PDA

View Full Version : IL2 series - simulator or arcade?



Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 02:39 AM
S~ to all pilots.
I am "flying" with Il2 since it came out. I think it was in 2001 or early 2002.
My personal opinion its that it startet as a sim but ended an arcade.
The reason... i don't know. Maybe cose Oleq is trying to please everyone!
I wish that BoB will be more a sim than an arcade. Thats my opinion, what about yours?

carguy_
09-07-2006, 02:43 AM
I`d really like to say it is a sim.But it has so much medium grade flaws that the realism ballance is pretty widely off.Nevertheless,things certainly weren`t better earlier then I can`t say it ever was a full blown simulator.

Just a game with ambitions.

Feathered_IV
09-07-2006, 03:29 AM
Certainly a sim in its day compared to its cfs contemporaries etc. Nowadays though, I think were all ready to ramp up the complexity a bit.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 03:43 AM
On the early days yes. But since then we saw many changes. Today most of the planes in IL2 or not even close to the originals in ww2.

MadRuski
09-07-2006, 03:44 AM
I think it is also got to do with what dificulty you play it with, i played with custom but basicly its NORMAL, i used speedbar and heightbar and outside views, and used to play without stalls, now that felt like an arcade game, but now i play with REALISTIC, means i cant look outside, i have to check my speed and height in the cockpit, i have to watch my temp constintly, i have to search enemys without tags and with in teh cockpit exactly how pilots did back then, and i find it much more chalanging and harder to play like this and i see it as a sim.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 03:49 AM
In full real settings ofcourse.
The dificulty is another matter.
The comparision is about IL2 planes - real life planes. It supposed to be as close as it can ....and its not!

MadRuski
09-07-2006, 03:57 AM
i think you are expecting abit to much from this sim to be realistic in all ways, after all it is a game and the planes were made 60+ years ago.

and i think it is one of the best WWII sims out ever, and the closest look to the real planes.

msalama
09-07-2006, 04:03 AM
Today most of the planes in IL2 or not even close to the originals in ww2.

...and you think they were in the original IL-2 Sturmovik v1.xx? I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with that. I just compared the original with the current a while ago, and oh boy, talking 'bout arcade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Or maybe I misunderstood something here?

joeap
09-07-2006, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
In full real settings ofcourse.
The dificulty is another matter.
The comparision is about IL2 planes - real life planes. It supposed to be as close as it can ....and its not!

Right name any sim that is close to a real plane? Even real (commercial military) sims are different from planes.

Gawd I hate these semantic arguments.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 04:15 AM
Oleq has promised at the early days that this sim it will be "as close to the real thing as possible".
Time has proved that it doesn't get "as close" but
"as easy".
I remember how difficult was to fly in a bf 109 or in a FW and how easily they stall. Now Bf's turning better than spits not to mention stalls.
Try it and you will see.

joeap
09-07-2006, 04:18 AM
First, we got better (don't discount that) second how do you know the old effects were not exaggerated?

Capt.LoneRanger
09-07-2006, 04:24 AM
If you know any flight-sim that is closer to reality, please, give us a link.

WOLFMondo
09-07-2006, 04:24 AM
A famous test pilot once said it was as close as you can get to flying a WW2 fighter, in his opinion. So I say its a sim with options to turn it into an arcade game.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 04:43 AM
in fact i know one but it is under development
http://www.fighterops.com/
Not about ww2 but the guys are promising that it will be as real as it gets.

The pilot said that years ago when il2 wasn't wat it became now.

leitmotiv
09-07-2006, 04:49 AM
Yes, indeed, it is a simulator in the truest sense of the word. It does try to simulate flight and combat. Calling it an arcade game is way too harsh. But, it is a low IQ simulator with a lot of crucial things passed over. Son of IL-2, BOB, will be, most of us hope, a smarter simulator. Since most of the money seems to be in a game for online play, I would have to say IL-2 ETC is a big success.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 04:57 AM
I agree Leitmotive.
It'is a success for sure.
I hope too that BoB will be way better.

joeap
09-07-2006, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
in fact i know one but it is under development
http://www.fighterops.com/
Not about ww2 but the guys are promising that it will be as real as it gets.

The pilot said that years ago when il2 wasn't wat it became now.

