PDA

View Full Version : Has PF stretched the IL2 engine too far.....???



Charlie901
10-04-2004, 07:23 PM
Just a discussion here:

Has the IL2 engine with its inherent shortcommings been used for far too long in relation to PF.

Examples: Lack of turbulance, simplified A/C stalls, A.I. that can see through clouds, lack of real world weather fronts, A.I. that collide in formations, A.I. inability to lead shoot in a gental turn, lack of torque effect, etc...

I would love to see, and hopefully will be suprised if some of these issues have been addressed in PF but feel that the IL2 engine is incapable of much more improvement. Remaining optomistic though.

On the flip side I am looking forward to landing on aircraft carriers and anti-shipping missions with a dynamic campaign that will allow us to alter history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Charlie901
10-04-2004, 07:23 PM
Just a discussion here:

Has the IL2 engine with its inherent shortcommings been used for far too long in relation to PF.

Examples: Lack of turbulance, simplified A/C stalls, A.I. that can see through clouds, lack of real world weather fronts, A.I. that collide in formations, A.I. inability to lead shoot in a gental turn, lack of torque effect, etc...

I would love to see, and hopefully will be suprised if some of these issues have been addressed in PF but feel that the IL2 engine is incapable of much more improvement. Remaining optomistic though.

On the flip side I am looking forward to landing on aircraft carriers and anti-shipping missions with a dynamic campaign that will allow us to alter history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
10-04-2004, 07:32 PM
well if thay would have chose another engine it more than likely would have been the BoB that there working on so we be looking at a 2005 2006 release date. building a new game with a new engine takes alot longer.it would be nice to have a little better AI.

PlaneEater
10-04-2004, 07:50 PM
Still, it isn't truly impossible to make changes to the engine. FS2004 is essentially an upgraded version of the same engine used for FS98 and FS2000. Doom3 is the Quake3 core engine with a new graphics module. Heck, even FB is the original IL2 engine with additions.

There's nothing stopping them from pulling out parts of the game code and replacing it with improved and expanded portions, other than the lack of wanting to do so because of the amount of work. Oleg saying certain things are 'impossible' is actually kind of misleading. What he should actually say is that they aren't practical.

I wish they'd change a few simple things:

1) torque
2) fuel management
3) MAKE THE **** FIRE LOOK BETTER (ugly fire and smoke balls)

flyingbullseye
10-04-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Still, it isn't truly impossible to make changes to the engine. FS2004 is essentially an upgraded version of the same engine used for FS98 and FS2000. Doom3 is the Quake3 core engine with a new graphics module. Heck, even FB is the original IL2 engine with additions.

There's nothing stopping them from pulling out parts of the game code and replacing it with improved and expanded portions, other than the lack of wanting to do so because of the amount of work. Oleg saying certain things are 'impossible' is actually kind of misleading. What he should actually say is that they aren't practical.

I wish they'd change a few simple things:

1) torque
2) fuel management
3) MAKE THE **** FIRE LOOK BETTER (ugly fire and smoke balls) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


4) realistic dive characteristics
5) better looking clouds that reach higher than 3000ft

Jason Bourne
10-04-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Examples: Lack of turbulance, simplified A/C stalls, A.I. that can see through clouds, lack of real world weather fronts, A.I. that collide in formations, A.I. inability to lead shoot in a gental turn, lack of torque effect, etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm, i dont know about the rest, but last i checked, turbulence and torque are in fact modled

VW-IceFire
10-04-2004, 09:21 PM
IL2 engine has alot of plusses too...its not all bad. People just center on the bad stuff.

It'll still be a fantastic sim and I'm looking forward to it. Expands the gameplay a bit by adding a new theater...there's lots of life left in it while they build BoB.

owlwatcher
10-04-2004, 09:26 PM
I am quite sure this is pushing the llimits of the game engine and my computer.

Bearcat99
10-04-2004, 09:48 PM
I think tourque is modelled decently.. it could be better in flight but ion the ground it is decent... I do miss the fuel controls though. Even though many American aircraft had auto mix... they all had the option to switch to manual if the pilot wanted or needed to. I cant imagine being in the Pacific with auto mix... there had to be some way to lean out your mix to stretch fuel.I would say that this... PF is probably the last hurrah for the IL2 engine.. but man o man what a hurrah... These FMs and DMs arent perfect by any means but considering that the sim has to be made to run on a multitude of machines...... to please a multitude of nationalities... think about it.. they did a D@MN good job of it.. and it has been a spectacular run IMO.

