PDA

View Full Version : "MY" Feelings about V4.01m



Barra-Cuda
07-14-2005, 02:20 AM
Well Hello All

As many know I am quite active in Racing IL2 - well I was until this update came out. I must be frank about this as I have never flown in a real WWII fighter but I have flown in Helicopters and an Extra300L and I realize we all have our own perception of what it should be like. The idea is to get as close to realistic as possible and that is great in theory but when it effects game play to the point where it is no longer fun I have to question it? V4.01 is killing racing - doing tandem (side by side) full throttle takeoffs without hitting the guy next to you is very hard, Taxing is a nightmare as is avoiding mid-air collisions as most all the planes handle so mushy it is like you have no positive control, The Extra300 sure does not handle like these fighters do now - The P51 feels like a twin engine bomber - (sluggish is a understatement). I see planes tail jumping while taxing, some planes will not turn/taxi after landing, The clouds look like cotton balls thrown into the air and kill FPS - YEAP great add on! In my opinion and we all know what is said about opinions and all having one, this FM and patch is going to drop participation & sales starting with me - I will not buy BOB if this is how it will be, The IL2 Racing community is falling apart and there are so many buggs now you need a seperate computer to keep track of them all. I am considering dumping 4.01 and go back to 3.04. and would if others were doing the same but flying by yourself is not much fun either. No I do not like it one bit, sorry if I have repeated what others have posted but I am so unhappy with it I have no motivation to search thru 10,000 posts to jump into a thread that is of my liking. I thought I would give it a few weeks and atleast a chance but every time I fly I just hate what it has turned into and get disgusted and quit. Our race courses are almost impossible to fly thru with the amount of precise control needed for 12-16 planes to race within a few meters of each other. 4.01 has ruined it for me.

Oleg - Is this going to get fixed? Will This FM be adjusted/fine tuned? Please say yes!

Cuda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

cmw1980
07-14-2005, 03:48 AM
Well, sorry to hear you're not happy with it but... I rather like the new fm and the new clouds, in fact my biggest problem is the new spitfire's missing propeller (although you're right about the large number of other small bugs - too many to keep count of).

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 03:59 AM
All you have to do is set it on easy settings. It`s that simple.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This is suppose to be WW2 Combat simulation and not air racing game. Right?

I hope nothing is changed and i doubt that it will be.

x6BL_Brando
07-14-2005, 04:18 AM
I agree with Ivan.

TypeClouds=0 for the race host's conf.ini oughta sort it, along with any of the other adjustments needed to keep the framerates up.

It may be true that you can't firewall the engine and go storming straight up the track with the new FM...although pedals and a willing mind may make a big difference...but you can dumb down the settings if you want to.

After all, the combat fliers have all had to face a new learning curve in order to acclimatise - what's so special about you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
07-14-2005, 04:55 AM
IMO the only thing that will put a bump in this sim and it's varied uses is a community unwilling to take the time to learn to use it properly.. No offense at all intended.

Personally I think that, all the naysayers not withstanding there is nothing that will spell the deathknell or demise of participation in this sim that is currently available on the market... or even on the horizon.. except BoB.
Oh sure.... we will loose a few for varoyus reasons.. as far as I have heard out of all the complaining the only one who IMO actually had a legitimate complaint that cannot be addressed by changing a setting or learning a new way of fling is Dex...... with his 3 monitor Matrox issue..... everything else is either learnable, adjustable or fixable at the user level.... but folks dont want to do that. I hope you work out your issues...... me .... Ill be doing this everyday for at least 30 minutes minimum GOD willing and the creek don't rise untill BoB graces my hard drive.. and even then I think Ill still run it a tad... it took me @ 3 months to put IL2 down after FB came out.. and every now and then I like to go back and fly the big daddy just to remember the "OOoooooooooo" and all of the "Ahhhhhhhhhh" that comes with this series.

carguy_
07-14-2005, 05:20 AM
THis FM is supposed to resemble factory specs of aircraft during combat in WWII,that is 1939-1945.

Aircraft taking part in racing contests are modifed to some degree so I think that is why you have trouble with racing.

Remember that pilots taking part in real racing are hardcore veterans that have flown their plane sometimes for more than a decade.They all have great amount of time behind the stick so they know exactly how the plane acts.

If you had a better tick that perfectly resembles aileron/elevator moves and greater experience you would have no problem with taking off few meters from the plane next to you.

WWII birds are for the most part suffer from torque effects,turbulences,lack of stability.It was never easy to fly one.

Do what Ivan suggests,just turn down the settings.

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 05:25 AM
I think problems they are experiancing are torque and trim related. Current FM requires alot more work to fly in formation. That`s what i gather from his post.

VVS-Manuc
07-14-2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
All you have to do is set it on easy settings. It`s that simple.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This is suppose to be WW2 Combat simulation and not air racing game. Right?

I hope nothing is changed and i doubt that it will be.

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

VVS-Manuc
07-14-2005, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
IMO the only thing that will put a bump in this sim and it's varied uses is a community unwilling to take the time to learn to use it properly.. No offense at all intended.

Personally I think that, all the naysayers not withstanding there is nothing that will spell the deathknell or demise of participation in this sim that is currently available on the market... or even on the horizon.. except BoB.
Oh sure.... we will loose a few for varoyus reasons.. as far as I have heard out of all the complaining the only one who IMO actually had a legitimate complaint that cannot be addressed by changing a setting or learning a new way of fling is Dex...... with his 3 monitor Matrox issue..... everything else is either learnable, adjustable or fixable at the user level.... but folks dont want to do that. I hope you work out your issues...... me .... Ill be doing this everyday for at least 30 minutes minimum GOD willing and the creek don't rise untill BoB graces my hard drive.. and even then I think Ill still run it a tad... it took me @ 3 months to put IL2 down after FB came out.. and every now and then I like to go back and fly the big daddy just to remember the "OOoooooooooo" and all of the "Ahhhhhhhhhh" that comes with this series.

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

VVS-Manuc
07-14-2005, 05:50 AM
Hey Air-Racers! Do you think, race modified warbirds like the 'Dago Red', the 'Rare Bear' etc are not affected by torque, trim and stability issues? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

May be this software is the right one for you:
http://www.aafo.com/flightsims/xtreme/g-1/

new-fherathras
07-14-2005, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
Well Hello All

As many know I am quite active in Racing IL2 - well I was until this update came out. I must be frank about this as I have never flown in a real WWII fighter but I have flown in Helicopters and an Extra300L and I realize we all have our own perception of what it should be like. The idea is to get as close to realistic as possible and that is great in theory but when it effects game play to the point where it is no longer fun I have to question it? V4.01 is killing racing - doing tandem (side by side) full throttle takeoffs without hitting the guy next to you is very hard, Taxing is a nightmare as is avoiding mid-air collisions as most all the planes handle so mushy it is like you have no positive control, The Extra300 sure does not handle like these fighters do now - The P51 feels like a twin engine bomber - (sluggish is a understatement). I see planes tail jumping while taxing, some planes will not turn/taxi after landing, The clouds look like cotton balls thrown into the air and kill FPS - YEAP great add on! In my opinion and we all know what is said about opinions and all having one, this FM and patch is going to drop participation & sales starting with me - I will not buy BOB if this is how it will be, The IL2 Racing community is falling apart and there are so many buggs now you need a seperate computer to keep track of them all. I am considering dumping 4.01 and go back to 3.04. and would if others were doing the same but flying by yourself is not much fun either. No I do not like it one bit, sorry if I have repeated what others have posted but I am so unhappy with it I have no motivation to search thru 10,000 posts to jump into a thread that is of my liking. I thought I would give it a few weeks and atleast a chance but every time I fly I just hate what it has turned into and get disgusted and quit. Our race courses are almost impossible to fly thru with the amount of precise control needed for 12-16 planes to race within a few meters of each other. 4.01 has ruined it for me.

Oleg - Is this going to get fixed? Will This FM be adjusted/fine tuned? Please say yes!

Cuda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif



OK. GOODBYE.



j√¬¶vla rauh√¬•l http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

BlackStar2000
07-14-2005, 07:15 AM
You Fanboys can think?
Really user ur heads?
Oleg is God?
Theres a statement about his patch that rl pilots test it. Must be tested by the bad ones.
I know two REAL pilots, fanatics abouts ww2, that say that patch is not good enough, or IT SUCKS, not exacly my opinion, but im not big fan of 4.01

Anyway u guys take it too far when anyone come here to critic something in this game.

Oleg is so perfect that hes missed a lot of basic things, historical, in this game and not yet fixed, Gezz if this walk in the same room that u ppl are u possibly will fall on your knees and praise him.


Barracuda Show up here to be honest about he thinks, btw, since patch ppl are posting problems more than ever, or u have not notice that?

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 07:21 AM
Too much coffee in the morning blackstar? Re-read his post again. his obvious complain is about about planes not being on rails as they use to. Get with the program http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This has nothing to do with Oleg is a god... but it has everything to do with what is this sim is all about.

Grue_
07-14-2005, 07:30 AM
Turn the settings down to easy if you are only racing.

This is the first release of the new flight model and I'm sure it's being improved.

BlackStar, if you don't like the game don't play it. http://www.ebay.com

VVS-Manuc
07-14-2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Grue_:
Turn the settings down to easy if you are only racing.

This is the first release of the new flight model and I'm sure it's being improved.

BlackStar, if you don't like the game don't play it. http://www.ebay.com

I hope 'improved' doesn't mean downgraded to please the 'I cannot handle this plane so the flight model must be wrong' - whiners http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 08:04 AM
Manuc you scaring me... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VVS-Manuc
07-14-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Manuc you scaring me... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

call me 'Scar(e) - Face' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


back to topic, Mr. Moderator !

3.JG51_BigBear
07-14-2005, 08:52 AM
The Extra 300L is a super light stunt plane with limited range and very little horsepower compared to World War 2 aircraft. It also benefits from the latest technological advances in aviation and has been engineered for the most "on rails" feeling to allow pilots to perform insane stunts that no World War 2 combat plane was capable of. I'm not discounting your flight experience by any means but I'm wondering if maybe your expectations are changed given the types of aircraft you've flow.

As for the bugs, I've been playing this game since day one and the bugs have always been there. The bugs drove me nuts for the longest time but if you think about the size of the development team of this game its really not surprising that all issues can't be solved as quickly as we'd all like.

PS
I don't consider myself an Oleg fanboy. I've flown in real single engine airplanes myself and I don't consider the current version of Il2 realistic. Fun and definitely a step closer, but not realistic.

Sturm_Williger
07-14-2005, 09:13 AM
Not quite sure where you're going with this Barra-Cuda - if the torque is an issue with racing, turn it off - as long as all racers have the same settings, it shouldn't be a problem.

Also, if air-racing is your primary interest, why would you buy BOB in the first place ? I'm sure the 1940 planeset are hardly in the frame for racing so to speak.

Just my 2 c

LEBillfish
07-14-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Get with the program http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This has nothing to do with Oleg is a god....