Wrong, if you are speaking about Eric Brown that was 2 years ago and NOT the original Il2 but FB..when it was LESS complex than now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
original thread from May 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

Great looking sim, but if you think they won't "come up short" and there won't be complaints both justified and not about fults, well what can I say? Happens to every sim.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
In full real settings ofcourse.
The dificulty is another matter.
The comparision is about IL2 planes - real life planes. It supposed to be as close as it can ....and its not!

So you have flown WW2 planes and are qualified to comment?

Hmm somehow I suspect not, you are just 'wishing'.

It is a game, but its the closest thing we have to real on a PC. Therefor its a sim.

It tries to be as real as possible.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
Oleq has promised at the early days that this sim it will be "as close to the real thing as possible".
Time has proved that it doesn't get "as close" but
"as easy".
I remember how difficult was to fly in a bf 109 or in a FW and how easily they stall. Now Bf's turning better than spits not to mention stalls.
Try it and you will see.

What a load of cr*p.

This sort of post really gets on my nerves, when they 'assume' they know everything about WW2 planes and are qualified to comment, when actually they just post stupid things like the one above. GGEEEEZZZZ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif


IL2 is a mixture of a Sim which tries to be also fun. It tries to be as real as possible, without being too Anal. See Olegs comments on 'Plane start up sequence' for why this is essential.

IL2 is by far the best WW2 sim out at the moment.

F6_Ace
09-07-2006, 05:59 AM
In not so long from now, people will look back on Il-2 and view it being as "realistic" as this:
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de/ATW/images/pfs_appr2.gif

It's about as good as you might expect to get at the moment when you take into account inherent bias, pandering to mobs, PC limitations, law of diminishing returns and an emphasis shift from quality to quantity.

It's a simulation of flying an aircraft but so was the programme shown in the picture. Compare it to Crimson Skies and it's slightly more of a sim. Compare it to reality and it's arcade.

X: Just as it's ridiculous to talk about things as though people have flown the aircraft, it's just as ridiculous for someone who also hasn't flown the aircraft to say that the other person doesn't know what they're on about as, obviously, neither has flown an aircraft so neither can say what is right and what is not.

Enforcer572005
09-07-2006, 06:29 AM
I must point out (with all due respect and in as friendly a way as possible) that it has obviously been a while since you were in an arcade, and I really can't believe that anyone actuallly asked this......unless you use unlimited ammo and make yourself invulnerable on a regular basis.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 06:30 AM
First of all i'm sorry for the abuse of english language ...it's not my stronger point.

True, IL2 is the best we got!
But my opinion is that instead of going better and better at every patch it's worst.
That's the opinion of a guy that plays "sims" since 1988 F-16A - F-18 interceptor in Amiga.
No I'm not a true pilot but i love sims and i spend many hours a day in IL2 "flying" it since it first came out.
And ...this is a forum to discuss about our favorite sim. If someone don't like this kinde.
of post then ....don't read it.

Chuck_Older
09-07-2006, 06:35 AM
Jeez, this again

Despite my conviction that every thread of this type is an exercise in baiting people with a double-barreled, loaded question, it's all very simple:

This is a type of game called a simulation. It is NOT a simulator, never was and was never touted as being a simulator

A simulator and a simulation are two different things. Let's all bear that in mind. In FS9, you can pilot a 747. It's not the same thing as a 747 simulator used for pilot training. The nuance seems to be lost on people

This game attmpts to recreate (or "simulate") a certain thing: flying combat aircraft of the second world war in aerial and air-to-ground combat.

This is accomplished by the game: the attempt to recreate that is made.

Now, I don't really care what detail anyone cares to cite; none of the innaccuracies in the game take one single iota of strength away from the argument that this is a game that attempts to recreate a certain historical circumstance. Whether or not it succeeds is not the issue, and where it fails and where it shines is also not the issue

An "arcade" game makes no attempt to recreate historical circumstantace

This game is a simulation. It is not perfect and never was. No simulation is. By definition, a simulation is not the real thing

Arguing that this game is not a simulation is frankly sour grapes. Sorry folks, the game is inarguably an attempt to recreate a certain thing with historical accuracy. You can't argue against that. You may argue about how accurate it is and that's fine, but the intention is there for historical accuracy regardless of it's execution and evolution. Complexity is also not the only yardstick. Arguments about how good or bad a simulation it is do not make it less of a simulation. This has been discussed and beaten to death

If you feel it's an arcade game, that's your look-out. Have fun and say hi to Ms. Pac-Man for me

gmot_ka
09-07-2006, 06:53 AM
I'm flying very oftern with x-plane which has very good FM. Comparing IL2 with it, I would say that the FM is better in IL2 now than how it was at the begining.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
A simulator and a simulation are two different things. Let's all bear that in mind. In FS9, you can pilot a 747. It's not the same thing as a 747 simulator used for pilot training. The nuance seems to be lost on people

This game attmpts to recreate (or "simulate") a certain thing: flying combat aircraft of the second world war in aerial and air-to-ground combat.