TAGERT.
10-04-2004, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Just a discussion here: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hence the name forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Has the IL2 engine with its inherent shortcommings been used for far too long in relation to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A better question to ask has any current WWII flight sim done better than IL2's engine. To which the general answer is no.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Examples: Lack of turbulance, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 does model turbulance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
simplified A/C stalls, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say.. Harder to quantify. And to put it into prespective.. Has any current WWII flight sim done better than IL2's engine. To which the general answer is still no.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
A.I. that can see through clouds, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unlike FM's AI will be a never ending evolution. In that your talking about simulating the complex human behavior.. Which is much more complex than any FM. So, yes, AI can allways be improved on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
lack of real world weather fronts, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 has some of the best weather of any WWII flight sim ever.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
A.I. that collide in formations, A.I. inability to lead shoot in a gental turn, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above for AI answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
lack of torque effect, etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 has some of the best torque effects of any WWII flight sim ever.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
I would love to see, and hopefully will be suprised if some of these issues have been addressed in PF but feel that the IL2 engine is incapable of much more improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Heck.. I think you will be suprised when you play IL2! Let alone PF in that it models most of the things you said it doesnt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Remaining optomistic though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Join the club

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
On the flip side I am looking forward to landing on aircraft carriers and anti-shipping missions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Join the club

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
with a dynamic campaign that will allow us to alter history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played IL2? It has a dynamic campaign. As for alter history.. Dont know about that.. Dont know if PF claims to do it either.

Fennec_P
10-04-2004, 10:16 PM
Some of us have probably purchased 10 or more games with the Quake engine or its derivatives, and those games have progressed less than IL-2 has in 3 games and one addon (not counting skin and mission packs).

I'll bet a lot of us even bought Doom 3, irregardless that it brought absolutely nothing new to the table, feature wise.

Personally, I am looking forward to BoB, as it will hopefully fill some of the holes in the already robust IL-2 feature list (my beef is the weather settings). But until then, it seems PF will be more than enough to tide me over, and will certainly be worth the price of admission.

Fritzofn
10-04-2004, 10:54 PM
hehe, engines, well, THE most used engine in the world, to this date is stil Quake 1.

This engine is in almost all games up until Half-Life, Half-life has infact the last moedfied version of the Quake1 engine, it's so tweaked that it's bursting, that's why Unreal team went for theire own engine, cause the Q1 had reached it's limit.
so, now we got Quake3 engine, Unreal 3(?) and Doom 3 (this one is stil bloodthirsty for a good CPU/graphics card), and soon to fall into the ranks, the HL2 engine, can't wait for the games to come that has been made of those engine's...

did u know that "Wartime commander" is made out of the IL-2 engine??? i think that it's to be the BEST ww2 RTS ever made, and most is due to the fact that u got real life damadge on things, not like some stupid graf. (like u can kill a tank with a sniper, if he shoots long enough) i like to call those kind of game CDV-RTS due to the poppular games they have......

IL-2 was made flight sim of the year before it was finnished, the game that actually came closest was X-plane, and that game stil kicks MS's fligthsim 04

u can't compare a game engines life time like u can by a CPU, every 4 years the speed doubles....that is wrong, the speed is actually developed faster then every 4 year.

a game engines lifespan has LOADS of factors, like,
1. how many license to use it ??

2. does it have what it takes to fill licens agreement??

3. is there need to make a new engine, or can existing one be tweaked ??

4. Price and time, it's expensive and time consuming to develop new game engines.

UNLESS, some poor student, is stupid enough to sell he's engine to a faaaar to low price...

5. what will the average computer system be like when game is finnished??? (no need to make a super engine, if u don't have the customers to buy the game....)

Stiglr
10-04-2004, 11:36 PM
Bearcat wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think tourque is modelled decently.. it could be better in flight but ion the ground it is decent... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Bearcat, what are you smoking, bro?