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Island Oleg Says;

No you get with the program Ivan, I "AM" the God of flight sims, certainly not that willie gates noob! .....Plus I have nice Pecs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif......What are you looking at?</span>
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/Oleg.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Well, I gotta say...

this is NOT a racing sim, so any "suggestions" on the FM with regard to "making racing easier or more fun" are completely irrelevant and misguided.

I'm not saying you're not free to waste your time skirting pylons... but that's not the object of the sim. If you're looking to race, find a racing sim. Otherwise, you have to deal with the "combat realism" features and phenomenon, or tune them down, as another suggested.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-14-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Get with the program http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This has nothing to do with Oleg is a god....

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Island Oleg Says;

No you get with the program Ivan, I "AM" the God of flight sims, certainly not that willie gates noob! .....Plus I have nice Pecs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif......What are you looking at?</span>
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/Oleg.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 10:16 AM
I am not sure if i like this picture girly girl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
07-14-2005, 10:17 AM
Want to takeoff in a straight line?

Easy procedure:
1) Start engine, setup on runway
2) Lock tailwheel
3) A few taps of rudder trim (right or left depending on the direction of the prop on your plane)
4) Throttle up slowly (no more of this pumping it to 110% instantly ****)
5) Keep rudder, throttle, and trim managed properly and you will fly off straight, level, and without incident

I find it funny right now all the people who are swerving left and right on takeoff without any regard to controlling the throttle, the rudder, or anything of the sort...

Just be glad there are no ground loops.

LEBillfish
07-14-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I am not sure if i like this picture girly girl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Want me to make a new one? I always thought the rump jiggle those muscle guys could do was kewl...What do ya think?

Scen
07-14-2005, 10:31 AM
I rather like the new FM. Feels much more like an airplane especially when you stall.

I agree the ground handling has gotten much more difficult but what do you expect from planes that have 1000-2000 horse power. They aren't easy to handle.

While an Extra 300 is an amazing airplane it's light years ahead in terms of technology compared to planes of the era. In addition it's designed from the get go to be an extremely maneuverable aircraft. It wasn't designed to carry guns ammo bombs etc. Apples and Oranges.

Sorry but I don't agree with them changing the FM to suit your racing needs. It doesn't make sense for a WWII combat simulator to cater to such a wish.

Good luck. Maybe Flight Simulator 2004 might have something for you.

Scendore

Chuck_Older
07-14-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by BlackStar2000:
You Fanboys can think?
Really user ur heads?
Oleg is God?
Theres a statement about his patch that rl pilots test it. Must be tested by the bad ones.
I know two REAL pilots, fanatics abouts ww2, that say that patch is not good enough, or IT SUCKS, not exacly my opinion, but im not big fan of 4.01

Anyway u guys take it too far when anyone come here to critic something in this game.

Oleg is so perfect that hes missed a lot of basic things, historical, in this game and not yet fixed, Gezz if this walk in the same room that u ppl are u possibly will fall on your knees and praise him.


Barracuda Show up here to be honest about he thinks, btw, since patch ppl are posting problems more than ever, or u have not notice that?

So you think that air racing aircraft are the same as the aircraft that flew in WWII?

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

BlackStar2000
07-14-2005, 11:19 AM
Yes Masterrrrr Good Vacation masterrrr

http://mydivx.lihoman.ru/order/direct/brooks/brooks.frankenstein.jpg

BlackStar2000
07-14-2005, 11:28 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 BlackStar2000:
You Fanboys can think?
Really user ur heads?
Oleg is God?
Theres a statement about his patch that rl pilots test it. Must be tested by the bad ones.
I know two REAL pilots, fanatics abouts ww2, that say that patch is not good enough, or IT SUCKS, not exacly my opinion, but im not big fan of 4.01

Anyway u guys take it too far when anyone come here to critic something in this game.

Oleg is so perfect that hes missed a lot of basic things, historical, in this game and not yet fixed, Gezz if this walk in the same room that u ppl are u possibly will fall on your knees and praise him.


Barracuda Show up here to be honest about he thinks, btw, since patch ppl are posting problems more than ever, or u have not notice that?

So you think that air racing aircraft are the same as the aircraft that flew in WWII?

Drugs are bad, mmmkay? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No i dont give a **** rat about air racing, but i think the Barracuda can post what he thinks, after hayateAce and Leadspitter, anyone can post any garbage on this forum.

What i dont like is
http://chocolatesonline.com/images/product/M3BrownNose_200.jpg

Chuck_Older
07-14-2005, 12:13 PM
I never asked if you cared about air racing


You just came here and denounced a bunch of people for not knowing what's what, when you clearly don't know what's what either.

We could discuss whether or not it was safe for the average WWII pilot to take of merely meters away from another plane that was taking off at the same time, you know.

Example: it was Standard Operating Procedure for P-51 pilots to wait their turn to take off. The pilots would wait at their parking/dispersal until the code number they were to follow was visible on another P-51's tail as it taxiied past. Then the pilot to follow that number pulled in behind. The procedure was NOT to take off one, two, three abreast.

Accidents were common in WWII aerial operations. Blown tires, failed brakes, pilot fatigue, etc, make it a difficult proposition for me to beleive these aircraft were meant to take off in line abreast formation "meters away" from another aircraft

Some aircraft did take off abreast. But not "meters away" from each other, unless you mean a reasonably safe distance. the classic image of Bf 109s taking off all at once from a field...they weren't as close together as you think, firstly, secondly they were slightly staggered, and thirdly, being a real military pilot means hours of real training and experience we don't have. And yes, I mean virtual pilots with thousands of hours under their belts. Real racing aircraft are NOT as they were in WWII, either. Some bear so little resemblance to the planes they once were (many didn't even serve in the war) that calling it a P-51 or F8F is by merest coincidence of a nameplate bolted to a bulkhead

But yet you act as if all of this is simply the pantings of a fanboy in heat. Using the excuse that "other people do it so it's OK" is BS, too.

If you can tell me what WWII aircraft regularly operated at takeoff at close range side by side (and what distance it really was) then maybe we could discuss it, but your attitude here tells me that you just want to comment without bringing anything to the table

Stigler_9_JG52
07-14-2005, 12:23 PM
Well, Chuck,

Spits and Hurris often took off in vic formations on wide fields during France and the BoB...

but otherwise your points are well taken.

BlackStar2000
07-14-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I never asked if you cared about air racing


You just came here and denounced a bunch of people for not knowing what's what, when you clearly don't know what's what either.

We could discuss whether or not it was safe for the average WWII pilot to take of merely meters away from another plane that was taking off at the same time, you know.

Example: it was Standard Operating Procedure for P-51 pilots to wait their turn to take off. The pilots would wait at their parking/dispersal until the code number they were to follow was visible on another P-51's tail as it taxiied past. Then the pilot to follow that number pulled in behind. The procedure was NOT to take off one, two, three abreast.

Accidents were common in WWII aerial operations. Blown tires, failed brakes, pilot fatigue, etc, make it a difficult proposition for me to beleive these aircraft were meant to take off in line abreast formation "meters away" from another aircraft

Some aircraft did take off abreast. But not "meters away" from each other, unless you mean a reasonably safe distance. the classic image of Bf 109s taking off all at once from a field...they weren't as close together as you think, firstly, secondly they were slightly staggered, and thirdly, being a real military pilot means hours of real training and experience we don't have. And yes, I mean virtual pilots with thousands of hours under their belts. Real racing aircraft are NOT as they were in WWII, either. Some bear so little resemblance to the planes they once were (many didn't even serve in the war) that calling it a P-51 or F8F is by merest coincidence of a nameplate bolted to a bulkhead

But yet you act as if all of this is simply the pantings of a fanboy in heat. Using the excuse that "other people do it so it's OK" is BS, too.

If you can tell me what WWII aircraft regularly operated at takeoff at close range side by side (and what distance it really was) then maybe we could discuss it, but your attitude here tells me that you just want to comment without bringing anything to the table

Would pls me tell where did i mentioned somenthing about take off and all the blah blah bla of your speach.

My case here is freendom of speach, the guy raise questions, let him do it, if this "Game" is os well defended by Oleg‚¬īs Fanboys, at least let ppl ask about how things work in game.

The problem around these forum is most of points here become battles of words instead of discussion or clarify a subject.

Barra-Cuda
07-14-2005, 01:21 PM
Well looks like I have stepped on some sore toes - GOOD! If Il2 is not intended to be used to some degree for racing why are there pylons and start finish/markers? because it is intended to be used, maybe not primarily for racing but it is an option! I for one do not kiss Oleg's feet and offer an honest opinion about how I feel about it just as all of you have done and as I stated it is "MY" opinion and we all have a right to our own opinions. Not only is the flight model mushy but there are problems with actual steering - BUGGS - last night on every occasion after landing the Mustang III it failed to be steerable on the ground at any speed with or without brakes or tail wheel engaged. Plane folders are missing - void skins are missing - so many buggggs I can not even think of all of them. Did they even test this before release? I really wonder as I found the missing folder issue less than 5 min after installing the update. In addition spawn points can not be exactly set as they could prior to Pacific Fighters - There are issues fellas many issues. I am glad I upset the apple cart as someone needs to - it is not all roses unless you have rose colored blinders on. Now some may well have a good point with turning off the torque feature for racing and I thank you for pointing that out - will have to try it tonight and see how that works out. In addition I will add I am not alone in my opinion as most racers think the new FM is not what it should be, just seems I am the only one willing to bring some attention to that.

knightflyte
07-14-2005, 01:23 PM
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOLOLOLOLOLOL LEBillfish.

The original pic of Oleg was a riot. You just went from riotously funny to wet your pant hilarious.


Thanks for the laugh.

LOLOLOL... thank gawd I wasn't drinking anything.

Chuck_Older
07-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Let me explain then, Blackstar. You are defending Barra-cuda's standpoint, like it or not

There is no "Freedom of speach" here. Don't mistake this website's forums for the US Senate Floor. Freedom of Speech can take a flying leap at a rolling donut on these forums

Since you still refuse to do anything other than pant and moan, I'll remind you AGAIN that you could constructively add to the discussion but you'd prefer not to. Instead, you toss in your BS and then act defensively about it. I've given you your chance to comment constructively, I see your opinion of that


Barra-cuda:

I've never tried to air-race in Il2. but I'll ask you: how far away are you from another aircraft's wingtip when you race? Is it closer than real life pilots would get on takeoff?

Do you even race the same way a real air race is run, such as an Unlimited Air Race at Reno? Or are you starting on the ground because it's fun and that's how you've always done it?

In short: is it hard to do because it really is hard to do, and that's why they don't really do it that way in real life?

Barra-Cuda
07-14-2005, 01:47 PM
In Reply to Chuck_Older - Maybe you should drop in and do some racing before it goes away. I have done both, race and dogfight - I prefer Racing over the die and kill routine. If you have never raced on the server you should before adding your comments as you are commenting about something you have not done or tried as probably many here are doing. In answer to your question we have done both ground starts and air starts just as in Reno and we have a track modeled losely after the Reno course.