This is accomplished by the game: the attempt to recreate that is made.


At this point of view i agree with chuck.

Brain32
09-07-2006, 07:10 AM
I remember how difficult was to fly in a bf 109 or in a FW and how easily they stall. Now Bf's turning better than spits not to mention stalls.
What kind of insane bull-sh1t is this?

Capt.LoneRanger
09-07-2006, 07:13 AM
I think it comes from the belief that the harder a game is, the more real some take it.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:

X: Just as it's ridiculous to talk about things as though people have flown the aircraft, it's just as ridiculous for someone who also hasn't flown the aircraft to say that the other person doesn't know what they're on about as, obviously, neither has flown an aircraft so neither can say what is right and what is not.

I am not saying anything, or claiming that I know more, just that I doubt HE is not qualified to say whats right or not.

Maybe I am wrong, and if he comes back with 'I flew 109 and Spit in 1943 in combat' then I will say sorry.

I think you make a LOT more comments on flight models being wrong than I do Norris. Have you flown WW2 planes?

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
A simulator and a simulation are two different things. Let's all bear that in mind. In FS9, you can pilot a 747. It's not the same thing as a 747 simulator used for pilot training. The nuance seems to be lost on people

This game attmpts to recreate (or "simulate") a certain thing: flying combat aircraft of the second world war in aerial and air-to-ground combat.

This is accomplished by the game: the attempt to recreate that is made.


At this point of view i agree with chuck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AGreed

Brain32
09-07-2006, 07:39 AM
According to some comments topic starter made I wander if he even tried flying IL2's simulated planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe I am wrong, and if he comes back with 'I flew 109 and Spit in 1943 in combat' then I will say sorry.

Dear Hiolablu3,
no i never flown those planes in battle. I'm considering was anyone ever in ww2 flown bf's and spits in battle? For both sides? Just kidding!
Anyway,
We all know that spit was very easy flying plane and manouvrable (bad english sry).While bf was far more hard to fly and less manouvrable. To fly bf it took much more skills. Do we find the same attitude of those planes in IL2? No, in IL2 the BF is easy to fly not the spit.
With those facts i'm talking, not comparing a "Sim" plane with a real one!!

DuxCorvan
09-07-2006, 07:41 AM
Come on, less than fifteen years ago SWOTL and AOTP were the closest thing to WW2 air war we had, and we were happy as sailors in a strip-bar. We are sorta spoiled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Come on, less than fifteen years ago SWOTL and AOTP were the closest thing to WW2 air war we had, and we were happy as sailors in a strip-bar. We are sorta spoiled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lol true DuxCorvan.
I Just want to xpress my opinion and read wat others think.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Metalgear1972:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe I am wrong, and if he comes back with 'I flew 109 and Spit in 1943 in combat' then I will say sorry.

Dear Hiolablu3,
no i never flown those planes in battle. I'm considering was anyone ever in ww2 flown bf's and spits in battle? For both sides? Just kidding!
Anyway,
We all know that spit was very easy flying plane and manouvrable (bad english sry).While bf was far more hard to fly and less manouvrable. To fly bf it took much more skills. Do we find the same attitude of those planes in IL2? No, in IL2 the BF is easy to fly not the spit.
With those facts i'm talking, not comparing a "Sim" plane with a real one!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But mate, its all opinions.

I think the Spitfire is easier to fly than the 109, and I know lots of people (I would say more) who also think the SPitfire is easier. In fact the SPitfire is known as a 'noob plane' around here BECAUSE its so easy to fly.

Also, the 109 has a chance to outturn the Spitfire at very low speeds but at the expense of bleeding a lot more speed/energy, but where the 109 will shudder and complain when you outturn the SPit, it will only do it for maybe half a turn and then you find yourself very very slow and vulnerable.

Sorry if you have problems reading htis, I know ENglsih is not your first language.

If you keep going round and round in a circle in a SPitfire, then the 109 cannot stay with you and will eventually have to break out of the circle or crash as he stalls.