Torque on the ground is just an eye candy effect. You begin to advance the throttle, and ooooooo, look, your wing dips. Then, when you get to the strip and roll, it's all but non-existant. Fact is, you couldn't just gun any of these planes full out, or you'd either ground loop or end up among the planes and facilities lining the runway. You have to advance the throttle slooooowly and smoooothly, and in some planes, still stand on the rudder to one side to keep it straight. Not so in this sim: rudder to the left and rudder to the right seem equally effective, and even the acceleration seems badly off.

In flight, it's absent, too. There is no "pull" if you reduce throttle then slam it to the stops. It's sort of there in stalls, but these are canned effects themselves. It must be in a table of some sort: if speed is X and AoA is Y, then Oleg Banana Peel Snap Stall = true. It's laughable, and all planes seem to exhibit about the same stall and spin behavior.

Old_Canuck
10-05-2004, 12:03 AM
Great answers Tagert.

IMO for what it's worth, Oleg and Team did a great job of balancing the quest for realism with the need for entertainment. Most of us buy these combat sims for entertainment. Even those who criticise the developer's efforts are entertaining themselves so in that respect the sim is a big success on all levels.

VVS-Manuc
10-05-2004, 12:58 AM
FB/AEP was turned towards "easy playing" to please the Johnny Joysticks, who can fly a Warbird even in highest realistic setting now without any problems

CHDT
10-05-2004, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think tourque is modelled decently.. it could be better in flight but ion the ground it is decent... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. On a real Mustang for instance, if you start it without trimming the rudder first and applying too much power too fast, you simply have good chances to finish with your aircraft laying on its back!

Same for the naval aircrafts, there are many vids showing the effect of too strong changes of power at low speed during a landing. --- say hello to the fishes!

CHDT
10-05-2004, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FB/AEP was turned towards "easy playing" to please the Johnny Joysticks, who can fly a Warbird even in highest realistic setting now without any problems <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, I would like too "real settings" as real as they can be.

A warbird can be easily flown within its limits, but near its limits it becomes often a very bad ugly *****!

Charlie901
10-06-2004, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FB/AEP was turned towards "easy playing" to please the Johnny Joysticks, who can fly a Warbird even in highest realistic setting now without any problems <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, I would like too "real settings" as real as they can be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


DITTO !

LuckyBoy1
10-06-2004, 11:47 PM
Over 800 hours in a real Vietnam era tail modified P-51 tells me that the place the torque is undermodelled the most is on the ground. I giggle a bit each time I slam the throttle open at takeoff and it doesn't roll forward and to the right until the prop dings.

If turbulence is undermodelled, then why do so many have trouble taking off in a thunderstorm?

As far as the "real as it can get thing" goes, most simply don't want it regardless of what they publically say. If they really wanted it real, they's be playing more coops and campaigns and less swirl and burl in a dogfight server. The coops would be written differently to reflect the less than prefect weather conditions missions had to be flown in. Coops now are mostly done up so one side has a ground mission and the other side simply gets to abbandon their Army and bombers for dogfight duties; how "full real" is that?

My suggestion is that everyone should relax and just try and see what we actually get. Expect it to be buggy as a roach motel when it comes out. According to EBGames, they'll get the game on November 20th and that is the exact day I suspected they'd release it regardless of whether or not it's ready due to trying to grab the X-mas market.

TAGERT.
10-07-2004, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Bearcat, what are you smoking, bro?

Torque on the ground is just an eye candy effect. You begin to advance the throttle, and ooooooo, look, your wing dips. Then, when you get to the strip and roll, it's all but non-existant. Fact is, you couldn't just gun any of these planes full out, or you'd either ground loop or end up among the planes and facilities lining the runway. You have to advance the throttle slooooowly and smoooothly, and in some planes, still stand on the rudder to one side to keep it straight. Not so in this sim: rudder to the left and rudder to the right seem equally effective, and even the acceleration seems badly off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. One thing for sure.. Given a choice I would take IL2's so called *under modeled* ground torque model over Targetware's Ice Capades ground torque model. I know.. I know.. this is the part where you tells us how the ground model code is not in there yet... And once it is you *feel* it will be ten times better than IL2's. Well yes.. And someday I might win the lotto and date a super-model.. But in the mean time lets judge was they HAVE DONE not what they MIGHT DO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
In flight, it's absent, too. There is no "pull" if you reduce throttle then slam it to the stops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Not true at all! Fly the 109 once. It is very noticeable on that plane and others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's sort of there in stalls, but these are canned effects themselves. It must be in a table of some sort: if speed is X and AoA is Y, then Oleg Banana Peel Snap Stall = true. It's laughable, and all planes seem to exhibit about the same stall and spin behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say that as if some sims don't have separate flight and departure code. The way I understand it, from guys who have written flight models. In games there is 3 main parts to what we call the Flight Model.

1) flight
2) departure
3) ground

Now the departure code takes over from the flight when the flight model detects a stall to spin situation.. It is not allays a smooth transition.. Sims in the past were very noticeable.. Sense TW does not model spins yet, I assume you wont notice it because they don't spin! As for ground.. This code takes over during landing when the wheels make contact.. And this code stops during take off once wheels are off the ground. From what I gather the ground and flight code is more similar than the departure code.. The equations of flight just fall apart once you spin... Thus it is very different code.

But.. who gives a RATS A$$? I mean when you look at the 3 parts of an FM.. i.e. flight, departure, ground.. Which would you care more about? I mean if you could only pick one to mode well.. due to time and budget for example.. Which would you focus most of your time on? I think the answer is clearly flight! In that 95% of the time that is what we are doing.. Taxi is cool and all.. But I would not give up any part of the flight code to make the ground code better.. Assuming I had to choose! As for departure.. It is a fudge from the get go! And all you have to do is learn how to fly and you can avoid it!

So, in summary, ONCE AGAIN Oleg has proved he not only knows how to make the BEST WWII sim.. But knows how to BALANCE his resources in doing so. UNLIKE sims like Targetware.. In that they are allready trying to catch up.. Best thing to do is MODEL ONE THING VERY WELL thus blowing off EVEYRTHING ELSE in the hopes people will take about that ONE THING! Bascilly NO BALANCE WHAT SO EVER! But big gold star for that ONE THING!! But doing ONE THING great does not make a GREAT SIM!

TAGERT.
10-07-2004, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
Great answers Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>TU Canuck!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
IMO for what it's worth, Oleg and Team did a great job of balancing the quest for realism with the need for entertainment. Most of us buy these combat sims for entertainment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
Even those who criticise the developer's efforts are entertaining themselves so in that respect the sim is a big success on all levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yes.. he is funny.. but in a sort of sad way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actionhank1786
10-07-2004, 12:49 AM
I dont think PF is stretching the Il-2 engine too far.It's the first real new product using it, FB isnt really new it's an add on (same theater and whatnot)
I think there's still a lot that can be done with the Il-2 engine, and until something comes out that looks better, and runs as smooth on my computer, it doesnt how far they stretch it.

vonSchnitter
10-07-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vonSchnitter:
Hi Gents,

me thinks, Stiglr has some valid points in his assesment of the Il-2 etc flight model.

However, a picture is wort a thousand words, I'am told so here goes:

A short flic taken from a Navy training movie for intermediate training using SNJs/AT-6s - a plane of around 500 hp take off power

http://ww2airfronts.org/pf/takeoff1.wmv

The sound is a bit off - but I guess you will forgive me.

Gauging by this flic - and some reading - IL-2 models these things a little less demanding than what a trainer of the time would require.

Cheers
vonSchnitter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

torquethrottle
10-07-2004, 07:28 PM
The video is improving by leaps and bounds,(touch and goes!!!?),but the AUDIO just seems hollow and does very little to add to the realism of the otherwise great sim. (FB) You probably would have to tape a real war for the full effect.. Now that PF has gone gold, it may be to late to change anything, if indeed, anything has too. Oh, for the sound of that P&W air cooled engine starting to swing that prop!!!

