PDA

View Full Version : the problem about FM in il2FB



HQ1
12-28-2003, 07:08 PM
Oleg:
i have almost played this game two years.thank you for creating so great game.she give me so much happy time.but i think there has some problem on FM especially AC's behaving at low speed is abnormal.most plane in FB can make a easy perfect vertical loop with inital speed only 240~260 km/h ias ,if you gently hold back the joystick.do you think this is realistic?now this feature cause b&z tactic more difficult in this game.the b&zed plane can directly and simply stand on its tail at very low speed and making accurate shooting at the enemy plane which diving towards to it.i have read some book about WWII air combat lots article indicate that when the fighter climbs in very large angle at very low speed it keeps stuttering cause the accurate aiming to the target impossible.but i can not see it in this game.what do you think about this?sorry for my poor english.

HQ1
12-28-2003, 07:08 PM
Oleg:
i have almost played this game two years.thank you for creating so great game.she give me so much happy time.but i think there has some problem on FM especially AC's behaving at low speed is abnormal.most plane in FB can make a easy perfect vertical loop with inital speed only 240~260 km/h ias ,if you gently hold back the joystick.do you think this is realistic?now this feature cause b&z tactic more difficult in this game.the b&zed plane can directly and simply stand on its tail at very low speed and making accurate shooting at the enemy plane which diving towards to it.i have read some book about WWII air combat lots article indicate that when the fighter climbs in very large angle at very low speed it keeps stuttering cause the accurate aiming to the target impossible.but i can not see it in this game.what do you think about this?sorry for my poor english.

Fennec_P
12-28-2003, 10:53 PM
It certainly has changed quite a bit since the original IL-2.

In IL-2 flying the bf-109G, you would need around 300km/h in order to perform a loop without stalling. In FB, like you said, it is much less. Planes in general seem to keep their speed much longer while climbing, and lose much less energy at high AOA, in FB than in IL-2.

It does seem kind of wonky that you keep all this energy in low speed manuevering, but that might just be because we are used to how it was in IL-2. I'd assume the flight dynamics would be changed to increase realism.

But it is possible it was changed like that to make the game easier to play. I read a quote about the I-16, that it could "perform a loop with less than 300km/h airspeed", as though it were somehow special. But in FB any plane can do that, even the heaviest, most underpowered ones.

Its too bad you never see WWII planes doing aerobatics, then we'd have more idea of how they should perform at high AOA, low speed.

kweassa
12-29-2003, 01:08 AM
Performing a loop, or performing a Immelmann? Or a tailslide or a hammerhead?

Those are all different maneuvers, which I suspect you are loosley categorizing as a 'loop', which obviously, is not true.

Can you do a nice, controlled loop with only 250km/h initial speed? I know I can't do that.

What I can do is, however, coax my plane to nose straight up, and then fall under a controlled stall to immediately recover control as the low speed snaps the plane around and its nose points towards the ground - that's not a loop.

Going straight vertical and stalling out of it, of course, is also much different from 'climbing at a high angle' and stalling out of that. Try it yourself - maintain something like a 60 degrees climb angle and see what happens. The plane destabilizes just as you said it should.

Anything else than that, then the problem is simply you're not judging the relative E-states correctly. A vertical move which lets the enemy remain within gunnery range, is a failed move.

...

Ofcourse, the frickin' 400~500 meter shots are annoying, yes. Not to mention that torque in FB planes are really weak, so coaxing your plane into a 90 degrees vertical is really easy. Couple that with the super-stable non-nose shaking VVS planes, and it is true to a certain extent shi* happens.

There are times when the enemy just decides to open up some 600~700 meters behind you when you are dragging him up to rope him, and they still manage consecutive hits and knock out a control surface or something. Feh, you'll never see that happening with LW planes - you see them with the frickin' laser ShKAS, nose-mounted ShVAKs and UBS.

But then again, as long as it is that way, all you have to do is simply maintain a larger margin of energy to ensure zoom sequences that are longer and faster. Again, it returns to the skill of the individual, rather than a FM fault.

HQ1
12-29-2003, 04:29 AM
yes it a loop not immelmann or hammerhead.i know what i am talking about.even lots plane can hang on prop at low speed for so long time good pilots also can carry out their B&Z tactics very successfly.but i am curious if that lowspeed aerobatic can be done in real life?i just want this game be more close to reality.

LEXX_Luthor
12-29-2003, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i know what i am talking about....i just want this game be more close to reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HAHAHA you don't know how to write.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

karost
12-29-2003, 08:25 AM
Hi, HQ1

You are not only one who feel like that ‚... me too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FM in IL2 Sturmovik 1.2 is my most favor for me about spin and stall-speed drop when climb. To take off 109G2 with 500 kg bomb or IL-2 with full load is not easy I have to take care my air speed if I not patient I pull up my joystick too fast and then bommm‚...>I think you know what will happen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , Oh and I remember p-39 for that time I was fell terrible for that plane about spin-stall , and I respect p-39 pilots that he can control p-39 batter then me.


As your remembered when IL2 FB first version was release, I read many people post about FM ,it so easy like arcade game , I let the boy ( 9 years old ) take off IL2 with full load he take off the plane so easy


My favor tactic at low speed in IL2- Sturmovik v1.2 I develop tactic to make a small turn at row level (200 m.) it look like climb vertical + ‚"U‚"Ě turn it same like ‚"hammerhead‚"Ě BF 109 G6 is very good for this tactic , at initial state I need speed at 300 km/h at 200 meter then I pull up 70-80 degree vertical when I reach at 500-600 meter my speed drop to 150 km/h then I roll right 90 degree then pull my joystick until I see the ground then release my joystick and let the plane‚'s nose drop by G force at this time my speed lower then 120 km/h and begin lose attitude I open take-off flap and roll left 90 degree to gently pull nose up ‚...I lose attitude fast .while my air speed come back I pull nose to level at 50 meter.

If some one follow to shot me he will crash include my 109 friend who try to cover me too , I can‚'t remember his call sigh for my 109 friend but I still remember he said ( chat ) ‚.... ‚" If you turn like this .. again I will not cover you‚...‚"Ě LOL

this tactic I spent more and more time to improve my skill because it‚'s not easy and danger, and I always fly at full real 80%( speed bar , icon friend ) to 100%

For defensive state this tactic help me for success kill about 60-70 % which not loss any ammo , but I not use this tactic when I-16 or LaGG3 behind my 6



Now.. in IL2-FB my old Ė tactic not work ! I have to reduce initial speed from 300 to 275 km/h when I pull up 70-80 degree the ‚"lose speed late‚"Ě very take more time, I have to reduce power and nose drop very low (stall reverse) , and G Ė speed drop also slow , ladder modeling responding for FM is not the same as I saw in WII air show in real world

I know ‚"How to fly‚"Ě since I play EAW , I kow 109s is not good for level- turning tactic , Energy state tactic is a standard tactic for 109s


By the way, I am not a real pilot so this is my personal idea , may be I wrong ‚... about FM ,may be a lot of friends around here improve their skill up to advance level ,
And may be Modeling - FM in IL2FB is turning to the right place‚...



Sorry for my bad English‚.....

S!

JG5_JaRa
12-29-2003, 08:49 AM
You're absolutely right HQ1, the FM in FB is still far from realistic in the slow speed/high AOA sector. Energy bleed is low, most maneuvers (including vertical ones) need almost no initial speed to be performed, aircraft can yank and bank violently without big stall or spin problems - yes I know that aircraft can stall in FB but no real pilot would ever ride an aircraft right at the edge of the stall all day as you can do in FB, and that for a very good reason.
The 190 or P47 still look most convincing as they actually bleed some E and can't simply start every maneuver from stall speed but the average performance in FB is rather arcade. Part of this is the lack of torque and gyro effects. What is meant by this has been mentioned often enough. At least some of these effects are modeled but so weak that they have no effect.

p1ngu666
12-29-2003, 11:29 AM
the 190 and jug are really bad at low speed
i know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

12-29-2003, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You're absolutely right HQ1, the FM in FB is still far from realistic in the slow speed/high AOA sector. Energy bleed is low, most maneuvers (including vertical ones) need almost no initial speed to be performed, aircraft can yank and bank violently without big stall or spin problems - yes I know that aircraft can stall in FB but no real pilot would ever ride an aircraft right at the edge of the stall all day as you can do in FB, and that for a very good reason.
The 190 or P47 still look most convincing as they actually bleed some E and can't simply start every maneuver from stall speed but the average performance in FB is rather arcade. Part of this is the lack of torque and gyro effects. What is meant by this has been mentioned often enough. At least some of these effects are modeled but so weak that they have no effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently, that's not what self-described combat pilots think, nor people who have (albeit) limited experiences in real life tail draggers matching close in performance to WW2 planes think.

There's this assertion existing in the flight sim community that flying a plane is to be sadistically hard or takes something really special to do - which gives rise to the countless discussions on people so engaged in 'over-realism' - forced style of flight which is claimed to "feel more real" by people who for some reason, think flying is to be hard.

Is it?

WW2 pilots who start combat duties have less flying time than what an average gamer would fly in single week. Being good in a game doesn't mean that you'll be able to fly the real thing, but it does mean that the average gamer understands and learns much more about the dynamics of flight than real life pilots ever do.

In rare events, there are some gamers who are hand-picked and invited to fly in actual military simulator platforms, who manage to take off and land in a 1:1 scale simulated military F-16 cockpit platform. Surely not all people who enjoy games can do that, but apparently they have, to a certain extent, what we can reasonably call "experience" - even though it is simulated.

Flying has become easier than IL-2, that much is undeniable. But for some reason, people refuse to believe that it could be easy and natural to do.

"No real pilot would ever ride an aircraft right at the edge of the stall all day as you can do in FB" - is it? Pilots who fail to learn to ride the edge, are pilots who are first to get shot down when danger takes form behind their six.

So becareful about this 'arcade' accusation - especially when you do not have any actual proof. FB is not perfect. Some features are wrong, some features are fishy, and others are absent. But the features that exist, capture to a very satisfactory extent the correct feel of flight, at least, that's what the pilots I know say.

Bearcat99
12-29-2003, 11:12 PM
Very well said Kweassa...very well said... and i agree 100% with you.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

JG5_JaRa
12-30-2003, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the 190 and jug are really bad at low speed
i know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Flying a real aircraft is pretty simple in general, some are a bit tricky to takeoff or land but every six year old could keep at least a Cessna in the air after a short introduction. But that does not automatically mean that every stunt can be performed at will, ask all the WW2 pilots who spun into death how "absolutely easy and beginner friendly" it was to fly their aircraft. And there's a difference between flying a computer-assisted F-16 and a WW2 fighter with an engine mounted to it as hughe as the airframe allows.
There's also the assertion existing in the flight sim community that if only you fly a game long enough and get used to its flight model and pros and cons, you believe it is "as real as it can get". WW2 fighters were high performance machines and you can't get the gentle and forgiving flight characteristics of a C150 mixed with a design that goes 650+ km/h.
I am not talking about a subjective feeling when I speak of low energy bleed or a lack of torque and gyro effects which could easily ruin your day if you whirled your aircraft around at slow speed (i.e. overcome full opposite rudder and make it flip over and force it into a spin).
So don't make your statements so general and simply say "You say FB is too easy? Well WW2 fighters WERE easy to fly, period.". It would only lead to another pointless discussion.
I'm not asking for a FM which is harder than in RL.

Ugly_Kid
12-30-2003, 06:47 AM
Yeah the restaured Bf-109G-6 of the Messerschmitt Stiftung was flown to pieces at 3.6.1983, 50 flights after its new first flight. It got out of the hands in the start and rammed against a tractor that was conveniently parked next to the runway. The pilot had some x-thousand hours on different aircraft and also lots of experience in warbirds. It took another 3 years to repair it and put the same guy in the cockpit. This sort of stuff did not happen alone to fresh cadets with few hours.

AusDerReihe
12-30-2003, 05:12 PM
i once looped with a TB-3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AusDerReihe

http://www.cetanu.net/pix/enter.gif
Harry Klein doing what he did best, staying in the background keeping his mouth shut...

12-30-2003, 05:53 PM
If the combat pilots ever come back alive, also be sure to ask them how many times they've had a plane on their six, and had to maneuver hard. For instance of US pilots, how many times does that happen during the typical span of some 20~30 missions, before they are rotated back? Once? Twice?

Now, ask yourself how many times you've been in that situation while flying. How many times you've mistreated the plane and augered to your death. How many times you've misjudged enemy movement and got shotdown, due to ineffective evasives. How many times you've pushed your plane too far in a tight chase, to get the critical shot in, and then stalled at the last moment. And, after how many virtual deaths and failures, frustrations, in how long a time span, did you finally learn to fly it and become pretty sure and proud of your skills?

Flying time counts as something, friend.

No doubt, there are more subtle issues in real life flying - for example, the thought of actual death itself is a inhibitor, a limiter on your will to take wild risks in maneuvering. G-forces, disorientation, nervousness all play a part in this, too. We do not suffer such effects or consequences, and we'll be able to pull off certain things that the pilots would not try to do so.

But "would not try" and "cannot try" is different. Is it doubtable in real life, because it was physically impossible to do so? If you want to claim such, you'll probably need a proof, which, I don't see anywhere in this thread.

...

Use friendly? Simulations are user friendly? Think how "user friendly" it was, when you started your very first non-arcadish flight sim. When you first got your stick and rudder, started to learn about flying, ask for tips. And then, the very first take off attempt, and the very first combat engagement? What happened to you way back then? You are comfortably forgetting, that the "users" we are talking about here, are not the same people with the same level of experience and skills.

You know what happened to me in Aces High, when I first signed up? I crashed my first take off, in a docile, gentle Spitfire. In my first engagement, got killed by something I didn't even know was behind me.

It took 6 months for me to get my first kill. In that interval of 6 months, even when I have learned very many things, I still stalled my craft when fighting, and still made mistakes when taking off and ground looped it.

After some five years, now, I can take off with my eyes closed. I almost never stall to death anymore.

Ofcourse, no matter how experienced, you won't be able to take off in a real plane with eyes closed. But 'difficulty' is a relative issue. Not absolute.

WW2 combat pilots who are put into fresh duties, if we may compare, are like people who bought their first copy of FB, who never flew before. After one month of intense game playing, they get a hang of basic flying, and basic maneuvers, and basic combat skills - but that's all they have.

So, does that 1-month old newbie fly good? To us, who've been flying flight sims for some 7~8 years, he's a pup. We can shoot him down in what, 30 seconds? Don't even have to pull a single trigger, and just push him into some hard maneuvers, ane he'll stall while squirming, and crash into the ground.

So, tell me. Am I able to push him into killing himself because this is an arcadish sim and I can pull off impossible things? Or is it because my 7~8 years of flying meant something to me?

Oh sure, I'm able to do some incredible things in a game, such as shake my wings in the roll-crazed 190 continuously left and right, without banging my head into the windshield and blowing my brains out. Or, engage in a rolling scissors fight, which I personally am really skeptical as to think it ever happened in such prolonged durations as seen in a game, in real life combat.

But is the inconsistency with real life situations due to planes performing out of their physical limits? Or is it that the pilots won't do it in real life?

It's like the high speed dive issues, my friend. No pilot would think of doing that casually. But we do it all the time. So, is that because our planes can do high speed dives the real life planes could not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am not talking about a subjective feeling when I speak of low energy bleed or a lack of torque and gyro effects which could easily ruin your day if you whirled your aircraft around at slow speed (i.e. overcome full opposite rudder and make it flip over and force it into a spin).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Not talking about a subjective feeling"? Give me a break. Your post is "subjective incarnate". If it's not subjective, then where's the objectivity?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So don't make your statements so general and simply say "You say FB is too easy? Well WW2 fighters WERE easy to fly, period.". It would only lead to another pointless discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It leads to pointless discussions since you can't bring up anything to disqualify the initial claims. I've been into these discussions for nearly ten years, as a member of many different flight sim communities.

I've heard what pilots had to say about all the "over-realism issues" such as where some gamers would bring up with shi* and bunk like roll inertia supposedly unstoppable without revers stick input, vibrations in normal calibre/cannon weapons throwing the aim off planes, nose bouncing, the unstoppable stalls and etc etc. All gamer-produced fantasies on what they think should be real life, my friend.

Some are combat pilots, commercial pilots, pilots in real tail draggers, and pilots who flew the Texan. And of course, second-hand input from people I've never personally met - such as the comments coming from ANZAC Spit pilots or Finnish G-2 pilots who attended community conventions and answered questions.

Ever hear what they said?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not asking for a FM which is harder than in RL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are. Except the fact that the "RL" you speak of, is a product of your imagination.

JG5_JaRa
12-31-2003, 06:34 AM
Product of my imagination. Sweet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Are you aware that everything of today's physics and mathematics is a pure product of our imagination and aircraft fly anway?
So please explain to me, why are you implying that I don't know sh!t about this matter even though we were not talking about any point in particular? I only mentioned some without explaining further because I did not feel - and still don't feel - like repeating the contents of literally hundreds of pages of FM discussions from the last two years and private email exchanges and evaluations here. I picked out the lack of torque and gyro as an example because that one is easier to cover than for example flaws in the stall model or lack of high AOA energy bleed and you write something about over-realism issues? Want me to quote an actual event again where a number of fighters flipped over due to excessive torque and spun out only because they turned too hard in a spiral climb at slow speed?
You want to throw me in that "over realism" pit simply because I criticize several aspects of FB's FM because you already had lots of discussions in other sim forums with people who simply wanted a harder-than-RL FM without knowing what they're talking about. Aha... so?
Real fighter pilot accounts are always welcome, but often people tend to think their pet sim's flight model would be as good as possible because a pilot who was there said "It's very realistic, really stunning!". Funny that those real fighter pilots said similar things even when the first combat sims came out. What is done and what can be done are two different things. Some things between a computer sim and a real aircraft are hard to compare because a big part of the overall feeling of flight comes from what real pilots refer to as something like "flying with the a.ss" and since you don't have any forces acting on you at all while playing a sim, a general comparison can be rough at best. And after all you don't need to be a real fighter pilot to at least roughly examine the basic flight engine if you know about aerodynamics and aircraft boundaries.

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2003, 06:42 AM
Dammit, Kweassa1, how can someone talk so much good sense. I fully agree with you, man! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It took me YEARS before I started flying with stalls/spins on. I just couldn`t get it, until a good friend on the Net actually showed me how. Even now I`m amazed (at myself) when I find myself looking down on some `noob` cos he wants to fly with stalls/spins off because its too hard and unenjoyable otherwise. Yet I was just like that!
We who have made it to Full Real and love it can forget so easily how tough it originally was.

`Man is an embodied paradox, a bundle of contradictions.` Lacon.

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Wed December 31 2003 at 05:51 AM.]

clint-ruin
12-31-2003, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Dammit, Kweassa1, how can someone talk so much good sense. I fully agree with you, man! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here really. Great posts Kweassa.

If those posts of his appear condescending to some people, it's quite possibly because they're making posts that read like they don't know this stuff already :>

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

12-31-2003, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You want to throw me in that "over realism" pit simply because I criticize several aspects of FB's FM because you already had lots of discussions in other sim forums with people who simply wanted a harder-than-RL FM without knowing what they're talking about. Aha... so?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You criticize just 'several aspects'? Let's see what you've wrote above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You're absolutely right HQ1, the FM in FB is still far from realistic in the slow speed/high AOA sector. Energy bleed is low, most maneuvers (including vertical ones) need almost no initial speed to be performed, aircraft can yank and bank violently without big stall or spin problems - yes I know that aircraft can stall in FB but no real pilot would ever ride an aircraft right at the edge of the stall all day as you can do in FB, and that for a very good reason.
The 190 or P47 still look most convincing as they actually bleed some E and can't simply start every maneuver from stall speed but the average performance in FB is rather arcade. Part of this is the lack of torque and gyro effects. What is meant by this has been mentioned often enough. At least some of these effects are modeled but so weak that they have no effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it only me that I see a very vague and unexplained notion implying that planes have to stall around eveywhere to do a simple maneuver, or else it's "unrealistic"?

You plant your notion of "being convincing" upon a planes that boasts less than spectacualr maneuverability in horizontals, and claim the rest are 'arcadish.'

You claim planes can start a maneuver at stall speeds which, I clearly and distinctly don't see happening in FB. The only maneuver possible from those speeds are those that point the nose down.

So is it a criticism on 'several aspects', or a blunt exaggeration?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So please explain to me, why are you implying that I don't know sh!t about this matter even though we were not talking about any point in particular?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you may know shi* about these matters, in that case. Unfortunately you don't know shi* about bringing them up in a manner which could be understood, without gaining heap of suspicion on to yourself.

It doesn't take hundreds of pages of repeating what is previously discussed, to point out absence of things that may, or may not effect flight in a clear and precise manner - as much as absence of few features or oddities doesn't make the game arcade.

Forces that may effect the plane, can be countered, neutralized, or contained within limited boundary of pilot control.

Those forces acting in the game may be weaker than real life, or simply, people may just know better about how to deal with them. After all, experience counts as something.

Or better yet, it can be a mix of both. I have a feeling that even when a dubious amount of external forces are modelled in, we'll see plenty of pilots who can ride the edge of stalls. So, you gonna say "the game's arcade" when you see that happening, too?

JG5_JaRa
01-01-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Is it only me that I see a very vague and unexplained notion implying that planes have to stall around eveywhere to do a simple maneuver, or else it's "unrealistic"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly a case of paranoia on your side since I said I do not want a FM harder than RL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oh you may know shi* about these matters, in that case. Unfortunately you don't know shi* about bringing them up in a manner which could be understood, without gaining heap of suspicion on to yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I brought up the example of torque and gyro effects or better the lack thereof which consistently goes through all aircraft. These effects could very noticeably affect maneuvers at slow speed as they can become stronger than any rudder input. Want me now to explicitely explain P-factor, gyroscopic torque of the rotating engine parts and propeller while changing direction, propeller blade drag torque, engine RPM change induced torque, slipping effects and whatever else I may have forgot?

Here a quote for you about one of the side effects of torque:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My flight of four P-38s was bounced by twenty-five to thirty FW-190s of the yellow-nose variety from Abbeville. A string of six or more of them got in behind me before I noticed them, and just as No. 1 began to fire, I rolled into a right climbing turn and went to war emergency of 60 inches manifold pressure. As we went round and round in our corkscrew climb, I could see over my right shoulder the various FW-190 pilots booting right rudder attempting to control their torque at 150 mph and full throttle, but one by one they nipped over to the left and spun out.
(R. Higham/A. T. Siddal: Flying Combat Aircraft of the USAAF-USAF, p. 136)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In FB, there's no mentionable amount of torque even in the slowest/hardest turns and hanging on the propeller at max. power is stable like in a trainer aircraft with small engine.

Recon_609IAP
01-01-2004, 10:50 AM
I saw this above:

"the frickin' 400~500 meter shots are annoying"

I was flying a 109G2 and had my wing taken off in a zoom climb by a La5 ('42) from 700-800m. I would think that the damage from that far would merely damage my aircraft slightly, not rip a wing off.

Also, I've lost my engine from shots like this as well

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

SKULLS_LZ
01-02-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
I saw this above:

"the frickin' 400~500 meter shots are annoying"

I was flying a 109G2 and had my wing taken off in a zoom climb by a La5 ('42) from 700-800m. I would think that the damage from that far would merely damage my aircraft slightly, not rip a wing off.

Also, I've lost my engine from shots like this as well

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After watching several gun-cam films, I get the impression that A/C having their wings shot off was probably a lot less frequent in RL than what we have in FB. On the other hand, I wonder just how much "power" a 20mm round loses after 700 m compared to 300? I would think maybe 10 percent, but can only guess.

ElfunkoI
01-03-2004, 03:13 AM
Well, you must wonder if a shot from 700-800 meters would have the velocity to penitrate, and if so, the angle to penitrate. There are some who can give professional opinions about this, so I won't give my own....but I think we shouldn't see many shots like that... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pourshot
01-03-2004, 06:14 AM
If it was a HE shell then the range will have very little affect on it's killing power. After all it's like a hand granade it wont matter how far you toss it, the explosive charge will be the same.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

karost
01-03-2004, 06:59 PM
Hi, Kweassa1


I agree for your post about the player skill improvement but HQ1's topic focus in "machine" not a "man", as read your post did not refer about IL2'Sturmovik 1.2 so you may not experience about difference between IL2'Sturmovik 1.2 and IL2FB which come from the same company, you may not know the difference about P-39 between IL2'Sturmovik 1.2 and IL2FBs and we need the answer "WHY ?"


Just looking in the eye of the "test pilot" to compare a machine not a man's skill http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



it is not fair to ask you to tell me about 109s in Aces High and IL2FB for characteristic of FM from your experience .... BUT that is the point.


for my personal idea IL2FB was downgrade for FM because of "Marketing reason" 400,000 original copy of IL2FB ....well....not bad right ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and if BOB project would like to success same as IL2FB they have to use the same plan. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anywhere, I like this game and this community ...

Thank you
S!

aussiewarfare
08-06-2004, 10:31 AM
"the frickin' 400~500 meter shots are annoying"

I was flying a 109G2 and had my wing taken off in a zoom climb by a La5 ('42) from 700-800m. I would think that the damage from that far would merely damage my aircraft slightly, not rip a wing off.

Also, I've lost my engine from shots like this as well

I totally agree with you there recon. Shots cannot be that effective like they are in IL2FB if not hitting at a weak spot like the fuel tank. Even if they hit the fuel tank the plane would take some time to explode not blowing the bird up in pieces and falling fireballs right away, you know. I've seen many black and white clips of dogfights recorded during the WWII, nah shots weren't very effect. The worst damage they could do to the plane a few seconds after they hit the plane,was only lighting the spot they hit up in flames

Also, I have a book full of WWII eyewitness accounts. One of the articles I've read mentions about a British spitfire pilot who got shot down by a Luftwaffe Bf-109 (Version not mentioned) over the English channel. The pilot said if you don't get out of a burning plane within 10 seconds you're dead. As the temperature would rise up to 400 degrees celsius and the whole plane would blow up.

So I think that Oleg and his team should have a look at this and work on it to increase realism.

aussiewarfare
08-06-2004, 10:35 AM
just checked for any typing mistakes in my last post there, sorry for not spelling some of the words correctly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

III-JG27_DV8
08-06-2004, 02:30 PM
For those of you that aren't aware; or appear to be unaware of; please lookup the name Hans-Joachim Marseille.

Read about him. Then come back and discuss.

IMHO this man's abilities in REAL LIFE DOGFIGHTING speaks volums as to what a fighter can and cannot do.

Also, never forget - most fighters then had plenty of horsepower. Hanging on a prop is not impossible. You ever been behind even a 400hp engine connected to a propeller to see what kind of wind blast comes off it? It'll knock you clear back to yesterday.

S!
---------------
DV8
JG27

Bearcat99
08-06-2004, 06:40 PM
From what I read from actual pilots on several sides (Russian,German,American.. I havent finished Zero yet.) torque is somewhat undermodeled in FB but not enough to ruin the sim. From what I understand in the Mustang the torque was so intense that pilots had to use HARD right rudder to keep it straight.. not so in FB.. but like I said tourque IS modeled here and I suspect that the things we see about the limitations of the FMs have more to do with the limitations of the code or the processing power of the average PC than with Oleg and 1Cs lack of desire for realism. Also from what I have read pilots ROUTINELY pushed thier aircraft to the limit and beyond, after all... thier lives were on the line..not like here where the stakes are only egos, pride and bragging rights...

I also suspect that some of the compromises made in the down low FMs were to compensate for the imroved high alt FMs.. since they are definitely better all around up high. I think the engine is limited and some of the things that so many are clamoring for and crying about in FB will be corrected in BoB. Isnt the FB engine very similar to the IL2 engine.. which was notorious for its high alt performance. The intent was probably from the start of FB to change the models to better represent high alt but I guess they had to use the resouces and time available to them. Im a happy FB camper. It could always be better.. but man o man theres nothing better out now.. not by a mile AFAIC.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

crazyivan1970
08-06-2004, 07:30 PM
Kweassa, can you summerize all that and i`ll make it a sticky one. This is the best series of posts i`v seen on this forum, hats off to you man, i mean it.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WWMaxGunz
08-06-2004, 07:35 PM
Lack of speed bleed due to high AOA.
I must remember that next time I pull just a bit too hard turning.
Or perhaps reading the umpteenth post about 190's bleeding too much speed.

Torque.
Is that where even slowly and smoothly I bring up power during takeoff and
have to correct the rudder more but once the tail comes up it gets easier?
Or is that where I do a loop and the plane comes out at 90 degrees to entry?
Yes, a loop except for the bend at the top as seen from external in playback.

Average flight simmers know more flight dynamics than real pilots?
Heh? Not going from average posts here. Average gamers don't take the time
to learn what real pilots do in ground school even. Please, give me a break!

Don't want to get shot while exiting an attack from 700 to 800 meters?
Try throwing a bit of turn into your exit, like long time simmers do.
I think they picked that up partly from combat stories, maybe not but
it works better than straight flight. Vary the curve a bit too.

"This plane should not be able to catch/turn with/kill/whatever that plane"
when of course "that plane" is the one the poster was flying online in a
fight and was a perfect judge of energy states, never mixed anything up
and the biggie... ignores piloting differences but wth, he is an expert
who gets the max performance out of every maneuver so the skill of the
other is of no consequence. Or he could just be whining rather than trying
to figure out what went wrong and change. Experts never have to change.

=== sighhhhh === wish I was that good!


Neal

T_O_A_D
08-06-2004, 07:46 PM
Ditto Please do!

I would normaly stay out of these threads caouse they usually turn sour. But with recent events I came in and was pleasantly suprized. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Kweassa, can you summerize all that and i`ll make it a sticky one. This is the best series of posts i`v seen on this forum, hats off to you man, i mean it.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

HQ1
08-07-2004, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by III-JG27_DV8:
For those of you that aren't aware; or appear to be unaware of; please lookup the name Hans-Joachim Marseille.

Read about him. Then come back and discuss.

IMHO this man's abilities in REAL LIFE DOGFIGHTING speaks volums as to what a fighter can and cannot do.

Also, never forget - most fighters then had plenty of horsepower. Hanging on a prop is not impossible. You ever been behind even a 400hp engine connected to a propeller to see what kind of wind blast comes off it? It'll knock you clear back to yesterday.

S!
---------------
DV8
JG27<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



yes i never suspect some experience pilot can do that but in this game the point is every one can do it very well .no difference between
novice and veteran.

Kwiatos
08-08-2004, 03:33 AM
Very interesting topic. Some post are similar with my feeling. Pity that slow speed high AoA area in FB are little arcadish. These cause strange situation like heavy bomber with bomb load make loop etc. Fighters make loop at 300km/h and no needed correct speed for different maneouvers. Plane can make unrealistic maneovers at slow speed. It will be perfect if Oleg would fix it in future.

robban75
08-08-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
In FB, there's no mentionable amount of torque even in the slowest/hardest turns and hanging on the propeller at max. power is stable like in a trainer aircraft with small engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, torque is indeed poorly modelled. But right now the planes with best modelled torque is the Yak's and Fw 190. Climb straight up and see which planes are the toughest ones to maintain straight when the airspeed drops below 150km/h. Some planes are just insanly stable.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2004, 10:45 AM
Torque...engine torque

From the pilot's perspective.

In flight, firewall the throttle from a low setting and the plane's body should tip (rotate)in the direction opposite the prop rotation.
(Like a hot car, tramp the gas and the frontend lifts, also the body wants to tip left or right).
A clockwise spinning prop should find it easier to dive banking to port, than dive banking to starboard.

I noticed the P38 (counter spinning props), rides the same a single engine plane.
Counter spinning props counter any torque.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2004, 11:10 AM
As for 700 - 800 meter shots.

Sure, they'd have enough velocity to still cause damage.

The operative thing is, can (or should) the pilot be able to hit at that range? It should be a near impossiblity for a fighter-sized target. But that doesn't stop the AI does it?

As for torque, it's a joke here: just some eye candy that dips your wing when you start your throttle forward. Then, for your takeoff roll, it's not a factor at all (tell that to a pilot flying a bird with a PW2800 Double Wasp!). It only comes back to cause an Oleg Banana Peel Snapstall at random intervals.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2004, 11:26 AM
Don't notice my wing dipping when 'walling the throttle. Watching in outside views, the tail will wiggle left/ right in flight

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

So when riding the edge, banking to port, chasing the target, when the stall goes..it should be to a drop to port regardless of a climb or dive. (On a clockwise , from the pilot's perspective, spinning prop).
Should it not ?

Aaron_GT
08-09-2004, 04:03 AM
"One of the articles I've read mentions about a British spitfire pilot who got shot down by a Luftwaffe Bf-109 (Version not mentioned) over the English channel. The pilot said if you don't get out of a burning plane within 10 seconds you're dead. As the temperature would rise up to 400 degrees celsius and the whole plane would blow up."

I think that's a bit extreme. There are many cases of pilots being the cockpit of a burning plane rather longer and still surviving, if with horrific burns. The Guinea Pig Club is/was full of such pilots. I think you'd want to be out of the cockpit asap, though, certainly within about 10 seconds or even less! (Having had my clothes on fire once, and ending up needing skin grafts I have an idea about what it is like to be on fire).

With respect to long distance shots it is ironic that a while ago people were complaining that the the .50 they couldn't take 1000m shots as have been recorded in some exceptional air-to-air circumstances and now people are complaining that you CAN hit and damage planes at that sort of range!

Lastly I saw in interesting programme on TV here. They took a PC Simulator pilot (MS Flight sim series) and took him up in the same type of plane that he had been flying in Flight Sim. He had never flown a plane before. They then asked him to land it. He got very close to a decent landing, but didn't flare properly at the end (the instructor took over at the last moment). The instructor was obviously impressed by his skill in his first ever lesson, but the PC pilot said that sim flying was a totally different experience to the real thing.

karost
08-09-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
but the PC pilot said that sim flying was a "totally different experience" to the real thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it would be good, if we know what kind of thing that he said "totally different experience" that interesting me much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and I think sim help new (real) pilots learn to fly faster.

now cpu seed is very fast enought to use for programming in FM close to a real life not just let it (cpu) work for beautiful graphic.

but the true is the customer(us) want to play sim for fun more then close to a real life , I belive developer can make sim close to the real but how much money they can make if they do like that.

I belive a real pilot can tell us for "full real" in this game close to real life or not

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
They then asked him to land it. He got very close to a decent landing, but didn't flare properly at the end (the instructor took over at the last moment)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks Aaron_GT for your post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

JG5_UnKle
08-09-2004, 09:16 AM
Sadly FM discussions have degraded into BS slanging matches here, and on other Forums.

Pilots (yes I said pilots - real pilots) like JaRa do know what they are talking about and any basic maths can prove issues with the FM. If you take a look at the new apps that were added to FB you see such things as 15G turns and overly high-AOA limits.

The planeset has grown out of bounds in FB and it is very difficult for the developers to manage IMHO. Is it no surprise that the FM has major holes in it and cannot possibly replicate real life? Perhaps so, however many in this community have dedicated real time and effort in attempting to make this sim more realistic only to be stoned out of the stadium http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

It seems like it is some sort of offence to even suggest the FM has problems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif Even though the FM has changed so much over time.

If the FM was so accurate, why did it change so much? Which one was "right" ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2004, 09:22 AM
Agreed, it would take a real pilot to say what is what.
Only it would take a real pilot from the real airwars of WWII, with real experience of the real aircraft.

Not the place for this but....
If speedbar is available, how about a G's indicator ?
Available in online games as well.

JG5_UnKle
08-09-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
Not the place for this but....
If speedbar is available, how about a G's indicator ?
Available in online games as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the UDPSpeed program only works offline - check here for More info - SimHQ Post (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=011755)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)