The SPitfire and 109 were very close in turning clircle, with the SPitfire a little better. But no doubt a Ace 109 pilot will outturn a novice SPitfire pilot in the game because he knows his plane. The SPitfire defintitely outurns the 109 at higher speeds, because the 109 elevator locks up.

I am talking about the game above.

As far as the real planes are concerned, there are conflicting reports about the SPitfire vs 109 turning contests, with some 109 Aces in WW2 saying they outurned Spitfires. But I think its generally accepted that the SPitfire turned better in a SUSTAINED turn than the 109 and the game is true to this.

Sorry I snapped at you before, but I thought your post was a thinly disguised dig at the game . I now realise that it was a valid question and it contained your opinon on the SPit Vs 109, which is different from most peoples opinons I think.

I would say for example that the 109F4 is a better PLANE than the Spitfire MkV, but I woul say that the SPitfire is easier for a new pilot.

I would also say that the SPitfire MkIX is one of the easiest planes to fight in in the game for a beginner.

WHy do you find the 109 easier to fly than the SPitfire?

(Sorry for the long post)

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 08:07 AM
I respect your opinion and knoledge to that matter Xiolablu but i dissagree.
The reason i dissagree is because in the begging of the series and since 2005 i was flying for the blue side in bf's mostly. At those days bf's use to gain much faster altitude reach faster speeds but turning was another matter. While turning at lower speeds was very easy to stall and lose energy. (talking generally about bf's, not for specific models).
After 2005 since today i fly for the red side because in red planes while flying i have more things to be aware of.(for example suppercharger, mixture etc).
I figure out that today things gonne opposite, in a test flight i had in warclouds in a bf, i saw that i could not only climb and reach greater speeds(as in the early days, which is correct for the bf characteristiks) but i could also tourn better comparing to many spit pilot's.
Because of that i had started that discussion.

Brain32
09-07-2006, 08:09 AM
I can't believe I'm reading this, this is why game is getting more and more won t3h war arcady patch to patch.
The only 109's in the game that have a turn capatibilities worth mentioning are early versions up to G2, although when the extremely whined about 109G2 was tested for turn rate it actually did about a 2 seconds worse than data in the TSAGI book, while SpitVB was better 2seconds than the book and SpitMkIX was 0.5 secs better than in the book. Total in game difference between SpitVb and the best turning 109G2 is 6.06 seconds!!! Later 109 marks turn far,far worse and are all but turning planes, not to mention exaggerated elevator stiffness which prevents you getting high AoA, but does not prevent huge speed loss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif. Another fact is that in game you can map a slider for flaps, effectively gaining combat flaps on a Spitfire, a setting that never existed, completely nullifying any slow speed advantage 109 had. FW190's are hammered even more, fw190A8 lacks 4seconds on turn time for example and it's a total dog. What probably happens is what Xiola described, a 109 at better E state, cuts your turn and obtains a snapshot, that is not outturning, that's lack of attention to your own E state and lack of knowledge of any evading manouvers other than E-bleeding extreme bank n' pull left hand turn. Too bad for Red Oleg can't modell pilots.

WOLFMondo
09-07-2006, 08:27 AM
hehe he said "Won teh war".


Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I remember how difficult was to fly in a bf 109 or in a FW and how easily they stall. Now Bf's turning better than spits not to mention stalls.
What kind of insane bull-sh1t is this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw's? Out turn? Spits? Crikey.

He's right in one way though, the Fw190's had a much worse snap stall prior to Aces. Then again I've got years more stick time since then so maybe I just got better...

Enforcer572005
09-07-2006, 08:33 AM
I misunderstood your original post because of the word 'arcade', and I didnt mean to sound hostile. I just thought that this sim should never be described as that, since it's the most advanced, sophisticated, and complicated flt sim so far (in my opinion).

It's this advanced nature that makes odd stuff seem to happen I believe, since every new patch has unintended consequences from non related changes in coding (I think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif).

As far as flt models, several actual WW2 pilots have flown this (some still do) and have commented favorably on the flt models. These things are so very complicated, as the originals were, that it's hard to make generalizations. I know that I do fairly well in assorted 109s against various spits online.

I believe most of the problems come from the problematic AI, not the flt models themselves. Online, the situation is dominated by pilot skill, as is true in reality. This just shows teh realism of this sim is above all others, I believe.

And don't be shy about posting what's on your mind. There's so many nationalities around here that we get kinda confused sometimes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

triad773
09-07-2006, 08:39 AM
From the 'glass-half-full/half-empty' school:

IL-2 is a wonderfully challenging game,

or

IL-2 is a hackneyed attempt at a simulator that is but a ghost of a real-life experience.