DL Moffet
10-07-2004, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Just a discussion here: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hence the name forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Has the IL2 engine with its inherent shortcommings been used for far too long in relation to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A better question to ask has any current WWII flight sim done better than IL2's engine. To which the general answer is no.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Examples: Lack of turbulance, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 does model turbulance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
simplified A/C stalls, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say.. Harder to quantify. And to put it into prespective.. Has any current WWII flight sim done better than IL2's engine. To which the general answer is still no.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
A.I. that can see through clouds, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unlike FM's AI will be a never ending evolution. In that your talking about simulating the complex human behavior.. Which is much more complex than any FM. So, yes, AI can allways be improved on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
lack of real world weather fronts, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 has some of the best weather of any WWII flight sim ever.

I disagree there. This is the one and only thing CFS2 has over Il2. Its weather system is bar none the best. It allows you to place multiple cloud layers, of varying thickness at any altitude desired, at a depth chosen by the designer. You can choose precipitation rates. It's tubulance is a tad better. This is an area with much room for improvement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
A.I. that collide in formations, A.I. inability to lead shoot in a gental turn, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above for AI answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
lack of torque effect, etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played the game? IL2 has some of the best torque effects of any WWII flight sim ever.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
I would love to see, and hopefully will be suprised if some of these issues have been addressed in PF but feel that the IL2 engine is incapable of much more improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Heck.. I think you will be suprised when you play IL2! Let alone PF in that it models most of the things you said it doesnt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Remaining optomistic though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Join the club

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
On the flip side I am looking forward to landing on aircraft carriers and anti-shipping missions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Join the club

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
with a dynamic campaign that will allow us to alter history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you played IL2? It has a dynamic campaign. As for alter history.. Dont know about that.. Dont know if PF claims to do it either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DL Moffet
10-07-2004, 08:11 PM
Actually, I would like to state about the AI that there is a problem there, too. Not as bad as in some others (In Jane's I turned mid-air collisions off because squadrons were constantly commiting mass suicide.) but there, none-the-less. I have spent missions where I was more concerned over my katschmarek than the enemy. In one case on the return flight I spent most of it dodging him, spending more time looking over my shoulder to keep an eye on him than navigating.
One problem is that he has us all flying at 3 Ship Vic intervals in Finger 4 formation and making turns in the manner of a Vic rather than that of a Finger 4. The Schwarm Formation developed by Molders was designed for flexibility and the intervals were about 200m between fighters. The turns were radically different from turning in a Vic. Rowan's BoB got it right. The Schwarm will actually shift during a turn of more than a few degrees. If you started on the right-rear of your leader, you'll end on the left-rear, and the other Element / Rotte will invert as well and also shift to the opposite side of the leader. Thus, an initially left echeloned schwarm will be a right echeloned schwarm after the turn. The second element will have turned under the leader. Literally, you climb and turn inside of your leader, then dip back into place on the other side. It works wonderfully well. I did it a few times in training flights in Jane's and wound up right where I should have been without changing my throttle setting. In a Vic turn the inside pilot has to hack throttle, dip his nose to keep an eye on the leader, then punch it in a timely manner to avoid losing position. I'd love to see a change there.

heywooood
10-07-2004, 08:37 PM
http://www.ultra-stretch-away.com/productpic.jpg

..for all of your unsightly stretch marks

heywooood
10-07-2004, 08:55 PM
just so long as they can stretch it enough to make this work...

http://actis.dk/retro/Usa/Corsair/Billeder/4thMarineAW.jpg

..I'll bet that crushed coral dust tasted niiiice.

Aeronautico
10-08-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
As far as the "real as it can get thing" goes, most simply don't want it regardless of what they publically say. If they really wanted it real, they's be playing more coops and campaigns and less swirl and burl in a dogfight server. The coops would be written differently to reflect the less than prefect weather conditions missions had to be flown in. Coops now are mostly done up so one side has a ground mission and the other side simply gets to abbandon their Army and bombers for dogfight duties; how "full real" is that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this deserves to become sticky on every IL-2 board.

nearmiss
10-08-2004, 07:49 AM
Offline players will be in a new world with the PF, if there haven't been improvements in the AI.

The Japanese used turn and burn tactics, because that was what their aircraft were best suited, lightweight,quick, and highly manueverable with wham-O cannons.

Americans lost their bumms trying to turn and burn.

Only after Americans began to discipline themselves to group, b & Z and energy tactics that things began to turn around. Course, they still needed better aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens.