PDA

View Full Version : Torque ,more and more, before B.oB. comes?



F19_Ob
05-06-2006, 08:17 AM
I guess that many of u old guys already have noticed the transition to a more advanced FM, and the pronounced torque.
I very much hope they continue to use this sim as a testing-ground for BoB.
Damn! how I love this sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

A small quote describing the torque in p40:
"I€ve already mentioned that the P-40 was a torque machine. One of our pilots was preparing to take off when he moved the throttle too quickly to take-off power. The result was such a violent ground loop to the left that he damaged the right wingtip. He quickly closed the throttle, applied right brake, and managed to damage the left wingtip."

From this site:
http://www.1stfighter.org/warstories/hoffman.html

F19_Ob
05-06-2006, 08:17 AM
I guess that many of u old guys already have noticed the transition to a more advanced FM, and the pronounced torque.
I very much hope they continue to use this sim as a testing-ground for BoB.
Damn! how I love this sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

A small quote describing the torque in p40:
"I€ve already mentioned that the P-40 was a torque machine. One of our pilots was preparing to take off when he moved the throttle too quickly to take-off power. The result was such a violent ground loop to the left that he damaged the right wingtip. He quickly closed the throttle, applied right brake, and managed to damage the left wingtip."

From this site:
http://www.1stfighter.org/warstories/hoffman.html

danjama
05-06-2006, 10:06 AM
Im with ya 100% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-06-2006, 10:29 AM
I vary prop speed and need to change rudder trim slightly when seeing if I can trim a Yak-3
reasonably close to neutral stick.

There's always a slight residual roll left one way or the other as I hat the trim so it's
keyboard steps, but I can get real close!

I seem to notice that I could get fast in a shallow dive quicker than I expected.

LEBillfish
05-06-2006, 10:44 AM
It "seems" as though the 4.00/01/02/03 FM after all the complaints about "the wobbles" however reverted "back" to a somewhat more tame version in 4.04..........Now I could just be imagining it, yet I'd be interested in that early 4.0-3 feel, without the problems many were having. If it did change, I hope 1c can sort it out.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-06-2006, 11:00 AM
This kind of thing still scares me.

BoB should have an engine that is so different from IL-2 (remember how many years ago it was coded) that FM testing done here should be irrelevant.

Not the numbers that represent every aspect of every plane's FM, mind you, as those are real (though often subjective) values that 1C is trying to make accurate, but the engine's rendering of player control input and real world physics on the aircraft to cause its motion through the sky to occur in the manner that it does. So any "testing" done now only makes IL-2 a better game, theoretically. The results *should* mean nothing within the framework of BoB.

GoToAway
05-06-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rebel_Yell_21:
BoB should have an engine that is so different from IL-2 (remember how many years ago it was coded) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is irrelevent considering that 4.x added a completely new physics simulation.

I think a lot of people don't really understand what an "engine" is. It is not some monolithic single thing that can never be changed. Every single patch has updated the Il-2 engine. Did Il-2 1.0 feature shader support? No, it didn't. The rendering engine was updated to support it.

Furthermore, there isn't a developer in the world that does not recycle elements in their subsequent engines. The Doom 3 engine was built directly on top of the Q3 engine. I can all but guarantee that the BoB engine was built directly on top of the Il-2 engine and that if we were able to compare the source for various elements, we'd see identical code in places.

In any event, it's entirely possible (and even probable) that Oleg took some aspects of the BoB physics engine, retooled them to work properly in the more primative Il-2 environment, and released it as a test for various elements to be included in BoB.

heywooood
05-06-2006, 11:11 AM
it may only be done to see what the 'players' will accept as simulated aircraft behavior...in the sense that what we are testing for them is not necessarily the flight model...but the characteristic.

that would make its similarity to the final BoB version irrelevant. All Oleg may want to test is our overall acceptance of airplanes that sway or have variations of lateral stability inherent to their seperate design....or would we rather not.

It seems from what I've seen - most 'gamers' consider this 'unequal' handleing to be an advantage for one side or the other...thus while it may be correct in r/l for airplane A to be laterally less stable than aircraft B - if one is blue and the other red...it seems to be perceived as 'bias' and not correct to the degree that some call it unacceptable and cry to Oleg to " make it even " again.

This is why I got a little excited when Oleg wrote that there could be two installs for BoB...one for online 'players' and another for offline simmers. I personally do not want a simulation that is corrupted by online gamer issues of 'fairness' - if a plane behaved a certain way or required extra control inputs from the pilot to be competitve in the air etc.... then that is the way it should be.

carguy_
05-06-2006, 11:17 AM
About the FM I want realistic FM and no wobbles gonna put me off.If the more realistic FM renders some planes tricky as they really were I do not have any objections.

Gamers can turn difficulty options off,so what the h3ll do they want?

heywooood
05-06-2006, 11:23 AM
exactally - ermmm Ed Zackly....um egg sackly...

F19_Ob
05-06-2006, 11:39 AM
Regarding if we should have a more realistic FM, or simpler dito, (for the ones with less patience, experience or those who have other controlgadgets like pad-stick-keyboard or or other), it has already been a proven consept to have one 'realistic' mode and levels of simplifyed modes. We have this in the sim now, so it should work in the future aswell.

Any game that is too difficult will atract only the hardcore gamers (simmers) but with additional simplifyed levels a whole range of interests can be satisfied, even perhaps the arcade crowd.

So options to chose levels is a good thing I think. More people can be part of this community = Oleg jumps up and down with joy because cash flows in = we get a better sim + more addons = more people join = circle starts all over again.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

heywooood
05-06-2006, 12:02 PM
yes f19 ofcourse 'settings' but I am not talking about settings...I am talking about appeasement and right now this sim is buggered because of the online 'gamers' and their need for equality over accuracy - you need to look no farther than the trim controls or flap controls as they are in this sim to see that accuracy has been corrupted and a more 'fair' system employed to satisfy gamers WRT 'cheating' or 'exploits' or whatever - there are no settings that I have access to that can make my controls what they need to be, meaning accurate and realistic to the actual aircraft....do you have these settings?...no.

I want BoB to give me flight controls like FS2004 Firepower - I want real engine controls - real trim - real flaps not 'combat' 'takeoff' and 'landing' - I want to be able to toggle between this kind of full control and some easier gradations so that I can have full control when I want it or easier 'auto' options for when I want more combat or whatever.

I do not want more compromises for online 'gamer' flying with such simple or altered control systems..It is time for Oleg to get real in the cockpit beyond just the look of it.

This sim is pretty - I would also like it to be more honest.

hmmm after actually reading your post, I see we agree....I should really read with better attention as Oleg says.

leitmotiv
05-06-2006, 03:23 PM
Completely concur with F19_Ob and heywooood---I want the maxed accuracy and keep the detail options so the arcade people will be happy and the online gamers will be happy. Those of us who enjoy fighting with gravity and the qualities of the aircraft can have our cake, too. As far as I'm concerned, the options are fine---if I'm having a bad allergy day, I turn off "Complex Engine Management"---there it's out! I confess. I had an odd quirk after installing Peshka---suddenly my Hurricanes, MC 200s, and some other aircraft lost their pitching which started a couple months ago. I assumed this was part of the new FM and was tearing my hair out to find a way to trim it out. I was only partially successful. Now it abruptly disappeared. I know Peshka was not supposed to alter the FM but it certainly made my control task easier.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-06-2006, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoToAway:
Which is irrelevent considering that 4.x added a completely new physics simulation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely? Sorry, under the hood, its still Il-2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think a lot of people don't really understand what an "engine" is. It is not some monolithic single thing that can never be changed. Every single patch has updated the Il-2 engine. Did Il-2 1.0 feature shader support? No, it didn't. The rendering engine was updated to support it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course an engine evolves, but, as Oleg loves to point out, many things cannot be changed, and this engine reached its limits some time back.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, there isn't a developer in the world that does not recycle elements in their subsequent engines. The Doom 3 engine was built directly on top of the Q3 engine. I can all but guarantee that the BoB engine was built directly on top of the Il-2 engine and that if we were able to compare the source for various elements, we'd see identical code in places. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many follow up games are revolutionary and not evolutionary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In any event, it's entirely possible (and even probable) that Oleg took some aspects of the BoB physics engine, retooled them to work properly in the more primative Il-2 environment, and released it as a test for various elements to be included in BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is exactly what I was saying. I may be wrong, I didn't say BoB is doomed if it uses any element of Il-2, but, imho, if they did not start from scratch, and think outside the Il-2 "box", then I fear the results will disappoint me. Maybe not anyone else. Only time will tell.