I have enjoyed this sim. Funny when I saw the title I thought someone had resurrected an old thread because I know its been brought up many times.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 08:46 AM
You r right guys. The word "Arcade" it's a bit heavy.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 09:03 AM
Also MetalGear, you cannot judge planes on what happend 'once on warclouds'

You dont know anything about the state of the planes you were fighting, or the pilots.

If you are managing to outturn SPits often in your 109 then good for you, because not many people can do this.

I think your post demonstrates how differently people see the flight models. I for example love the Wildcat and Hellcat and will take one over a Zero everytime if I can. Others think the 'Cats' are useless vs the Zero. I cannot stand the high speed turning in the Zeros, it just wont turn like the Hellcat when you are flying at 400kph+, and thats the speed I like to fly at. Anything with poor elevators at high speed will just not do for me. (109 also falls into this category, get it too 500kph+ and THEN try and turn, it just wont turn. I prefer the FW190 because it turns so well at fast speeds)

I would say MOST people think that the SPitfire is the easier plane to fly, between the SPitfire and the 109. If you think differently then good for you. Keep flying the 109 and outurning those SPits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tomtheyak
09-07-2006, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I can't believe I'm reading this, this is why game is getting more and more won t3h war arcady patch to patch.
The only 109's in the game that have a turn capatibilities worth mentioning are early versions up to G2, although when the extremely whined about 109G2 was tested for turn rate it actually did about a 2 seconds worse than data in the TSAGI book, while SpitVB was better 2seconds than the book and SpitMkIX was 0.5 secs better than in the book. Total in game difference between SpitVb and the best turning 109G2 is 6.06 seconds!!! Later 109 marks turn far,far worse and are all but turning planes, not to mention exaggerated elevator stiffness which prevents you getting high AoA, but does not prevent huge speed loss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif. Another fact is that in game you can map a slider for flaps, effectively gaining combat flaps on a Spitfire, a setting that never existed, completely nullifying any slow speed advantage 109 had. FW190's are hammered even more, fw190A8 lacks 4seconds on turn time for example and it's a total dog. What probably happens is what Xiola described, a 109 at better E state, cuts your turn and obtains a snapshot, that is not outturning, that's lack of attention to your own E state and lack of knowledge of any evading manouvers other than E-bleeding extreme bank n' pull left hand turn. Too bad for Red Oleg can't modell pilots.

XSQUEEEZ ME????

Dunno what version of the game ur playin brain but i was outturned and outmanoevered by a 109G-2 in a MkVc at low alt in a turn fight at low airspeed. Personally I find Xiablou's description of the in game turn characteristics of the 109-v-spit a very accurate description of the in game FMs.

In reality, wish i knew, but I know that real 109 couldnt have insta flaps at a push button (hand cranked flaps in real 109) so maybe this is to blame.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 09:22 AM
My friend Xiolablu3, i am not the only one who can
outturn a spit in a bf.
As tomtheyak writes "i was outturned and outmanoevered by a 109G-2 in a MkVc at low alt in a turn fight at low airspeed"
So if bf's can outturn spits something according to your post was out of question in ww2 then something goes wrong. Maybe its not a simulator maybe it's just a simulation as Chuck describes above. I just want the game to be more accurate in FM. I'm not saying to be as the real planes was ...just more accurate.

WOLFMondo
09-07-2006, 09:23 AM
I hate it when people term stuff arcade, especially when they are not using real settings.

Fly full real, use Cpt. Eric Browns settings then it won't feel arcady at all.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 09:25 AM
My friend Wolf ofcourse i fly always full real for years now.

waffen-79
09-07-2006, 09:25 AM
Definatly a SIMULATOR

Make no mistake, if you think is getting easier that's only because you already mastered your fav ride.

Since it's a SIM and its aim is SIMULATION of realism, there's no need of Balance, balance its only for arcade games, but in these years O. Maddox have been making consessions to gain support, tweaking specs to gain the favor of certain comunities... Spit25 anyone?

WOLFMondo
09-07-2006, 09:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The Spit 25lbs was added because a ton of information was available and it required little additional programming and no additional modelling. Same as the Mustang MKIII and the same applies for the BF109 K4C3.

How many times does this have to be said!?!?!

Luft '46 anyone? :P

LStarosta
09-07-2006, 09:31 AM
I suppose it depends on your experience level and expectations, but to me it's just a game. Everything in this game is dumbed down and simplified to a point where it barely resembles flying a real airplane.

And unless you are a real pilot, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Flying an airplane is a lot more complicated than hitting one button to start your engine and gunning the throttle. Everything such as precision radio navigation all the way to powerplant management is oversimplified in this game. It may satisfy folks who a) never had to do the real thing or b) don't know how to do it, but if you have any REAL flying experience, the limits of this game become astonishingly clear.

What this game does is capture the ESSENCE of WWII air COMBAT by offering one immersion, especially when played online on squad level, but it falls short of being a comprehensive WWII combat aviation simulator.

Metalgear1972
09-07-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
O. Maddox have been making consessions to gain support, tweaking specs to gain the favor of certain comunities... Spit25 anyone?
I find waffen's opinion very logikal.
Don't forget that it is a commercial product above all.

Brain32
09-07-2006, 09:40 AM
Truth is I play late war WF almost exclusively, but I often(especially lately) tried early scenarious involving SpitMkV and 109F4/G2, at every point I was able to evade an attack or deny an angle to the 109 by using Spits turning capatibilities...
Spitfire will outturn anything in a sustained turn, but expecting that nobody can get an angle even for a part of your turn would be defying physics...
109's DO NOT OUTTURN Spitfires, they cut into the turn of the Spitfire to obtain a shooting opportunity in case of late models that opportunitiy comes down to a nanosecond snapshot while in case of earlier 109's it lasts longer. 109F4 turn's even slightly better than 109g2, yet I was never able to even come near to outturning SpitfireMkV, G2 has more power and is awsome in vertical manouvers, it can use high and low yo-yo very efficiently and sometimes it can seem to the Spit pilot he is getting outturned, but that is not pure sustained turn performance. Late in the war(109G10,14, and worst of all K4) 109's struggle to turn with just about anything unless the opposing pilot is stupid enough to drain all his E and drop into "slats territory".
I'm not much of a TnB pilot, I avoid turnfights even with a Spit so maybe an expirienced lawn mover can get more of all the planes we have, personally I have problems outturning even Tempest and Mustang3 and even at low speed with my trusty 109G10, and last time I had 109K4 available I was hammered by P47 when I tried to evade by turning, he simply staid with me in my turn long enough to flame my engine, so claims about 109 outturning Spits really make me wander if we all play the same game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BTW Metalgear, I'm a regular at WarClouds, I'll be up this evening, I'll be in a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif waiting... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F6_Ace
09-07-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:

X: Just as it's ridiculous to talk about things as though people have flown the aircraft, it's just as ridiculous for someone who also hasn't flown the aircraft to say that the other person doesn't know what they're on about as, obviously, neither has flown an aircraft so neither can say what is right and what is not.

I am not saying anything, or claiming that I know more, just that I doubt HE is not qualified to say whats right or not.

Maybe I am wrong, and if he comes back with 'I flew 109 and Spit in 1943 in combat' then I will say sorry.

I think you make a LOT more comments on flight models being wrong than I do Norris. Have you flown WW2 planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope - I haven't but, using my logic, that doesn't mean I'm wrong - I could well be completely correct. As could he

And, you are quick to have a pop at people who say that the flight models are wrong...which would be OK if *you* had actually flown the aircraft. In my book, that's just as presumptious as saying that they are wrong in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides, while I have made comments that the FMs appear to not correlate with certain combat accounts I've been privvy to, the majority of comments I make regarding the FMs pertain to their being 'easier' than they were with Il-2 (try it, like I asked before, and you'll see what I mean) and that they yo-yo about with every patch (not so apparent these days but it was definately the case in the past). Quite how anyone can say that the FMs in the game are "correct" when they are [were] so very different with each iteration of release is anyones guess.

carguy_
09-07-2006, 09:52 AM
Someone ask him how he likes to fly against FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

sudoku1941
09-07-2006, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Jeez, this again

Despite my conviction that every thread of this type is an exercise in baiting people with a double-barreled, loaded question, it's all very simple:

This is a type of game called a simulation. It is NOT a simulator, never was and was never touted as being a simulator

A simulator and a simulation are two different things. Let's all bear that in mind. In FS9, you can pilot a 747. It's not the same thing as a 747 simulator used for pilot training. The nuance seems to be lost on people

This game attmpts to recreate (or "simulate") a certain thing: flying combat aircraft of the second world war in aerial and air-to-ground combat.

