements of all changes they do.
Usually it's just that they have made changes to FM.

I can't help more than this but perhaps some of the other ol'timers recall better. These 'bugs' where no secrets.
Perhaps starting a new thread could be an idea if u relly need info.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

GH_Klingstroem
01-03-2007, 04:45 AM
I have flown the p51 mainly for the last 6 months (me and bearcat seem to be the ones really enjoying it alot) and believe me she has gone through a major change! Sure the wobble is gone, but she is overall much much more stable. Hitting with the 6 0.50s before was a trick in itself, now u only need to have ur gunsight on ur target and some bullets WILL hit it! Before only a few % would and the nose would go all over the place! For the first time I feel I can fight 190Ds on equal terms instead of just 1 BnZ attack and then get the h e l l out of there. She is more stable, maintains E alot better, maybe all AC do, if the p47 and the fw190 do, thats great!! I do have a weak spot in my heart for the 190A series. I think its the new stick settings that have done it! I have fiddeled with them for a few months and these new ones are just great! A much more real feel to the AC! I have never flown therese birds but I do have a few thousand hours as pilot in command of both multi engines and single engined AC and these feel very close!
However someone mentioned the lack of roll if using the rudders alone, well that cannto be correct! When using rudders alone , it should create a roll in the same direction!
When u kick the rudder to the left for example the nose will go left(actually be correct the tail will go right), anyway this will make ur right wing travel through a longer distance and also faster than the left wing, so the right wing will cerate more lift, and if the right wing creates more lift that wing will come up and so you get a roll to the left!
This is all PPL stuff and must be there!

F19_Ob
01-03-2007, 04:52 AM
Well seafire I can see reasons from Olegs standpoint aswell and he is the boss.
It can be understandable if he want a 'middle'way.
The majority of customers are not tech-experts and with endless supply of time to practise and learn all tactics and that.

Although we have difficulty levels most customers still (probably) want to win with full difficulty.
People in general (I belive) can take only just a small portion of defeat before they give up.
If people gave up it would be the deathblow to the sim I guess.

Well just a thought.
I belive the difficulty level options in several more steps could be a powerful tool for the development of the sim.
Oleg ofcourse have to see to the whole picture and remaining in the industry.

One more difficultylevel for the super-hardcore-nut-simmers would be discustingly cool in any case, but it again would put Oleg on the spot and doing something never done in history (again) I don't envy him. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

joeap
01-03-2007, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Bearcat...

Regarding torque effects in the sim, we had both the wingtilt on the 109 G2 in FB aswell as the noseover on Fiat cr42 in AEP when power was abruptly applied on the ground, but these effects was removed after the complaints of the customers.
We also have the power-pull when a power up is made on the ground (or air) with the p38.

So possibilities to have several Engine-torque- typical effects of course still are there. The question is why we 'don't' want them.

The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this.

When people shout that `Tej P51 is awesome!" I sigh, because I know that it`s probably not realistic any more. And, joeap, ever since the P51 came out EVERYTHING was complained about the P51 from old communist bias to porked Fms to torque. This was on the old and new forum. Do the search. I think it`s sad when something`s changed not because it`s wrong but because people just WANT it changed to suit their mob view. It`s as bad as politics.

Most people live in a fantasy and I guess Oleg`s beginning to realise this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were talking about the G2 torque, when did I mention the P-51?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What seems to have happened is that E-retention was changed and all heavier fighters have benefited.

The problem with some of the American planes was yaw WHEN FIRING THE GUNS, far greater than what I saw in guncams, or do you think that was realistic? Sure unsyched guns are more realistic, but I think the limits of the engine meant that unless you balanced the guns on each wing you would get too much yaw.

Maybe the C-42 nose over was complained about, but aren't you guys promoting another myth? We got complaints Oleg is biased against German or US planes, and now is just a wuss who gives in to complaints. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Matz0r
01-03-2007, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
The FM is really untouched Smile Its all about Joystick functions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--
F16VS http://flygflottilj16.se/
Visit ~VALHALLA~ our full real server on Hyperlobby, hosting early war historical planesets and missions.
http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/fokker_now.jpg

KaleunFreddie
01-03-2007, 06:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You see the same type of thread like this every time there's a new patch, version of the game. My answer is always the same...

I've been using my fav Fw190's engine torque for as long as I can remember (when it was first modelled). The roll-rate has more or lees been the same for yonks. the online game results are generally the same. 90% of the planes fall to pieces in front of me. 90% of the times that I get shot up, I get home. I don't do E.. when others do I ignore them, that is until they want to DF (they always fall for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), then they fall to pieces...

Now for the next patch...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.bomber-command.info/medalbc.jpg

leitmotiv
01-03-2007, 06:56 AM
100% Right, F19_Ob. I would like to see a new category in "Difficulty"---"Arcade" for those who are annoyed by the reality of aerodynamic effects, and "Actual" for those who like to get as close as possible to a real simulator. Another factor is at work, I suspect. It is not possible to produce so many flight models and have them be accurate, detailed flight models---the time and cost would be astronomical. That is why some of us buy expensive planes for FS9/X. Nobody complains about torque-caused crashes in FS9/X---in fact, they are applauded.

I am with you re the 190 100%, Kaleunfreddie---doing E in the 190? That's like using a Porsche to pull trailers!

bazzaah2
01-03-2007, 07:16 AM
was just thinking something along those lines leitmotiv.

When I want to simulate a flight in a P51D then up I go in the Shockwave version for FS9.

I'd love to have seen fewer planes with more detailed modelling for this series. I'm hoping that's where BOB is headed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

leitmotiv
01-03-2007, 07:44 AM
Agree, bazaah2. Somebody recently asked me why I would pay 18 Euros for the Flight Replicas 109K-4 for FSX when you can't shoot anything with it. The only possible reply is---if you have to ask, you do not know! What we are getting in FS9/X is what is being promised in the Maddox BOB---real flight simulators, not shootem toys. If I want an idea of what it was like to fly a P-51D, I rev up the Shockwave 51 for FSX, not the one in IL-2. I was "shocked" by the Shockwave radial 190s' torque because I was used to the "decorative" torque in the Maddox radial 190s. The Shockwave radial 190s want to drag you off the runway and into the weeds! The Shockwave Ta 152C is a dangerous, powerful, and very demanding airplane---you really feel you have a tiger by the tail when you fly it. In comparison, the Maddox 152C is a Piper Cub---I can't believe the contrast in "feel"!!!! You can feel the power surging through that beast through your stick with the Shockwave version.

bazzaah2
01-03-2007, 07:53 AM
I can feel another trip to the Shockwave store coming on!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

joeap
01-03-2007, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What we are getting in FS9/X is what is being promised in the Maddox BOB---real flight simulators, not shootem toys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm what we have with IL2 is far from a "shootem toy."

BillyTheKid_22
01-03-2007, 09:54 AM
P-51 !!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

faustnik
01-03-2007, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be very sad. I think more attention to torque and other low-speed/high-power control effects would do a lot to eliminate the UFO moves people complain about.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

msalama
01-03-2007, 09:59 AM
Hmmm...

FS9 simulates takeoff torque and prop effects better than IL-2, that's true, but all that fades into nothing once you're in the air. I've yet to see a MSFS warbird where I need to use _any_ rudder in order to keep her straight over the top of a loop, for example! And ditto for level flight, too - there's no need whatsoever to touch that rudder trim ever, regardless of your power settings!

So if it's real simulators you guys are looking for I don't think PCs are a right platform at all, be your poison 1C or MS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

faustnik
01-03-2007, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
When people shout that `Tej P51 is awesome!" I sigh, because I know that it`s probably not realistic any more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that is the case here SeaFire. Much of the difference that people are seeing is the result of changes in the stick control. I also feel that the overall energy model has been tweaked to favor the heavy, low-drag a/c which benefits the P-51 and Fw190 most.

Maybe the P-51 couldn't hang with a Spitfire in a low speed, sustained turning fight, but, it was far superior in high speed control and drag characteristics. PF4.071 seems to represent that very well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Tator_Totts
01-03-2007, 10:12 AM
Am I wrong but I thought the P-51 in real life could out turn most planes in high speed with combat flaps? I do not see that in Il2 Compare.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

F19_Ob
01-03-2007, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
Am I wrong but I thought the P-51 in real life could out turn most planes in high speed with combat flaps? I do not see that in Il2 Compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not read that, but P51 had good elevators at high speed.
Pilots that came home after trying to turn too hard in high speed lost parts from the tail, or worse.

P51C however could turn with some fw190 on the deck but they were close.
If they could outturn bf109's is dubious if one consider Marseilles exploits, outturning spits and p40's in his 109G.
However many 109 drivers used BnZ tactics, giving up their speed reluctantly.

Finding exact and true sources is not easy.
I still like to belive that experienced pilots knew their planes and the technical realities the were under.
In that respect I've read about both russian and and english aswell as american stating that the 109 could turn with their planes in combat.

The swedes bought the left american p51D's from germany after the war and the little I have read about their use in sweden seems to lean towards not turning because of the problematic spin wich took too much altitude to recover from.

well the little I can recall without digging.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

BillyTheKid_22
01-03-2007, 10:59 AM
I am laugh!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

Aaron_GT
01-03-2007, 11:10 AM
Tator_Totts -

Have a look at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

And also the AFDU comparasion of the Tempest V with the Mustang III.

It would imply that the turn of the Mustang is roughly similar, if a little better, then the Fw 190 and Tempest V.

One thing that is noted in the trial against the Spitfire is:

"Turning Circle
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting."

Apart from negative comments about the landing gear light in relation to night flying, climb rate, and the armament's power, everything else is positive in relation to the Spitfire IX.

WWMaxGunz
01-03-2007, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
The FM is really untouched Smile Its all about Joystick functions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get mine soon enough if GoGamer is still selling.
In the meantime I see this thread and look to find if what I thought is correct and
sure enough I have it straight from the horse about this race.

Since 2002 well over half of all FM -comments- revolve around stick and the subjective view.

We don't get the feel that the real gives or we might be saying control balance or similar
like we see from real expert pilots instead. Or maybe not, maybe only the experts pick that
up while the rank and file says only "good" or not.

My guess is this change has only been possible since 4.0.

TheBandit_76
01-03-2007, 02:09 PM
I haven't had the pleasure of turn-killing a 190 yet, but from flying both the '46 P51 and Tempest, the P51 feels a bit happier in the turn than the Tempy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-03-2007, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I am still familiarizing myself with the P51 and I found the new patch was a leap forward for me. It runs faster, feels more stable and more like a real plane and you can actually down an aircraft quickly instead taking it apart bit by bit, hoping for a pilot-kill as before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more stable feel and smoothness in control goes for all aircraft now not just the Mustang.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214 The Original Black Sheep Squadron of the IL-2 series are currently recruiting dedicated and mature pilots. Visit us at http://vmf214blacksheep.com/

F19_Ob
01-03-2007, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tator_Totts -

Have a look at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

And also the AFDU comparasion of the Tempest V with the Mustang III.

It would imply that the turn of the Mustang is roughly similar, if a little better, then the Fw 190 and Tempest V.

One thing that is noted in the trial against the Spitfire is:

"Turning Circle
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting."

Apart from negative comments about the landing gear light in relation to night flying, climb rate, and the armament's power, everything else is positive in relation to the Spitfire IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Have u noticed that They say that "The Mustang III is greatly superior" to the 109G in turning.

Also "The MustangIII is slightly better" than the fw190 in turning.
So what they say is that a fw190 turns better than a 109G.
Either they have just mislabeled the two or they had a faulty 109.
...or perhaps they mistakenly used wrong word "superior" instead of 'inferior'?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

msalama
01-03-2007, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...the overall energy model has been tweaked to favor the heavy, low-drag a/c which benefits the P-51 and Fw190 most. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Us bomber jocks are noticing that too. Dunno 'bout drag values per se, but take up a Havoc or a Sturmo and do some ground-pounding for a change and I'm sure you'll see what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Or, to put it simply, our crates seem to both accelerate and decelerate more rapidly now. Just a feel thing, though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

Aaron_GT
01-03-2007, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have u noticed that They say that "The Mustang III is greatly superior" to the 109G in turning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the failure of the AFDU to properly assess the 109G they had access to is well known so I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

Another source of information might be the various tests Mark Hanna did - Spitfire, 109, Mustang (P51D/Mustang IV).

Tator_Totts
01-03-2007, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tator_Totts -

Have a look at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

And also the AFDU comparasion of the Tempest V with the Mustang III.

It would imply that the turn of the Mustang is roughly similar, if a little better, then the Fw 190 and Tempest V.

One thing that is noted in the trial against the Spitfire is:

"Turning Circle
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting."

Apart from negative comments about the landing gear light in relation to night flying, climb rate, and the armament's power, everything else is positive in relation to the Spitfire IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Aaron for the link. I have had this impression that Mustang excel and was excellant at high speed turning with flaps. Raw data is good to be exact. Being able to fly in historical type of movements should not be a stumbling block of the sim, but an enjoyment.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

Viper2005_
01-03-2007, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Have u noticed that They say that "The Mustang III is greatly superior" to the 109G in turning.

Also "The MustangIII is slightly better" than the fw190 in turning.
So what they say is that a fw190 turns better than a 109G.
Either they have just mislabeled the two or they had a faulty 109.
...or perhaps they mistakenly used wrong word "superior" instead of 'inferior'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could it simply be that they were looking at high speed turns of the type used in B&Z attacks rather than the low speed sustained turns used in angles fights?

Don't forget that real WWII pilots had much more interest in living than the sim crowd, which translates directly into more altitude, speed and patience...

kubanloewe
01-04-2007, 03:52 AM
I dont know why the slat´s on a 109 should come out in a high speed turn as they write in the Test ?
But when it was a normal 109 G6 then it´s high speed turn radius was sure worse than that of af a P51 and so it is also shown in the IL2 compare right.
But with using MW50 it was another thing.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://kubanskiloewe.de/Bilder/SHIII/sh3sigfahren.JPG

Aaron_GT
01-04-2007, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks Aaron for the link. I have had this impression that Mustang excel and was excellant at high speed turning with flaps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did too. You have to be a little cautious about the AFDU results as the turn ratings are overall in the summary reports with no specific conditions (altitude, speed) attached. I do wonder if there are more detailed notes from the AFDU hiding in the back of a filing cabinet.

One of the things about turning is how quickly the turn can be entered, and there roll is going to be important.

GH_Klingstroem
01-04-2007, 08:33 AM
I personally dont care if its FM changes or stick changes, Im very happy whatever did it!
My opinion is that when they added the new jets they had to update the code for "maitaining energy" and I guess heavy AC with relatively clean airframes and high wingloading all take advantage from this!
To say there were no FM changes however is bollocks, anyone compared the roll rate between the macchis 202 and 205 in 4.05 and 4.07 and u will see huuuuge differense! But its not mentioned anywhere! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
01-04-2007, 01:01 PM
Interesting,Klingstroem.I didn`t think of that.

That very nicely resembles what jets need and take advantage from.Fast,heavy,powerful and clean aircraft benefit from the same characteristics.

I`d buy that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

AFJ_Locust
01-04-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Flies the exact same to me as do all the US planes minus the recoil wobble. Exactly what do you feel has changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It holds E better... as in a zoom climb... it can actually catch something now if you trim it and use your pitch right.. and it can run if it has to... which it couldn't do very well before.... and now the 6 50s on the Ds are more like the 6 50s on the P-40s.. which they should have been all along.... 6 50s should be 6 50s.

It accelerates better..... E fighting is much better now across the bioard in 4.07... I think this is the best FM of them all.

Mind you I thought the P-51 in particular in 4.05 was the best one of them all up until this.... but this is much more stable.... you still cant yank on the stick.. which is as it should be.... the only major thing that IMO isnt modeled on any of the planes entirely correct is the torque.... I still cant flip a Mustang on TO if I slam the throttle.. which was a common result in real life and cost many pilots their lives. I can live with that though.... I think these FMs are the best out of all the versions and what one would expect from the next to last incarnation of a great sim in any version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its better but rember 4071m is beta so..........
It can be changed rapidly...

I killed 4 german In 1 flight yesterday Its nice, I feal it will be stripped again before all is said & done<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/Tunnburngrrrrrrrr.jpg
"Spin, Burn, Crash, Explode"
War Birds Of Prey (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/index.php)

joeap
01-04-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:

Its better but rember 4071m is beta so..........
It can be changed rapidly...

I killed 4 german In 1 flight yesterday Its nice, I feal it will be stripped again before all is said & done </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congrats, first tinhat post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

KaleunFreddie
01-04-2007, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What we are getting in FS9/X is what is being promised in the Maddox BOB---real flight simulators, not shootem toys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm what we have with IL2 is far from a "shootem toy." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried various options on take-off with the FW190.. If I grunt the throttle the plane is more or less guaranteed to run off the runway with 100% opposite rudder. If I gently up the throttle with 75-100% opposite rudder I can stay on the runway.
This and the flight model sounds good to me.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.bomber-command.info/medalbc.jpg

WWMaxGunz
01-05-2007, 03:55 AM
In the spring of 2002 I had asked Oleg about trim, that it appeared to me and some others
that you could get more speed through trim than if you held the stick steady and did that
mean that trim had an artificial bonus?

He wrote back that as steady as I could hold the joystick there would still be some flutter
of the control surfaces that cost me speed.

So that is ONE and the change in joystick code is ONE... anybody care to say about TWO?

I dunno about the Macchis but I will post a question DIRECT to Oleg rather than make guesses.
Macchi roll rate was said going to be addressed but not said was how.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-06-2007, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In the spring of 2002 I had asked Oleg about trim, that it appeared to me and some others
that you could get more speed through trim than if you held the stick steady and did that
mean that trim had an artificial bonus?

He wrote back that as steady as I could hold the joystick there would still be some flutter
of the control surfaces that cost me speed.

So that is ONE and the change in joystick code is ONE... anybody care to say about TWO?

I dunno about the Macchis but I will post a question DIRECT to Oleg rather than make guesses.
Macchi roll rate was said going to be addressed but not said was how. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Gunz has got it, anyone else wanna guess what the "new joystick routines" did?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

SPaRX

www.war-clouds.com (http://www.war-clouds.com)

"Why do they call it common sense when it is so uncommon!?!?"

George "Lefty" Whitman: "it is not the plane, it is not the pilot. It is the opportunity. The best pilot in the world is useless if he got surprised or caught in a bad position. "

Aaron_GT
01-06-2007, 02:59 AM
I am wondering if another change might be how the new code tracks fast movements. I spoke to a friend who is a real pilot about the wobble induced by rudder controls and he noted that there is a crucial difference between flight sim rudder pedals and twisty sticks.

Twisty sticks are strongly sprung and return to centre very quickly when you release the twisting pressure. However the sensors don't see this fast movement on release as any different from a user-induced twist, it is just that you don't (or even can't) twist the stick as quickly under control as you can just by releasing it. So the sensors interpret the untwisting as the same as a fast user-induced controller change.

With rudder pedals, although these are also sprung to centre the return time tends to be a bit longer and also when you are flying the sim you don't tend to take both feet off the pedals to let them recentre, so the time taken to return to centre is much longer.

So he suggested that with the old joystick code the game interprets a twisty stick quickly returned to centre it as a fast and FORCEFUL move of the rudder bar to centre. In a real plane that can induce wobbles. It is just that you'd never do it in reality. Basically the game can't sense the force you use.

Ruy Horta
01-06-2007, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
The answer I'd give is that only the experts would love the planes then, and the average player would not.

Well, my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This always makes me sick...

Why in God's name can't one have these options as a user setting?!!

You can cater for all types of player, from arcade dumbed down to max possible under the available game engine. If the game / sim is able to model a wider extend of realism, it is just stupidity to NOT include it, or worse REMOVE it to cater for those who dislike it.

It may be a matter of lessening returns for the effort put into it, but when I started combat flight sims the curve was always UP. Hard flight models were PART of the the CHALLENGE. I think that many players will find it rewarding to have the CHOICE to up that curve.

You want to host an arcade server with arcade dumbed down models enabled, fine.

You want to host a simulated air combat game, with the highest fidelity flight model, that is also fine.

You cater to both extremes AND everything in between.

I've seen at least one product dumbed down to virtual destruction (won't name it), it would be a shame if it were to happen with this product line (incl. SoW).

In the end, the challenge of mastering a difficult game is far greater than ace in a day arcade games.

My handful of spare change...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Ruy Horta

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7748/signaturecommunismih6.png

WWMaxGunz
01-06-2007, 06:26 AM
I don't think this is any step away from realism but rather towards.
Real controls do not twitch and flutter with the speed of numbers and electrons.

Real stick besides being longer is not digitized. You move joystick and at the computer end
it bumps along going from one position value to the next. Hold your joystick right about
where one value ends and the other starts and because the nature of the digitizers the number
will flop back and forth on that very small scale. With some software you can watch the
"noise" of a stick or other analog to digital device. Real stick is fully analog right out
to the control surfaces though perhaps if something is rubbing/sticking inside it gets jaggy.

What I dunno is if that is all there is to the change and I suspect there is more. I will
have a better idea (as opposed to knowing or claiming to know) in a couple days when my copy
should arrive (ordered last night finally) and I see how much like 4.05 with almost 1/2 Filter
on all axes it is like.

Fighterduck
01-06-2007, 08:26 AM
oh...uhm...im missing something...i've got the 4.07 installed from the 46 dvd...where di you find a 4.071 patch?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof"

WWMaxGunz
01-07-2007, 02:12 AM
See the thread about 4.071m open beta?