TX-EcoDragon
07-14-2005, 02:23 PM
Barra-Cuda,

I understand where you're coming from, and unlike a few others here I am not going to tell you to go play some other game as I think this sim makes a great race sim. I also was the one who planted the seed in Xanty's ear way back when about including the pylons, start finish markers, so don't think I'm not an advocate of that aspect of the sim. I have the other sims, and a few dedicated racing sims and none compare with respect to FM, let alone ground handling. XTreme Air Racing is a bit of fun for offline stuff since it's a dedicated race game. . .it has all the things you would expect of a race sim, most obviously race configured aircraft, but it's FM just doesn't compare to what we have here.


I don't know if you mentioned what hardware you use to interface with the sim, and I won't say rudder pedals are required, but I will say that they are a great help, and that none of these planes could be controlled in any way shape or form, on the ground in the real world using keyboard, rocker, or twist sticks. The fidelity just isn't there, and the short throws of the rockers and twist sticks reduce your ability to be precise. As you probably know or have heard , tailwheel aircraft are pretty tricky on the ground, and the truth is, most of the burdens we have to contend with in the sim is tame compared to ground ops in these aircraft in the real world. There is no real wind to worry about, there is no ground loop tendency (you can get sideways and it just smoothly slides), there aren't really any gyroscopic precession effects (from the prop) when the tail lifts or lowers which will cause a pronounced pitch-yaw coupling, there is actually less torque in the sim than in the real world (if you firewalled most of these engines in the real world planes you won't be left with an airworthy aircraft, left alone one you can keep on the centerline for takeoff), with the tailwheel locked the tail tracks VERY straight before it lifts, tamer than any tailwheel I've flown, and I've flown a few of the tamest, as well as aerobatic aircraft and a couple warbirds (of these, only the P-51 is represented in the sim). I've also logged plenty of time in the usual aerobatic mounts, like the SuperDecathlon, Pitts S1S, S2B/C, Extra 300,300L,300S, and 200, Edge540/540T, and the Raven. While these are extremely high performance aircraft (higher in fact than anything in WWII if you don't count service ceiling and max speeds) they also have particular design criteria that are different from a WWII fighter. The Extra 300L you mention is so extremely maneuverable, responsive, precise and overpowered (relative to it's weight) that it will do just about whatever you ask it to. If you look out front on the Extra you will see an MT composite prop that is a small and light wood core with composite materials over that. This prop has minimal flywheel effect, minimal gyroscopic action (especially compared to a huge, heavy, metal prop as you will find on these warbirds), and there is also reduced torque effects from this prop as well. The Extra is a world class aerobatic aircraft, there isn't really any other aircraft than can approach this level of handling (other than the very similar designs like the Edge, Giles, etc) the control surface authority is in an entirely new dimension compared to a WWII Fighter, such that the non-aerodynamic forces such as inertia, torque, and gyroscopic effects play an even smaller role relative to the pilot's control authority. In flight the differences are even greater. There is no detectable inertia on any axis when at normal flying speeds in something like the Extra, there is plenty in the Pony. The acro fuel tank of the Extra (which only holds 13.4 gallons in the first place)is mounted just in front of the passenger seat up front so the weight isn't added to the wings and that helps to start and stop the very fast roll rates isntantly (the Edge and Giles can roll about 6 times faster than the highest roll rate the 51 can manage). There really isn't much stored energy in this aircraft as that would reduce its maneuverability, precision, and responsiveness. The wing itself is almost totally composite and light, it's airfoil is specific to the aerobatic flight envelope, everything about it it designed for the utmost control, next to no stick forces, with nothing but pinpoint accuracy. yeah it sounds clich√©, but when the pilot asks it to do something, it does it, heck, the prop is even designed to act as an airbrake, when you throttle back you are pulled forward in the straps, it's all about responsiveness. The Extra has no dihedral, teh wings are flat, so upright, inverted, it really doesn‚‚ā¨ôt care, there is absolutely the minimal stability in these aerobatic mounts, fighters on the other hand have nice V shaped wings and would rather fly straight and level than anything else. Just watch someone fly hesitation/point rolls with tack sharp stops. . . sure that's alot of pilot skill, but take that that same pilot and let them practice for a decade in the P-51 or any of these aircraft and they will never get anything near that type of performance out of the warbird because the designs are so different, and the performance of these warbirds just isn't at that level. Stick forces are next to nothing in the Extra, the P-51 is a two hander at times (in particular for any sort of aerobatics), with no wind I go to full throttle on takeoff in the Extra or Edge and can make only slight adjustments on rudder during the (very short) takeoff roll. In a warbird you are *constantly* working the rudder on the ground, even in no wind, on a flat surface, in the very well behaved P-51. The best thing to try flying for a bit of a feel of the ground handling of these aircraft is something like a metal propped PT-17, WACO, or T-6. In flight the T-6 is a good model for the later era aircraft. While I'm very fortunate to have the opportunity to fly vintage warbirds, and they provide profound enjoyment to me, I REALLY love flying unlimited class aerobatic mounts for the absolute freedom and control you have to do just about whatever you think of. . . it's *very* different flying compared to flying something like the P-51 IMHO.


Imagine a WWII warbird trying this: http://www.chamblissaerobatics.com/assets/downloads/kir...ying_on_the_edge.mov (http://www.chamblissaerobatics.com/assets/downloads/kirby_flying_on_the_edge.mov)

I do see some issues with ground handling in the sim though. The lack of ground loop character, the lack of gyroscopic precession, the lack of smoothness in the rudder inputs do make rudder control tough even with pedals, but this may be a hardware or configuration issue, the bouncy tailwheel, the fairly poor differential brake response at low speeds, the nose over tendency with forward pressure is too great, the pitch and yaw oscillations on takeoff are too high, these cause real world tailwheel techniques to lead to a wondering nose, and even nose overs. So while I think the nose over issue and the pitch and yaw oscillations are too great (and add some difficulty to deal with them) the overall experience is still one that is quite tame relative to what it should be if the utmost of realism is what we are after. . . go read about tailwheel ops, note the primary concerns, and you will see that none of these are here in this sim, it makes the tailwheel handle much like a tricycle gear aircraft, 4.01 went a long way to change this by increasing the torque effects. I don't aim to bash this sim at all, this is one of the most difficult places to code since it combines requires the full power of the aerodynamics FM, in addition to pronounced effects of inertia, torque, gyroscopic effects, wind effects, center of gravity relative to gear placement, the mass of the wings and tail assembly, the vertical component of the CG etc.

As far as your last question, I think it's safe to say that this sim series has been continually evolving since its release, there is a follow up sim planned, and Oleg never seems to get tired of working on this sim, so I'd be 100% confident in saying that it will be "adjusted/fine tuned." I won't say that it should be tuned to reduce torque, inertia, gyroscopic effects, etc. because I'm confident in saying that it shouldn‚‚ā¨ôt . . . it needs to be fine tuned (some places more, some places less).

A.K.Davis
07-14-2005, 02:33 PM
feeelings...nothing more than...feeelings

Chuck_Older
07-14-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
In Reply to Chuck_Older - If you have never raced on the server you should before adding your comments as you are commenting about something you have not done or tried as probably many here are doing. In answer to your question we have done both ground starts and air starts just as in Reno and we have a track modeled losely after the Reno course.

See, I think this is a litle bit Bull: I never air raced, so I can't have observations about it? Look, I was never in the 8th Air Force, but I can tell you what the 361st FG's radio call sign was, ok? So that means I know nothing about fighter pilots? Hogwash. I have old mags here that tell me who won what bendix trophy. So I know nothing about air racing? Hogwash again

If I was telling you how to race your plane, fine. But I'm not telling you how to do it. I'm asking you a few questions which, it seems to me, indicates that you're sometimes racing the way they really do it (should I say that since you've most likely never raced at Reno for real, that you should keep quiet about it?), and sometimes, you don't.

Now, let's assume that I'm correct here (I don't know everything about air racing; but I know a thing or two) and that ground starts aren't the way to do it/or can't be simulated properly in the game

OK. I asked you about how far apart you are during this...no reply. I asked if it was farther apart than in real life. No reply. I point that real racing aircraft are not combat ready aircraft and do not behave like them. No comment from you. I ask if taking off side by side is difficult because it really is difficult in these aircraft. Again, no input from you.

You're more concerned with a confrontation. If you notice, I'm discussing your problem here, not bashing you. I know all sorts of funny names, you know? But I'm not using them. You brought it up, I have asked you direct questions, which you haven't answered. Now that's up to you to answer them or not, but don't get mad at me beacuse I'm addressing your concerns. If you don't like it, remeber that you started this thread. I could trot out all sorts of things like: the pylons were extra stuff you got just so you could have it; stop complaining. But I'm not

Chuck_Older
07-14-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, Chuck,

Spits and Hurris often took off in vic formations on wide fields during France and the BoB...

but otherwise your points are well taken.

Your point's well taken too- but I have to ask myself...how far apart are the aircraft during that takeoff? And also, a Vic formation isn't straight line abreast

Beleive me, I know where you're coming from. But the risk of hitting a gopher hole or the like in some East Anglian field tells me they were not5m apart doing this

TX-EcoDragon
07-14-2005, 02:46 PM
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 Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, Chuck,

Spits and Hurris often took off in vic formations on wide fields during France and the BoB...

but otherwise your points are well taken.

Your point's well taken too- but I have to ask myself...how far apart are the aircraft during that takeoff? And also, a Vic formation isn't straight line abreast

Beleive me, I know where you're coming from. But the risk of hitting a gopher hole or the like in some East Anglian field tells me they were not5m apart doing this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And let's not forget that even if they did, they don't do it without practice and training. . .and rudder pedals.

Of course, I shudder at the thought of seeing the Unlimiteds attempt a simultaneous takeoff at Reno. . . it wouldn't happen today, at least on any conventional runway, that's for sure.
That said, a pilot who cant keep his aircraft tracking down the runway wouldnt be a problem, since a groundloop would be there to bite him as soon as things went funky. If a pilot cant track down the runway, he isn't flying those aircraft in the first place.

Ugly_Kid
07-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Well about the take-offs. Even 83 as Messerschmitt foundation got it's Bf-109G-6 a very experienced pilot with several thousands of hours was able to smash it on a tractor parked next to the airfield. The aircraft just got out of hands in the start - 3 years again he got a new trial when they got the wreck stitched together. In Finland on Utti airfield, a small forest patch in the crossing of the runways is still know as Messerschmitt corner - you can guess the reason. Krupinski's advice for take-off was to floor the right pedal and regulate the swing with the throttle - today Walter Eichorn goes by the same script. Now where on earth does it say that getting odd thousand HP airborn was pointing the nose and flogging the horses. I am actually disappointed by the easiness since I already survived after few take-off trials...for the first time the handling has some resemblance to the real-life accounts...

TX-EcoDragon
07-14-2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Well about the take-offs. Even 83 as Messerschmitt foundation got it's Bf-109G-6 a very experienced pilot with several thousands of hours was able to smash it on a tractor parked next to the airfield. The aircraft just got out of hands in the start - 3 years again he got a new trial when they got the wreck stitched together. In Finland on Utti airfield, a small forest patch in the crossing of the runways is still know as Messerschmitt corner - you can guess the reason. Krupinski's advice for take-off was to floor the right pedal and regulate the swing with the throttle - today Walter Eichorn goes by the same script. Now where on earth does it say that getting odd thousand HP airborn was pointing the nose and flogging the horses. I am actually disappointed by the easiness since I already survived after few take-off trials...for the first time the handling has some resemblance to the real-life accounts...

Yep, just ask Chuck Yeager, who lost control of a T-6 Texan to a ground loop and crashed it into a ditch on the landing rollout due to a 10-15 knot wind a few years ago!

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL04IA002&rpt=fa

LEBillfish
07-14-2005, 03:56 PM
Barra-Cuda, I guess it boils down to this past all the bluff and bluster....

If you want to fly the sim as a racing sim then you have chosen an excellent product in that now with the new FM/4.01, you will get a better idea of what it takes to race real life & why it is such a dangerous sport.

If you don't want all that realism then that is ok too......As 4.01 has the provision to fly in "easy mode" of various levels be it torque or CEM that doesn't suit your style, all it takes is a click of a few switches and you're off and racing how you like.

If the problem is that all others want to race the new FM, and you don't, well then look for those who will or take the time to learn it as we all are now......

As no matter what, it is my guess the 4.01FM or "harder" is here to stay......It's a matter of reality, which is why most here fly 1c/Maddox sims.

Good Luck,

WWMaxGunz
07-14-2005, 05:17 PM
If I don't unlock the tailwheel before landing or after rollout, I definitely have a
bad time trying to taxi. But that isn't a bug for me.

Like what Ivan said, turn some of the switches off.

Like what someone else said, learn to use the sim right.
Easier to B&M I guess.

And Blackstar... your pilots buddies say any combat flight sim flies more real?

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2005, 05:18 PM
Until 4.01 they never had to use Easy settings. It could be severe Psycho Trauma...experienced Old Timer hardocre computer gamer suddenly needing Easy settings. They can't bring themselves to hit that Easy Button.

But I always said most of them will learn and enjoy the more real settings when they grow out of themselves a bit.

Barra-Cuda
07-15-2005, 12:48 AM
Ok - I'll bite once more


Now, let's assume that I'm correct here (I don't know everything about air racing; but I know a thing or two) and that ground starts aren't the way to do it/or can't be simulated properly in the game

WRONG! Ground starts are actually the preferred method and work best even with 4.01. You should try a race or two that way you will have a clear picture of what I am discussing. They are done just fine using a custom starter script initiated by the race officiator.

OK. I asked you about how far apart you are during this...no reply.

Two planes abreast on wide runways lining up along the outside edges. One plane per runway on narrow runways.

I asked if it was farther apart than in real life. No reply.

It is as far apart as you can be in the sim and still be on the runway - did I get my tape measure out and measure it - NO


I point that real racing aircraft are not combat ready aircraft and do not behave like them. No comment from you.

So what is the point of that? we all know this. My point is the difference between 3.04 and 4.01 FM.

I ask if taking off side by side is difficult because it really is difficult in these aircraft. Again, no input from you.

I have never done it - have you? I'm sure it is possible. I have been to Reno several times and I do not see one P51 take up the entire width of the runway swerving side to side. Maybe they don't give it 100% all at once but they sure don't take weeks to get airborne either.

You're more concerned with a confrontation. If you notice, I'm discussing your problem here, not bashing you. I know all sorts of funny names, you know? But I'm not using them.

You are the one looking for confrontation and you are the only one here talking about "funny names" You Know?????


You brought it up, I have asked you direct questions, which you haven't answered. Now that's up to you to answer them or not, but don't get mad at me beacuse I'm addressing your concerns.

I did answer your questions by suggesting you try a race - that would have cleared all your short comings on the subject and answered all your questions and then some.

If you don't like it, remeber that you started this thread. I could trot out all sorts of things like: the pylons were extra stuff you got just so you could have it; stop complaining. But I'm not

Yes you are - you just did!

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2005, 01:30 AM
They won't post about the Easy, or "racing" settings available to them. hehe

Tvrdi
07-15-2005, 02:02 AM
through my IL2 experience i realised that such discussion (regarding reality or whatever) is useless...its only a f game...i needed 4 yrs to realise that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Wolkenbeisser
07-15-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by cmw1980:
Well, sorry to hear you're not happy with it but... I rather like the new fm and the new clouds, in fact my biggest problem is the new spitfire's missing propeller (although you're right about the large number of other small bugs - too many to keep count of).

I hope you sent an e-mail to PF@1c.ru with an exact description of the problem... (would also like to see it fixed)

HayateAce
07-15-2005, 03:28 AM
So all this boils down to is that the Klown~109 is overmodeled. Because this supposed high power engine in this supposed small frame produces hardly ANY torque on takeoff.

Try Fw190 or La5fn if you want to see some penalty for torque. My conclusion:

BogusFantasy~109 is for Klowns.

http://www.pennvalleyhobbycenter.com/controlline/Brodak/images/CLP-6.gif

Chuck_Older
07-15-2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
Ok - I'll bite once more

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, let's assume that I'm correct here (I don't know everything about air racing; but I know a thing or two) and that ground starts aren't the way to do it/or can't be simulated properly in the game

WRONG! Ground starts are actually the preferred method and work best even with 4.01. You should try a race or two that way you will have a clear picture of what I am discussing. They are done just fine using a custom starter script initiated by the race officiator.

OK. I asked you about how far apart you are during this...no reply.

Two planes abreast on wide runways lining up along the outside edges. One plane per runway on narrow runways.

I asked if it was farther apart than in real life. No reply.

It is as far apart as you can be in the sim and still be on the runway - did I get my tape measure out and measure it - NO


I point that real racing aircraft are not combat ready aircraft and do not behave like them. No comment from you.

So what is the point of that? we all know this. My point is the difference between 3.04 and 4.01 FM.

I ask if taking off side by side is difficult because it really is difficult in these aircraft. Again, no input from you.

I have never done it - have you? I'm sure it is possible. I have been to Reno several times and I do not see one P51 take up the entire width of the runway swerving side to side. Maybe they don't give it 100% all at once but they sure don't take weeks to get airborne either.

You're more concerned with a confrontation. If you notice, I'm discussing your problem here, not bashing you. I know all sorts of funny names, you know? But I'm not using them.

You are the one looking for confrontation and you are the only one here talking about "funny names" You Know?????


You brought it up, I have asked you direct questions, which you haven't answered. Now that's up to you to answer them or not, but don't get mad at me beacuse I'm addressing your concerns.

I did answer your questions by suggesting you try a race - that would have cleared all your short comings on the subject and answered all your questions and then some.

If you don't like it, remeber that you started this thread. I could trot out all sorts of things like: the pylons were extra stuff you got just so you could have it; stop complaining. But I'm not

Yes you are - you just did! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...you're doing it the way they do it in real life- BUT by your own admission you're too close together. You can't be bothered to give me an approximate distance, you can't see the correlation between the fact that real racing planes and WWII planes are diffrent and whether or not it's hard in real life (it's not a big mental leap). And you STILL can't tell that I'm dragging you headfirst into solving your problem

So-
we get to the real problem at last. You finally DESCRIBE what's going on- you say you've never seen a P-51 swerving side to side in real life

Well, you've seen it in FB, have you?

Good! Then we have your problem, after much gnashing of teeth on your part.

The P-51 in FB should not do this in 4.01. Mine doesn't. Absolutely not, and it's NOT the sim's fault this is happening

Check your controller and see if it's calibrated, first. Now, learn to lock your tailwheel on EVERY takeoff and landing. Then, learn to use rudder trim on take-off. If you need to, go into your hardware configuration and add some slight filtering to your joystick axes

A good control setup is mandatory in my opinion for 4.01. With a HOTAS setup, I have no trouble taking off in any aircraft. I dial in some left rudder for planes like the P-40 and P-51, and then zoom! I take off.

here's some good practice: you can actuall take off away from a runway, offline, if you place the plane far enough away from a runway in the FMB. Or, you can just land where you like and taxi, but essentially- practice your take-offs on a road. It's extremely narrow. I can land and take off Bf 109s on a road. never done it with a P-51, but since I can do a staright take off roll and landing in one, it wouldn't be an issue.

Stop treating 4.01 like it's 3.04- it won't work. practice practice practice your new take off procedure. You weren't born knowing how to fly 3.04, so why should you already know all about 4.01?

I've got to say you're the most recalcitrant, eager-to-fight, reluctant-to-help-himself member that I've ever helped here. The next time you have a problem, describe what the problem is FIRST instead of LAST. You'll solve your problems quicker that way . I'm sure you'll be complaining that I was insulting to you, etc. have you noticed I'm the one helping you the MOST in this thread? You think I do it because I like the abuse? The only reason you're taking offense is because you WANT to take offense. You're mad about your problem, and you think I'm a good target. Guess again. Have a fun time with the sim now that I've taught you how to take off in a P-51

heloguy
07-15-2005, 06:45 AM
How's your head Chuck? That wall hasn't budged...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I can't really add too much here, so I'll just summarize. You need to learn the new flight model, or just hit the switch and fly without it. You can't expect the whole sim to be changed just for the small air racing community that uses it. Use Chuck's suggestion for training. Start with what may be a more difficult aircraft to take off in, but less complex, i.e. the BF-109. The P-51 is only easier to take off in if you know how to use the systems, but if you already know how to compensate without the use of trim, it will be that much easier to pull off the feat of taking off in a straight line with its addition.
And if you read this one and just get angry, well, I guess I'd better get some ice for my head.

carguy_
07-15-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
through my IL2 experience i realised that such discussion (regarding reality or whatever) is useless...its only a f game...i needed 4 yrs to realise that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Only a game,huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2005, 05:08 PM
When they score a dogfight kill, its a Sim.

When they get shot down, or lose at the Races, its just a Game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hunter82
07-15-2005, 05:47 PM
2 whole pilots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif? Geez .... Oleg fix it the man has reliable data from 2 WHOLE pilots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ....WTF was I thinking? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I've had conversations with real pilots that range from cesna's to military and commercial airline pilots that think he's gotten it the best so far and can't wait for BOB.

Ever think maybe your 2 pilots might be the bad ones?



Originally posted by BlackStar2000:
You Fanboys can think?
Really user ur heads?
Oleg is God?
Theres a statement about his patch that rl pilots test it. Must be tested by the bad ones.
I know two REAL pilots, fanatics abouts ww2, that say that patch is not good enough, or IT SUCKS, not exacly my opinion, but im not big fan of 4.01

Anyway u guys take it too far when anyone come here to critic something in this game.

Oleg is so perfect that hes missed a lot of basic things, historical, in this game and not yet fixed, Gezz if this walk in the same room that u ppl are u possibly will fall on your knees and praise him.


Barracuda Show up here to be honest about he thinks, btw, since patch ppl are posting problems more than ever, or u have not notice that?

Hunter82
07-15-2005, 05:53 PM
They were put in along with the air race map because people started air racing,made requests, and Oleg thought hey cool let's help them expand on something.....

BUT

not at the expense of FM/DM. As stated earlier turn off some settings to enable a balance for racing.



Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
Well looks like I have stepped on some sore toes - GOOD! If Il2 is not intended to be used to some degree for racing why are there pylons and start finish/markers? because it is intended to be used, maybe not primarily for racing but it is an option! I for one do not kiss Oleg's feet and offer an honest opinion about how I feel about it just as all of you have done and as I stated it is "MY" opinion and we all have a right to our own opinions. Not only is the flight model mushy but there are problems with actual steering - BUGGS - last night on every occasion after landing the Mustang III it failed to be steerable on the ground at any speed with or without brakes or tail wheel engaged. Plane folders are missing - void skins are missing - so many buggggs I can not even think of all of them. Did they even test this before release? I really wonder as I found the missing folder issue less than 5 min after installing the update. In addition spawn points can not be exactly set as they could prior to Pacific Fighters - There are issues fellas many issues. I am glad I upset the apple cart as someone needs to - it is not all roses unless you have rose colored blinders on. Now some may well have a good point with turning off the torque feature for racing and I thank you for pointing that out - will have to try it tonight and see how that works out. In addition I will add I am not alone in my opinion as most racers think the new FM is not what it should be, just seems I am the only one willing to bring some attention to that.

BSS_Vidar
07-15-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
THis FM is supposed to resemble factory specs of aircraft during combat in WWII,that is 1939-1945.

WWII birds are for the most part suffer from torque effects,turbulences,lack of stability.It was never easy to fly one.

Really? And where did you get this info from? I flew a P-51D-N20 last year in the spring. It is a completly authentic restoration, apart from a second seat and controls with modern RNAV equiptment. It flew like it was on a rail. No slosh in the virticle axis with rudder. I just flew today and in a concious effort, tried to input rudder and see how the aircraft would react... SOLID with no bounce. Planes themselves are not hard to fly guys. They don't make you battle with them constantly. You change speed, you change trim is all that should be needed. In a climb, you 'step on the ball' in single-engine, or multi-engine aircraft with a criticle engine (No counter Rotation). The virticle axis's neutral stability issues are particulaly terrible in the P-51, P-47, and F-4U at the top of my head. But you get use to it. I flew German fighters all night last night and they're very solid gunner platforms. Go figure.

This is NOT the FM we'll be getting in BoB peeps. It is but a small fraction of the intracacies in the full version that we're all expecting. So, I've accepted this for what it really is.... a test-bed in something that is now considered "old-hat", for somthing much bigger down the road. Battle of Britain!

Unfortunatly, we PTO fans are paying for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Tvrdi
07-15-2005, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
When they score a dogfight kill, its a Sim.

When they get shot down, or lose at the Races, its just a Game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

its a game...or you need some kind of rehabilitation to realize that?

msalama
07-15-2005, 10:35 PM
Unfortunatly, we PTO fans are paying for it.

You (or should I say "you", because I just can't see this post as a majority opinion) PTO fans have a chance of helping Oleg out in getting his FMs right - and thus contributing to the overall effort - and you call that "paying"?

Well, there's always the v.3.04. No need to "pay" at all unless you feel like it, y'know...

GR142-Pipper
07-15-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
After all, the combat fliers have all had to face a new learning curve in order to acclimatise - what's so special about you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Real combat pilots never had to acclimate to excessive trimming their real aircraft as is demanded in this game. 4.01 trim tasking is simply unrealistic.

As I've said before, try and trim for straight and level flight (no heading changes) with aircraft that have no aileron trim. Now take a look at the yaw ball. You'll find that you're nearly always out of trim (ie. the aircraft is crabbing...sometimes slightly...sometimes more than slightly). When this occurs, the plane in real life would be called "out of rig". This condition is quite prevalent with the 4.01 release.

GR142-Pipper

Fehler
07-16-2005, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
After all, the combat fliers have all had to face a new learning curve in order to acclimatise - what's so special about you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Real combat pilots never had to acclimate to excessive trimming their real aircraft as is demanded in this game. 4.01 trim tasking is simply unrealistic.

As I've said before, try and trim for straight and level flight (no heading changes) with aircraft that have no aileron trim. Now take a look at the yaw ball. You'll find that you're nearly always out of trim (ie. the aircraft is crabbing...sometimes slightly...sometimes more than slightly). When this occurs, the plane in real life would be called "out of rig". This condition is quite prevalent with the 4.01 release.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try cruise settings instead of combat or emergency power settings.

BSS_Vidar
07-16-2005, 01:45 AM
Pipper is right. Even in level flight, the inclanometer (the ball) is almost a full diameter deflection to the right, or in a crab. The ball should only slide out to the right when in a constant state of flight in a climb due to P-factor. This is where the rule of thumb "Step on the Ball" comes from.
This happens with mainly with single-engine aircraft, but multi-engine aircraft designed with a criticle engine (both rotate the same direction) have the same effect. In straight-and-level flight, all vectors of flight are equal; Therefore, torque and P-factors are 'suppose' to be nulled out leaving the ball centered.

heloguy
07-16-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
After all, the combat fliers have all had to face a new learning curve in order to acclimatise - what's so special about you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Real combat pilots never had to acclimate to excessive trimming their real aircraft as is demanded in this game. 4.01 trim tasking is simply unrealistic.

As I've said before, try and trim for straight and level flight (no heading changes) with aircraft that have no aileron trim. Now take a look at the yaw ball. You'll find that you're nearly always out of trim (ie. the aircraft is crabbing...sometimes slightly...sometimes more than slightly). When this occurs, the plane in real life would be called "out of rig". This condition is quite prevalent with the 4.01 release.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm assuming you have some experience rigging anything ever on an aircraft. If so, you'd know how a trim system works and how, in most cases, it's a little tab that uses airflow to push a control surface in a certain direction, or it changes the angle of attack on the entire control surface.

On a more sophisticated aircraft(let's say, after 1933) without a mechanically operated system by the pilot, there was usually a tab that could be adjusted by the ground crew simply by bending. Obviously this doesn't compensate for all airspeeds and engine settings, so it was just adjusted for cruise. Cruise doesn't just mean straight and level, it includes power, mixture, and prop settings as well, which are something modeled in this game.

If you want the ball to be centered while cruising on a plane without a mechanical trim system, you need to do some research on that particular plane to find out its settings. Or you could just do what a lot of pilots did, which is hold in a little pedal. These aircraft weren't meant to be flown like a King Air with the pilots asleep enroute.

GR142-Pipper
07-16-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by heloguy:
I'm assuming you have some experience rigging anything ever on an aircraft. If so, you'd know how a trim system works and how, in most cases, it's a little tab that uses airflow to push a control surface in a certain direction, or it changes the angle of attack on the entire control surface

On a more sophisticated aircraft(let's say, after 1933) without a mechanically operated system by the pilot, there was usually a tab that could be adjusted by the ground crew simply by bending. Obviously this doesn't compensate for all airspeeds and engine settings, so it was just adjusted for cruise. Cruise doesn't just mean straight and level, it includes power, mixture, and prop settings as well, which are something modeled in this game. That's true. However and as my remark states above, this is for aircraft which DO have rudder trim but don't have aileron trim. If you do have mechanical rudder trim, crabbing should be able to be trimmed out completely.


If you want the ball to be centered while cruising on a plane without a mechanical trim system, you need to do some research on that particular plane to find out its settings. Or you could just do what a lot of pilots did, which is hold in a little pedal. These aircraft weren't meant to be flown like a King Air with the pilots asleep enroute. No one is expecting King Air-like trim capabilities. However, it's also very unrealistic to have an "in trim" aircraft condition which is so narrow as to be seldom occurring. What's clear here is that when implementing the "torque" effects the trim bands were simply overlooked. It's a situation that's easily correctable with a little code changing.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
07-16-2005, 04:51 PM
heloguy:: "These aircraft weren't meant to be flown like a King Air with the pilots asleep."

That must be SiG Worthy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Barra-Cuda
07-16-2005, 04:56 PM
Ok - Just to change this discussion a tad bit while still sticking to the 4.01m FM bashing theme. Me and an other pilot today tried to take off from a Carrier with the F4U-1A with a minimal weapon load (25% fuel), (2x500lb bombs) or just one 175Gal tank and forgive me if I did something wrong but the beast will not fly no matter what combination of flaps, mixture, throttle, tailwheel etc..... was used. Atleast with 3.04 I could get in the air with a droptank and a few rockets or bombs. Have not yet tried other planes but what sense was putting out Pacific Fighters and now a FM that makes carrier takeoffs with weapons useless? F4U's were capable of taking off with a minimal load out were they not????????????? Let the bashing continue till we beat it into the ground! My opinion has not been changed. I still think 4.01 is a step backwards. As I said before it is "My" opinion. If some of you Astronauts could please try this and post instructions on how to get that plane off the deck with a minimal loadout I would certainly thank you and eat my words on this topic. I should have added this is in DF mode with no wind across the deck - sorry for the omission.

BSS_Vidar
07-16-2005, 05:20 PM
Keep in mind Barra-Cuda that in DF servers, there is no wind over the deck either by ships movement and/or weather forces. I have been able to get a Corsair off the deck with 6 rockets and 1000lbs of bombs, or 6 rockets with 175 gal drop tank in DF servers. The trick is you have to taxi all the way aft first for a full deck-run. (good luck with this braking system now being really bad in tight places). Run you power to full, prop pitch to 100%. Keep your flaps up until you reach the island structure then start dropping them to the Landing possition in 1 sec increments. Get the gear up as soon as weight-off-wheels. You have to 'Cowboy up' and let the plane settle a bit and get into ground effect to build up speed. Start retracting flaps as soon as you have rate-of-climb to help cut drag, and build up more speed.

heloguy
07-16-2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
However, it's also very unrealistic to have an "in trim" aircraft condition which is so narrow as to be seldom occurring.
GR142-Pipper

So far, when cruising with the FW-190A or BF-109G, which are the two aircraft I've flown with the new FM primarily, I haven't noticed too much of a problem of having to step on the ball when at cruise speed and the throttle backed off to cruise. I've flown the P-51 and P-47 a bit, and I haven't noticed too much of a problem once I have it trimmed until I make power changes. Could be just me though.

Bottom line, I've found, is I can trim a P-51 to take a leak, but not a 109. That sum it up?

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by heloguy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
However, it's also very unrealistic to have an "in trim" aircraft condition which is so narrow as to be seldom occurring.
GR142-Pipper

So far, when cruising with the FW-190A or BF-109G, which are the two aircraft I've flown with the new FM primarily, I haven't noticed too much of a problem of having to step on the ball when at cruise speed and the throttle backed off to cruise. I've flown the P-51 and P-47 a bit, and I haven't noticed too much of a problem once I have it trimmed until I make power changes. Could be just me though.

Bottom line, I've found, is I can trim a P-51 to take a leak, but not a 109. That sum it up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really. The 109 has no mechanical rudder trim. To restate the issue, the "centered ball" condition on aircraft with mechanical trim is far too narrow and/or far too easy to generate an out-of-trim condition. It shouldn't be.

GR142-Pipper

HelSqnProtos
07-17-2005, 02:08 PM
agreed, crabbing can be a problem. I also agree with the poster on adjusting trim band codes. This is an area that needs some improvement.

Aileron406
07-17-2005, 04:23 PM
Hello all. I must say that reading through your posts have been quite interesting. I am also an Air Racer along with Barra-Cuda. I am sorry to see such a difference in opinion. I am curious though about everyones perception of reality and what exactly is true to life. Cuda has supplied his OPINION of what he feels of the changes in this simulation, and gets responses of a basic hostile and rude nature just because we use the simulation for apparently something other than what it was designed for.

So fine, now we question the realism for what the simulation is designed for. Combat. A post was made questioning the ability to get an F4U off the carrier deck with minimal ordinance and almost no fuel. (real world events - you go nowhere with 25% fuel - especially combat). The response was it could be done by taxiing completely to the aft section, full power and flaps. Granted - but where is the realism. True WWII carrier ops had 30 - 50 aircraft on deck at any given time in preparation for flight ops WITH ordinance. Taxiing to the aft section WAS NOT an option, nor should it be within this simulation. As in a true life situation, an F4U had tremendous power and should make it off from mid deck with minimal ordinance, fuel and flaps as history has shown.

I guess what I don't understand is, Why is it that when the changes adversly effect what we use the simulation for - we are whiners and we should "turn if off or practice" like we dont already, but when the same changes adversly effect the combat aspect of the simulation it is apparently acceptible because it can be done regardless of how unrealistic it is.

heloguy
07-17-2005, 04:24 PM
Do we have data on trim bands? How did you measure this value to determine it to be out of limits?

BSS_Vidar
07-17-2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Aileron406:
A post was made questioning the ability to get an F4U off the carrier deck with minimal ordinance and almost no fuel. (real world events - you go nowhere with 25% fuel - especially combat). The response was it could be done by taxiing completely to the aft section, full power and flaps. Granted - but where is the realism. True WWII carrier ops had 30 - 50 aircraft on deck at any given time in preparation for flight ops WITH ordinance. Taxiing to the aft section WAS NOT an option, nor should it be within this simulation. As in a true life situation, an F4U had tremendous power and should make it off from mid deck with minimal ordinance, fuel and flaps as history has shown.

Aileron,

You didn't take in everything I said M8. This tecnique is to adapth to a "NO WIND" senerio which is involved in a Dog Fight(DF) server. The boat doesn't move, and there isn't any wind modeled in this game. This is to work around that, but it IS still bad in-game. BTW I used 50% fuel for the Warbirds Zekes & Wildcats Saipan mission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Furthermore, If you were to take a fully loaded Corsair in real life on a motionless carrier with no wind, you're not going anywhere bud. WWII carriers turned into the wind for launch and recovery ops. The wind generated was in excess of 35-50 kts down the deck. i.e. 15-25kt winds plus, 20-25kt carrier speed. The Corsair would only need to generater 40kts of 'deck speed' to obtain at least 90kts of airspeed to get airborne.

If you want to test this, try loading up a Corsair with the same ordinance in a Coop mission. There's still no wind, but the movement of the carrier generates some wind down the deck for you, which makes a hugh difference in take-off performance, as well as landing roll distance during recovery.

LEXX_Luthor
07-17-2005, 05:13 PM
Aileron406::
Cuda has supplied his OPINION of what he feels of the changes in this simulation, and gets responses of a basic hostile and rude nature
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Cuda said nothing about this sim. Cuda may be trying to talk about an "easy" to fly Racing sim. We don't know what product that may be. Its the possible attempt at Deception that attracts unfriendly reception.

Cuda::
Our race courses are almost impossible to fly thru with the amount of precise control needed for 12-16 planes to race within a few meters of each other. 4.01 has ruined it for me.
Excellent, as it should. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

This is what Easy settings are made for. Although I have not tried the Easy settings in 4.01, I would hope with New FM there is finally a difference between the difficulty settings (I hope I am right about this or I will soil my diapers again).

Do we finally wish to talk about Easy settings. Anybody?

Anybody?

BSS_Vidar
07-17-2005, 05:21 PM
Keep in mind, The roll out during carrier landings in a DF server have been modified to facilitate the No Wind problem. Carriers in those days only allowed about 20-30 yards of arresting gear run-out.

Oleg emailed me saying that the cable had to be allowed to run out further so that the Damage Model(DM) of the aircraft wouldn't be overwhelmed in DF servers. If they didn't, the short run-out would rip the back-end of the aircraft off.

FoolTrottel
07-17-2005, 05:28 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to have a tool with which we could change the control sensitivities more easily than trying to manually edit conf.ini?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/IL2-Sticks-01.jpg

Chuck_Older
07-17-2005, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Aileron406:
Hello all. I must say that reading through your posts have been quite interesting. I am also an Air Racer along with Barra-Cuda. I am sorry to see such a difference in opinion. I am curious though about everyones perception of reality and what exactly is true to life. Cuda has supplied his OPINION of what he feels of the changes in this simulation, and gets responses of a basic hostile and rude nature just because we use the simulation for apparently something other than what it was designed for.

So fine, now we question the realism for what the simulation is designed for. Combat. A post was made questioning the ability to get an F4U off the carrier deck with minimal ordinance and almost no fuel. (real world events - you go nowhere with 25% fuel - especially combat). The response was it could be done by taxiing completely to the aft section, full power and flaps. Granted - but where is the realism. True WWII carrier ops had 30 - 50 aircraft on deck at any given time in preparation for flight ops WITH ordinance. Taxiing to the aft section WAS NOT an option, nor should it be within this simulation. As in a true life situation, an F4U had tremendous power and should make it off from mid deck with minimal ordinance, fuel and flaps as history has shown.

I guess what I don't understand is, Why is it that when the changes adversly effect what we use the simulation for - we are whiners and we should "turn if off or practice" like we dont already, but when the same changes adversly effect the combat aspect of the simulation it is apparently acceptible because it can be done regardless of how unrealistic it is.

Cuda has supplied a lot of his own hostility in this thread, I know he's your friend and all but be objective here.

One of the basic problems with this topic is simply with the way he did it: a simple statement- This is too hard

Now that's opinion, granted. But consider this a moment~

This forum "Oleg's Ready Room" is for discussion of game bugs and issues, and potential issues.

You say Cuda voiced his opinion, so what's the problem, but Cuda aired his opinions as if they were more than just that, and he did it on a forum in which opinion carries about as much weight as a feather

He completely ignores some things, most of all the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fact</span> that this patch and all future patches are for introducing aspects of new flight modelling parameters for oleg's new Sim, Battle of Britain

The pylons are there. That doesn't mean that fligh modelling will be tweaked to cater to the air racers now. This sim is now a testbed for BoB, like it or lump it.

His opinions on what the new FM does for the sim and it's participation ignores that utterly. To me personally he began as rude and in effect told me to hold my water because I didn't know what I was talking about, because I asked him a question. I had to brow-beat him for him to answer me. That tells me he didn't want to get help, he wanted to fight. I'd like to point out that I provided the most input on solving his problem.

The only clue about the real issue was dropped when he mentioned the planes darting around. Well, some really did that in real life, but not the P-51, and in the sim, it's possible, very possible to take off straight in a P-51. If anyone thinks that's BS, step up and call me a liar and be done with it, otherwise you're ging to have to look closer to home for the issue- namely the pilot and how he or she interacts with the controls

Instead of asking if there's a control configuration, instead of setting a groundwork to try and solve the issue, it's straight to "hey this isn't right, please fix"

I fly P-40s a lot offline. When I first flew one in 4.01, I ground looped it from pilot induced oscillation- except I wasn't yanking the stick. I added filtering to the pitch axis and problem solved. But Cuda cannot possibly have a pilot related issue, it MUST be the sim

I think if you objectively consider the exchanges that took place, you'll see that Cuda could have helped himself a lot more than he did in this thread.

Concerning the carrier ops:
the game engine is pushed far to the edge of it's envelope. We all know it. Some concessions have been made. If you wish to discuss problems with realism, we should start with aircraft I beleive we are both more familiar with- the P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif there are concessions made in the P-51 that make the aircraft worse than it was in real life- no fuel tank selection is the biggest. That's a game engine deficiency, been here since AEP. Same with mix control for the P-51. It's something the game can't really handle correctly in that aircraft, because the basic engine is old.

Coming full circle, that's why this sim is now a testbed for the next simulation- this sim has reached it's potential and is found lacking.

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2005, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by heloguy:
Do we have data on trim bands? How did you measure this value to determine it to be out of limits? Because a simple turn or gathering a little airspeed will cause the trim ball to really move. It's just not how planes work.

In addition, most pilots can very closely trim the aircraft based on feel. However, even when the plane feels in trim, a quick look at the yaw ball and it's way off.

Too bad we don't have my favorite low-tech device for a really accurate trim....the good ol' yaw string (did you use these Vidar? It works great...stream it from the radome...trim it straight back with the rudder trim...perfect trim every time.)

GR142-Pipper

msalama
07-18-2005, 03:13 AM
Pipper,

1) Are we talking about planes without aileron trim only?

2) Which types are affected?

Because I'm gonna do some testing myself later on...

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2005, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a tool with which we could change the control sensitivities more easily than trying to manually edit conf.ini?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/IL2-Sticks-01.jpg

Hey I like that utility! It's even got one or two things the IN-GAME STICK SETTINGS UTILITY
doesn't!

Not that I can't do the same between the one in the game coupled with a file save and
restore strategy at less effort.

EDIT:ADD: Hold on. That utility is missing a critical part that the in-game one has.
The test box that shows how your settings actually affect the way stick movement is
interpreted. IE, with the in-game utility you are not adjusting blind.

Barra-Cuda
07-18-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Cuda has supplied a lot of his own hostility in this thread, I know he's your friend and all but be objective here.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Well - Just because I don't like something does not make my posting hostile - I used no fowl language and called no-one names in fact you Chucky are the only one here that brought up the fact you know plenty of names to use. In addition if any one here is displaying a poor attitude it would be you as I find your postings a bit on the hostile side. You don't like what I said and it shows.</span>

One of the basic problems with this topic is simply with the way he did it: a simple statement- This is too hard

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">This is BS if you don't like what I said LUMP it! (in your own words) I don't care if you like what I said or how I said it. What I said I meant - I do not like the FM weather it is used for racing or dogfighting makes no difference.</span>

Now that's opinion, granted. But consider this a moment~

This forum "Oleg's Ready Room" is for discussion of game bugs and issues, and potential issues.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Really?????????</span>

You say Cuda voiced his opinion, so what's the problem, but Cuda aired his opinions as if they were more than just that, and he did it on a forum in which opinion carries about as much weight as a feather

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">As I said you don't like what I said and it shows.</span>

He completely ignores some things, most of all the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fact</span> that this patch and all future patches are for introducing aspects of new flight modelling parameters for oleg's new Sim, Battle of Britain

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">So what! that has nothing to do with the fact I dont like the FM</span>

The pylons are there. That doesn't mean that fligh modelling will be tweaked to cater to the air racers now. This sim is now a testbed for BoB, like it or lump it.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Guess what Chucky - the same FM is used in dogfighting and I don't like it there either - This is not a Racing vs DF FM issue that you seem to have somehow interpreted it as. It is a purely 3.04 vs 4.01 FM issue - just because I fly primarily to race does not mean I like it as a DF FM I don't - Am I getting Thru? I don't like the FM be it for Racing or Dogfighting.</span>

His opinions on what the new FM does for the sim and it's participation ignores that utterly. To me personally he began as rude and in effect told me to hold my water because I didn't know what I was talking about, because I asked him a question. I had to brow-beat him for him to answer me. That tells me he didn't want to get help, he wanted to fight. I'd like to point out that I provided the most input on solving his problem.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">You have solved nothing - I am and always have been able to take off in a fairly straight line but with 4.01 it is unrealistic in my opinion the amount of torque effects and in-flight the planes are too mushy/drifty even when trimmed out fairly well. (My Opinion)</span>

The only clue about the real issue was dropped when he mentioned the planes darting around. Well, some really did that in real life, but not the P-51, and in the sim, it's possible, very possible to take off straight in a P-51. If anyone thinks that's BS, step up and call me a liar and be done with it, otherwise you're ging to have to look closer to home for the issue- namely the pilot and how he or she interacts with the controls

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">I agree it is possible but it should be the norn for a straight takeoff vice what it is now - a rare occasion to get a nice straight takeoff. </span>

Instead of asking if there's a control configuration, instead of setting a groundwork to try and solve the issue, it's straight to "hey this isn't right, please fix"

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">I wonder how all this has effected the formation aerobatic teams that use this sim for a purpose it was also not intended for???? I am sure they are having trouble with it as well.</span>

I fly P-40s a lot offline. When I first flew one in 4.01, I ground looped it from pilot induced oscillation- except I wasn't yanking the stick. I added filtering to the pitch axis and problem solved. But Cuda cannot possibly have a pilot related issue, it MUST be the sim

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Ok - maybe I can do some playing with my control settings and maybe a small improvement can be realized but I have to ask what about people who buy this sim for the first time hook up a controller and crash repeatedly trying to take off then just uninstall/give up on it cause they have to spend two weeks playing with control set ups to get it close to useable - IT SHOULD BE FLYABLE/PLAYABLE out of the box with out having to spend two years practicing.</span>

I think if you objectively consider the exchanges that took place, you'll see that Cuda could have helped himself a lot more than he did in this thread.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">As you stated I am not and was not interested in solving my problem here on this post - I did not ask for help - what makes you think I wanted any??? My post was my opinion of the new FM and No I don't like it.</span>

Concerning the carrier ops:
the game engine is pushed far to the edge of it's envelope. We all know it. Some concessions have been made. If you wish to discuss problems with realism, we should start with aircraft I beleive we are both more familiar with- the P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif there are concessions made in the P-51 that make the aircraft worse than it was in real life- no fuel tank selection is the biggest. That's a game engine deficiency, been here since AEP. Same with mix control for the P-51. It's something the game can't really handle correctly in that aircraft, because the basic engine is old.

Coming full circle, that's why this sim is now a testbed for the next simulation- this sim has reached it's potential and is found lacking.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Well I certainly agree with that!!!!! v4.01 is at the moment the reason (MY OPINION)</span>

FoolTrottel
07-18-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a tool with which we could change the control sensitivities more easily than trying to manually edit conf.ini?

Hey I like that utility! It's even got one or two things the IN-GAME STICK SETTINGS UTILITY
doesn't!

Not that I can't do the same between the one in the game coupled with a file save and
restore strategy at less effort.

EDIT:ADD: Hold on. That utility is missing a critical part that the in-game one has.
The test box that shows how your settings actually affect the way stick movement is
interpreted. IE, with the in-game utility you are not adjusting blind.

Yes, and No. In-Game you can adjust and view the result ... but only for the first controller! This tool's main purpose is to make it possible to to set sensitivity for multiple controllers!

(Have been thinkin' about implementing such a view thing ... but ... too much work for too little result ... Meaning, okay, you can view the result ... but, does that mean you know what the controller will behave like while flying?)

A.K.Davis
07-18-2005, 02:54 PM
I used no fowl language

I have photographic proof that you did buddy!

http://www.strangezoo.com/images/content/11735.jpg

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 03:39 PM
So, just where is this IL Sticks program?

Or is it made up.

FoolTrottel
07-18-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
So, just where is this IL Sticks program?

Or is it made up.

It's not made up.
It's in its development stage.
Testing and such.

LEXX_Luthor
07-18-2005, 05:38 PM
So has Cuda posted yet about using Easy settings for Racing planes a few meters from each other?

Cuda::
Our race courses are almost impossible to fly thru with the amount of precise control needed for 12-16 planes to race within a few meters of each other. 4.01 has ruined it for me.
Excellent, as it should. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

This is what Easy settings are made for.

Blackdog5555
07-18-2005, 08:46 PM
A Yak 9 was just lost at a Reno air race. Torque pulled it off the runway during takioff.. No kidding. it hit the grass and flipped. well...really need differential braking to keep em straight..I have no problem taking off straight, full power.

but, Bro, Kinda little kid whine...I went to the online air race on HL twice and it was like a gradeschool playground with people playing deathrace 2000 with bombers...not my cup of tea.

4.01 is an excellant step forward. BTW nobody races in a WWII warbirds with full armour and guns IRL. yes, should fly heavy..

Barra-Cuda
07-19-2005, 01:29 AM
Well I have tonight been debating with myself about posting maybe another way to look at this and a bit more food for thought.

Real Pilots in Real Planes have many more senses to draw upon. They have a much wider/ better view and are physically connected/in contact with the plane thus they can literally feel, hear and see what the plane is doing - we do not have that ability even with force feedback sticks and dual/triple monitor setups we are still severly limited, flying from an arm chair that does not relay the forces of flight. Now maybe 4.01 FM is correct or closer to real life (that does not change my opinion of it) and here is the punch line - Has 4.01 taken the flight model to a level that we have to have the additional sensory inputs a real pilot would have to be able to benefit from the new FM? Has it gone too far? Is it possible to take it too far and still have a playable game from an arm chair with limited sensory inputs? If we have a truely correct FM does it not make sense our other senses should be equal to what a real pilot would feel in a real plane????

Additionally it will most likely please some of you to hear the Racing site and Racing server is no more. This due to hosting issues and forum compatability issues. The 4.01 FM added an additional nail to the coffin in that most racers did not care for it much and participation had dropped considerably since upgrading to 4.01 - Flying 4.01FM with the torque feature off improved the situation but we too, just as the DF sector do not like flying in a dumbed down mode.

In Reply to what the above poster said about racing and not his cup of tea - The server was open to all during the first 3 days of every week so that everyone could experience it to some degree and that brought with it many problems with shooting (not allowed) and un-organized racing. Toward the end of each week the server was PW protected so only serious racers can practice and participate ( A completely different situation than what you mention above) too bad you did not experience it in the later part of the week when it is organized. Now you no longer have the chance.

Cuda Out

LEXX_Luthor
07-19-2005, 03:09 AM
Awsum post Cuda. Thanks. With one comedic exception, all the "real life" pilots here say New FM is an approximation of the real thing but its closer now than it ever was.

Many of these warbirds were converted into radio controlled target drones or flying bombs, and people could still make them take off by remote control, somehow. This could make interesting discussion and is something I never thought about before. Still, no computer game FM anywhere is so advanced that it needs real pilot sensory inputs.

Cuda::
Additionally it will most likely please some of you to hear the Racing site and Racing server is no more. This due to hosting issues and forum compatability issues. The 4.01 FM added an additional nail to the coffin in that most racers did not care for it much and participation had dropped considerably since upgrading to 4.01 - Flying 4.01FM with the torque feature off improved the situation but we too, just as the DF sector do not like flying in a dumbed down mode.
Old FM "hard" settings were already a dumbed down gaming mode.

LEXX_Luthor
07-19-2005, 03:47 AM
This board keeps going down?

Cuda::
we too, just as the DF sector do not like flying in a dumbed down mode.
Cuda, this only shows us that you are having serious Emotional Trauma adjusting to PC gaming with lower difficulty settings, what you call "dumbed down" settings. This is the Psycho Trauma of experienced Old Timer PC computer gamers finding they need to learn and master new skills. Consider this a Challenge to master.

For the specific purpose of Wingtip to Wingtip Racing, I suggest the Easy settings would be no less realistic than Hard settings, as no pilot could fly these things in such a manner, except maybe the few very best pilots. Who here will post they have the same skills as Chuck Yeager or Erich Hartmann, although we all use Hartmann's plane skin, and call it our own.

heloguy
07-19-2005, 05:50 AM
I'm no Hartmann, but I'll bet I could give Snoopy a run for his money.

A.K.Davis
07-19-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
Has 4.01 taken the flight model to a level that we have to have the additional sensory inputs a real pilot would have to be able to benefit from the new FM? Has it gone too far? Is it possible to take it too far and still have a playable game from an arm chair with limited sensory inputs?

This is very easy to answer. No. Despite the lack of sensory input, I am finding the game entirely flyable from my own arm chair. In fact, my gunnery has improved and I find landings easier. Take-offs are a bit more tricky, but I am now able to do straight runs in most the aircraft.

So there you have it. You question is resolved. At least one player (a mediocre one at that) does not find the new FM overwhelming, despite the lack of additional sensory input (perhaps you've forgotten that vision is our most important sense?). I imagine I am far from alone.

So what does this mean? Clearly you need to narrow your examination of the current FM from the broader issue of all players to your own personal interaction with the sim, and take a look at why you are having such a hard time when so many others are not.

arjisme
07-19-2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Barra-Cuda:
Flying 4.01FM with the torque feature off improved the situation but we too, just as the DF sector do not like flying in a dumbed down mode. It's a shame your racing server has died. To the extent that the 4.01 FM contributed to this, it is truly a shame, because it was completely avoidable. Two choices were available to address the issue: revert to the previous version of code or set the torque settings in game to Easy. What is unfortunate is that it is apparently an ego-killer to put any setting to Easy. The irony is that your original argument was the Realistic settings were not realistic -- that they were overdone. Given you are correct, the Easy setting in game should have given you what you consider to be a more realistic sim.

Your other points (about pilot sensory feedback) was excellent. Definately something I think people should (and actually do) think about.

msalama
07-19-2005, 11:15 AM
Spot on Mr. Davis!

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 03:18 PM
Real combat pilots never had to acclimate to excessive trimming their real aircraft as is demanded in this game. 4.01 trim tasking is simply unrealistic.

The problem with the trim system is that we are using keys to control the trim with lag to avoid 'trim on a slider' exploits that allow the trim to be changed unrealistically quickly. But in having trim with lag on keys only we lose the ease of interactivity with the trim system. Quite how you solve the problem without making exploits possible I don't know. Even having the wheels visually represented as in X-Plane doesn't really solve the problem as in real life a combat pilot could give a few tweaks and be set. I think it might end up being one we chalk up to deficiencies in modelling via a 2D screen, a keyboard and a small joystick. With a VR headset and a data glove things might be different. The only other solution I can think of is having like WB III had - a button that trims you level (or moves trim on those axes that had it, to the extent that it is possible), with the option of the lagged trim for those who want to deliberately be out-of-trim a bit for some reason. It wouldn't be as interactive as fully authentic (but essentially impossible to implement without exploits online) trim, but might make adjustments for straight-and-level easier at any power setting. Maybe it is something to suggest for BoB, with the ability to do it being a difficulty and server-side option?

Chuck_Older
07-19-2005, 06:43 PM
Cuda-

What is so hard to understand?

State your problems
back up what you find is wrong with a little proof
Ask what you can do
Try it out
Ask for more help if it doesn't work
Explore all avenues


You didn't do it! You came here and said X Y and Z is wrong, please fix it.

Trouble is, you never proved anything was wrong!

"MY feelings" on 4.01, right? Well whoop-de-do. This isn't the "Respect my gut feelings" forum, have you noticed that?

This sim is now a testbed for aspects of the flight model for BoB that can be introduced into this sim. End of story.

As far as the "Chucky" regurgitation- it won't work. First off, my name isn't Chuck_Older, he was an ace with the Flying Tigers and the USAAF, credited with 18 victories overall, 8 in the USAAF, and he was also a Judge postwar. Second, I really can't be bothered to care about your opinion of much, given your propensity to complain first and explore your options later, least of all your opinion about me. My name's Chris. Lots of things rhyme with "Chris", use your imagination. The PM button is right there, do your worst, but I don't want to hear you cry about it after you get your reply

GR142-Pipper
07-19-2005, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Awsum post Cuda. Thanks. With one comedic exception, all the "real life" pilots here say New FM is an approximation of the real thing but its closer now than it ever was. That's certainly not my view. The trim inputs are nothing short of excessive. Furthermore, the planes fly in "out of rig" conditions much of the time...even those with mechanical trim.

I think that Oleg and company are trying to factor in complexities that are better left out of the game. This is especially so given the inaccuracy of many of the aircraft flight models. Fix them first and worry about trim/torque matters some other time.

....just my take

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-19-2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
So what does this mean? Clearly you need to narrow your examination of the current FM from the broader issue of all players to your own personal interaction with the sim, and take a look at why you are having such a hard time when so many others are not. The question is a bit more far-reaching than that. The real question is: "Is the new flight model more representative of the actual aircraft flight characteristics than was represented in previous versions?". Is the new flight model different? Yes. But different is not the same as better.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
07-19-2005, 11:00 PM
Pippers::
That's certainly not my view. The trim inputs are nothing short of excessive. Furthermore, the planes fly in "out of rig" conditions much of the time...even those with mechanical trim.
Then you need to read up on aircraft trim -- that means read and study and is not meant as Insult. Or, you can ask others here who may have more patience than I with highly experienced Old Timers who behave as if they don't want to learn about WW2 aircraft or refuse to try the Easy settings available to them.

Barra-Cuda
07-20-2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Cuda-

This sim is now a testbed for aspects of the flight model for BoB that can be introduced into this sim. End of story.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Who died and made you God? I believe Oleg and Company are the ones that decide How and When to "End The Story" </span>

As far as the "Chucky" regurgitation- it won't work. First off, my name isn't Chuck_Older, he was an ace with the Flying Tigers and the USAAF, credited with 18 victories overall, 8 in the USAAF, and he was also a Judge postwar. Second, I really can't be bothered to care about your opinion of much, given your propensity to complain first and explore your options later, least of all your opinion about me. My name's Chris. Lots of things rhyme with "Chris", use your imagination. The PM button is right there, do your worst, but I don't want to hear you cry about it after you get your reply

<span class="ev_code_RED">As I stated before - seems to me you "Chris/Clashaholic" are the one looking for a fight here - I for one will not stoop that low - not worth my time.</span>

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 12:13 PM
What do you not understand about "Personal Message"?

Send me a PM and I will continue this fascinating diversion with you. This forum is not for hissy fits

joeap
07-20-2005, 01:51 PM
Really I am not having that many problems flying...my AI wingmen are but that's another story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ok, sure I stalled my He-111 trying to drop trops cause I was flying too slow and trying to turn too fast.

But I am supposed to not like the new FM or not be able to fly?? (Full difficulty settings and 100% FM except for external views...toiyng with icons too)

A.K.Davis
07-20-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
So what does this mean? Clearly you need to narrow your examination of the current FM from the broader issue of all players to your own personal interaction with the sim, and take a look at why you are having such a hard time when so many others are not. The question is a bit more far-reaching than that. The real question is: "Is the new flight model more representative of the actual aircraft flight characteristics than was represented in previous versions?". Is the new flight model different? Yes. But different is not the same as better.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, better is a subjective term and I don't see the point in discussing it from that perspective. Is it different? Yes. Why? Because it now includes more real world factors that were not in previous versions of the FM (i.e. it is more complex, just as the FB flight model was more complex than the original Il-2 model). Has this increased complexity resulted in perfect recreation of all characteristics of all aircraft? No, but it has certainly improved many (P-38 torque is prime example). Whether the flight characteristics are more "representative" of the aircraft delves more into the subjective range, as this depends heavily the relative balance between aircraft within the FM (a "representative" Zero to most is one that outturns a Wildcat, not that has X turnrate at Y speed and Z altitude).

Those who feel the new FM is "much less realistic" are generally those who have had their particular favorites negatively affected in relation to others, and vice versa for those who believe it is "perfect," but it cannot be denied that the new FM is more complex. Greater usage of system resources alone makes this apparent.

GR142-Pipper
07-20-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Well, better is a subjective term and I don't see the point in discussing it from that perspective. It's the entire point of why this forum exists.


Is it different? Yes. Why? Because it now includes more real world factors that were not in previous versions of the FM (i.e. it is more complex, just as the FB flight model was more complex than the original Il-2 model). Has this increased complexity resulted in perfect recreation of all characteristics of all aircraft? No, but it has certainly improved many (P-38 torque is prime example). Whether the flight characteristics are more "representative" of the aircraft delves more into the subjective range, as this depends heavily the relative balance between aircraft within the FM (a "representative" Zero to most is one that outturns a Wildcat, not that has X turnrate at Y speed and Z altitude). Just because this game has more complexity in no way means that things are better. They have to be more accurate to be better. If the "complexity items" are mismodeled, then the end result is a step backward not forward.


Those who feel the new FM is "much less realistic" are generally those who have had their particular favorites negatively affected in relation to others, and vice versa for those who believe it is "perfect," but it cannot be denied that the new FM is more complex. Greater usage of system resources alone makes this apparent. IMHO and given the discrepancies in the general flight models of many aircraft here, more complexity is the very last thing this game needs at this point.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-20-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Then you need to read up on aircraft trim -- that means read and study and is not meant as Insult. Or, you can ask others here who may have more patience than I with highly experienced Old Timers who behave as if they don't want to learn about WW2 aircraft or refuse to try the Easy settings available to them. I'm well aware of what aircraft trim is about.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
07-20-2005, 03:46 PM
Pippers::
I'm well aware of what aircraft trim is about. Then you need to review what you claim you know. Or, you can ask others here who may have more patience than I with highly experienced Old Timer computer gamers who behave as if they don't want to learn about WW2 aircraft or refuse to try the Easy settings available to them.

LEXX_Luthor
07-20-2005, 04:38 PM
Lois_Lane::
Easy settings
Lower Difficulty Settings.

We must watch our language. We don't want to frighten away the Old Timers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A.K.Davis
07-20-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Well, better is a subjective term and I don't see the point in discussing it from that perspective. It's the entire point of why this forum exists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an unfortunate reality that the majority believe this.

LEXX_Luthor
07-20-2005, 06:51 PM
Not really, the majority don't even post, or even register, but observe from the Shadows.

Barra-Cuda
07-21-2005, 10:47 AM
Well maybe this is just coincidence or a bad week for IL2 but I remember a time while playing this on Hyperlobby that we were close to or above a 1000 players. In the last week since starting this thread the highest I have seen was this morning being about 350. Maybe it is just a coincidence and maybe not. I will certainly be watching this for if it does not pick back up I would have to assume playability/interest has been effected and if so sales ultimately as well. I could be wrong but................

On a side note is it my imagination or is my CPU running hotter now? I went from 62c to 64c after the 4.01 update (P4 3.0Ghz). Anyone else see this happen? Personally I think it runs too hot with v3.04 but then that is my "Opinion" as well.

Well I eat my words as it is up too 700 players now - that's more like it - maybe they were all on vacation! LOL

Cuda

GR142-Pipper
07-21-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Well, better is a subjective term and I don't see the point in discussing it from that perspective. It's the entire point of why this forum exists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an unfortunate reality that the majority believe this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what's so unfortunate about it? This forum is supposed to be a place where ideas can be discussed and then compared to what's actually going on in the game to determine if a bug, exploit or technique is involved.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
07-21-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The real question is: "Is the new flight model more representative of the actual aircraft flight characteristics than was represented in previous versions?". Is the new flight model different? Yes. But different is not the same as better.

GR142-Pipper

The real answer seems to be "yes". At least that is the opinion of actual pilots.

Views on 4.01 by Experienced Pilots (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=742)

Bearcat99
07-21-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a tool with which we could change the control sensitivities more easily than trying to manually edit conf.ini?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/IL2-Sticks-01.jpg

Hey I like that utility! It's even got one or two things the IN-GAME STICK SETTINGS UTILITY
doesn't!

Not that I can't do the same between the one in the game coupled with a file save and
restore strategy at less effort.

EDIT:ADD: Hold on. That utility is missing a critical part that the in-game one has.
The test box that shows how your settings actually affect the way stick movement is
interpreted. IE, with the in-game utility you are not adjusting blind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have that utility..... IL2 Manager 5.0]IL2 Manager 5.0 (http://www.jeuxdeguerre.com/download.php?id=138)

http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/bearcat/IL2M5.0.jpg


Just go to the HOTAS/TIR section.

FoolTrottel
07-22-2005, 03:59 PM
Bearcat,

I know it's there ...

But this tool might have some extra's over Il2 Manager...

What if you could SAVE sensitivity Profiles?
Per plane if you wish?
Or per pilot?
Or maybe even both?
And 'load'(assign) such a profile to conf.ini?
And switch between them ... ?

Wouldn't that be fun?