This is accomplished by the game: the attempt to recreate that is made.

Now, I don't really care what detail anyone cares to cite; none of the innaccuracies in the game take one single iota of strength away from the argument that this is a game that attempts to recreate a certain historical circumstance. Whether or not it succeeds is not the issue, and where it fails and where it shines is also not the issue

An "arcade" game makes no attempt to recreate historical circumstantace

This game is a simulation. It is not perfect and never was. No simulation is. By definition, a simulation is not the real thing

Arguing that this game is not a simulation is frankly sour grapes. Sorry folks, the game is inarguably an attempt to recreate a certain thing with historical accuracy. You can't argue against that. You may argue about how accurate it is and that's fine, but the intention is there for historical accuracy regardless of it's execution and evolution. Complexity is also not the only yardstick. Arguments about how good or bad a simulation it is do not make it less of a simulation. This has been discussed and beaten to death

If you feel it's an arcade game, that's your look-out. Have fun and say hi to Ms. Pac-Man for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Stupid question: it's undoubtedly a simulation (or an attempt at same). The only thing clouding that obvious assesment is that it also has arcade settings IN it.

The real question is, how accurate a simulation is it? That's where you get the real meaty discussion.

Jaws2002
09-07-2006, 10:17 AM
10+ pages http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Chuck_Older
09-07-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:

Stupid question: it's undoubtedly a simulation (or an attempt at same). The only thing clouding that obvious assesment is that it also has arcade settings IN it.

The real question is, how accurate a simulation is it? That's where you get the real meaty discussion.

I don't think it's a stupid question at all. Why make an 'arcade' mode?

The only answer I could come up with is de-bugging damage models

spiffyscimitar
09-07-2006, 10:56 AM
Ugh. You know, someone should write up a poll that asks "who has flown a real ww2 plane, and/or been in real air combat?"

Seeing as 99% of us never have and never will, all we can do is inform ourselves through reading, watching video and playing sims. And in every other type of media, data and accounts often contradict each other, so why shouldn't IL2 have it's problems? Of it was easy, it would be fixed. If there's one thing we can agree on is that Oleg has given us a smart, complex game.

Either way, this is as close as any of us will ever come to the real thing. Let's all stop trying to be an expert at myriad little suppositions, and accept that until the general masses learn to love flight sims and give Oleg all the ressources he will ever need, we'll have to take what we get. Which will undoubtedly be awesome anyway, in the form of Bob.

TheGozr
09-07-2006, 11:01 AM
When the external forces will be design into the sim , when all turbulences, air holes, cold and hot air, all forces are made to react with the flying aircraft is implemented into the sim, You will really feel the difference. For now is not it's arcade. A fun Arcade simulator. ALL controls are smooshh All are wrong with no execption, They try the best they can with the tool they have. The next generation will be better and better. For now we are all in FB playing Arcades, You will see what i mean when a better one come along like BOB. For now all aircrafts have some Cessna controls like in them. Just have fun and enjoy what we have because for teh moment it's the best.

Monty_Thrud
09-07-2006, 11:05 AM
Simulator with gaming elements...unless you select arcade settings, then its arcade...mmm-kay?....NEXT!

sudoku1941
09-07-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:

Stupid question: it's undoubtedly a simulation (or an attempt at same). The only thing clouding that obvious assesment is that it also has arcade settings IN it.

The real question is, how accurate a simulation is it? That's where you get the real meaty discussion.

I don't think it's a stupid question at all. Why make an 'arcade' mode?

The only answer I could come up with is de-bugging damage models </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, arcade mode clearly is designed to get people into the sim when they don't know anything about some of the "real" phenomena of flying a plane. And to sell boxes. Selling a unit to a snotty-nosed 13-year older who will never evolve from arcade mode counts the same as selling a unit to one of us who like the more challenging settings, play online, post on the boards, and so on. It's business. Other'n that, arcade IMO is useless.

Chuck_Older
09-07-2006, 11:11 AM
Are we talking about the same thing? Arcade mode puts little blue arrows into aircraft at point they have been struck by bullets. It also indicates the 'state' of the aircraft in a blurb. Seems like a de-bugging tool to me. To my knowledge it does not change the DM or FM. Arcade mode is not mentioned on the box at all, so I can't agree it's supposed to be a selling point. In fact, many players have no idea arcade mode exists

karost
09-07-2006, 11:49 AM
Hi, Metalgear1972

it good to see this kind of question again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

since FB first time release ( if alot of old hand friends still remember ) the question same like this was posted ... up till now

the true is 99% of total players are not a real pilot,and 80% play offline , our friends that we
see in HL just a 20% which less then 5% are hard core player.


now a real pilot ,who play this game and know the true story ,like to keep silent because they learn from tonyt1960's posted.


any one who like to know about a real pilot's idea for this game and never stop for learning with a smart decision should read this.

tonyt1960(For Oleg: "Wobbles" Test concluded) (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=1661007214&r=3221037214)

S!

slipBall
09-07-2006, 12:02 PM
First let me say that I have enjoyed the whole il2 series. Life is just that much better because it exist. As a pilot I will say that il2 is more sim, than arcade. The original game is my favorite for the feeling of flying, and the necessity to pay attention to what you are doing. When ever I notice something not right in the series, I try to remind myself that it is only a game, but a very good one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TheGozr
09-07-2006, 12:16 PM
I strongly desagree with the fact that the original was better on flight.
--
In the other note just for the feel.
Here a very very simple test to do about forces. Try to go at list at 60 to lets 80 miles per hours on a car ( to stay on the limits of the lawwwww) place your hand on a horizontal and vertical positions like some parts or an airplane outside, now move it around at will. feel what the hand + forces feel. now imagine this at 400 + mph.

slipBall
09-07-2006, 12:43 PM
(quote)
The original game is my favorite for the feeling of flying, and the necessity to pay attention to what you are doing



I used the word feeling, and that was not the best word to use. What I was trying to say is, I notice a big difference on take off's, and landings, between the two game's. The original game giving me more of a remembrance of handeling at those crucial times in aircraft. But this is a difficult comparison for me, because I have never flown a 1500hp aircraft. So, I am only saying that I enjoy the original a little bit more, but I love the whole series

F6_Ace
09-07-2006, 12:54 PM
^ Yes, I agree with that. With the original, you appeared to need to use flaps properly on take off and landing as the plane felt sluggish and heavy at those speeds, especially with a bomb load.

Now, when you have a heavy load, it only feels like you're flying 'on a gimbal' where you can 'fall off either side' with little warning.

TheGozr
09-07-2006, 01:08 PM
I see what you mean.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
09-07-2006, 02:17 PM
The beauty of this software is that it is both..... depending on how you set it up. That is something that many of us miss because we are looking at things from our own narrow perspectives and want to toot our own "It's a sim!!!" or "It's an arcade game!!" opinion as opposed to being objective and seeing this for what it is. The absolute hands down best overall commercial WWII Air Combat software to date.

I say that at it's most immersive settings this is more sim than arcade. In fact at it's most immersive settings for all intents and purposes it is all sim. You have to simulate fuel magaement, engine management, ammomanagement, E management.. even if the E bleed/retention in the sim is in question... you still have to manage what you have.. and the fact that you even can do all that says a lot about the sim. Navigation..... challengeing. The AI.. challengeing. There is in my opinion no better WWII aerial combat software on the market today... nothing even comes close. If you think IL2 was more realistic then you have less understanding about the physics of flight than you think you do. I am not a pilot and no engineer... but even with my limited knowledge I can see that this product is head and shoulders above any and every other WWII aerial software on the market today as far as a total package goes. To me that total package involves "putting you there". This sim does that in it's most challenging settings. On it's easier settings it is pure fun.

joeap
09-07-2006, 02:27 PM
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 Metalgear1972:
in fact i know one but it is under development
http://www.fighterops.com/
Not about ww2 but the guys are promising that it will be as real as it gets.

The pilot said that years ago when il2 wasn't wat it became now.

Wrong, if you are speaking about Eric Brown that was 2 years ago and NOT the original Il2 but FB..when it was LESS complex than now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
original thread from May 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

Great looking sim, but if you think they won't "come up short" and there won't be complaints both justified and not about fults, well what can I say? Happens to every sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, you said "years ago" and I found the post to prove you wrong. So at least admit it.

jasonbirder
09-08-2006, 02:52 AM
the true is 99% of total players are not a real pilot,and 80% play offline , our friends that we see in HL just a 20% which less then 5% are hard core player.


Oooohh...I wish I could be a real hardcore flyer like you guys that fly on hyperlobby!

Metalgear1972
09-08-2006, 04:38 AM
Thank you all guys for replies.
I guess the answer is that finnaly it's a simullation more than a simullator. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
U all helped me clear some things in my messed up Brain! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif