Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lord_Flashheart

  1. I'm not sure how pointing to that other things need worked on too detracts from the G-model being a very good change. We are all well aware that modeling the G forces correctly is only one of many steps needed to stop a yak from cranking a 13G turn at the merge, dropping his flaps and hanging on his prop at 60 knots while hit pulls the nose up past critical A0A  with complete control for a split second so he can shoot his recoil-less doom cannon at you and snipe your engine from 1000m back.


    It doesnt matter that its an average model. Sims have ad G forces as standard for literally ages. Adding them to this game is a big deal that will make the game MUCH better.

    • Upvote 1

  2. I have a question for pilots and engineers on this forum regarding the title.


    Question: Do all airplanes drop a wing during a turning stall? My understanding was the wing drop during turns occurs even in torque-less aircraft due to the wings having different stall points due to airflow differences since the wings are banked? I have noticed in some simulators (not il2) that certain aircraft (without computer control) are sometimes modeled has having no wing drop during a turning stall. Instead, they sort of....sink sideways out the sky. Is this real? or a modeling error?

  3. 7 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:


    If you have a problem understanding these analogies, then it is probably you that needs to do some work on it. 


    "Overheating" warning in this game is very comparable to "Queen in danger" warning in a chess game, for example.

    One day I'll find out how someone like yourself can retype something completely different to what they were being quoted for and play it off like it was what you originally typed.


    Your original analogy specifically stated that the chat would give tactical advice in a chess game. Engine temp warnings, which are not even the example of the tech chat that has been getting attention here, are not equivalent to tactical advice. 



  4. 7 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

    These warning messages are like playing chess online and having the chess program warn you, when you are in a danger of being checkmated or losing an important piece and giving you suggestions for possible moves. It could be a nice feature for beginners, but not for people that want to play actual chess.

    You really need to work on your analogies.


    What you just articulated was that the messages supposedly give tactical advice. They do not. For your analogy to work, the tech chat would have to be the tac-chat, and would give the player messages like "do a rolling scissors!" or "hes inside your turn circle!".


    The equivalent to a chess game tech chat would be if you were playing chess online and the game displayed a message saying "check" since your opponent couldn't do like they would in real life and just say it to you.



  5. 2 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:


    This is really getting to absurd levels now. 

    Maybe you could be so kind and give a reference to a real WWII plane, where that kind of tech chat was functional?  Any kind or pilot anecdote, picture or other material would do.

    It has been at absurd levels ever since the incoherent argument was leveled that the game-tech chat=reality. Or closer to it.


    Perhaps you'd like to show us what airplane engines operated on hairline percentages with strict absolute timers that had to be obeyed as it they were the laws of physics? Oh wait...there aren't any. Certainly not any of the engines in game.


    So the bottom line is that this entire thread is about getting rid of chat message because certain parts of the sim community care more about appearances than net realism. But "muh immersion"

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  6. 2 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:


    This option would not make it more realistic, because it would be harder, but because it would be ... more realistic. 

    Did real life WWII pilots get messages on their screens about entering combat mode or something like that or not? So is it more realistic to get these messages or not?

    It is not like, "hey, let's remove reflector sights from planes, so it is harder to hit the enemy, which means it is realistic". If in real life there were reflector sights then we should have them, even if it it would be harder to shoot without a sight.

    I understand some tech chat, for example "throttle 50%", because real life pilot might know the lever position by touching it or do a very quick glimpse of an eye, without really having to turn his head and look at the throttle position specifically, or other similar things, where pilot would know that he pushed a button or pulled a lever without having to look at it to check, but warnings about being in combat mode or overheating and things like that are just not realistic.

    real life pilots didnt have throttles that work they way ours do. simple as that. why is this hard to understand.


    the tech chat is there to provide information regarding things that only exist in our game world. If you get rid of the chat, you have an engine that doesnt work like the real one, and no way of knowing what its doing.


    allow me to be more specific, even though i already said this in a previous post: the engine timers work on a scale that starts just above continuous. If you go even slightly over this, you go into combat. Or into emergency etc. It is even possible for you to be right on the line and have it fluctuate between them. Without the tech chat, there is no way to know this is happening. you would be using up your time without knowing it. Especially in planes with only 1 min of emergency it is very dicey. Also the effect is cumulative, and emergency bits into combat time.


    So to repeat this again in bullet form:


    -you dont know when you have entered different settings.

    -you dont know how much you have used


    The tech chat, like in the controls example you gave, exists to mitigate against an engine system that is itself a heavy abstraction.

  7. On 7/27/2019 at 7:55 PM, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:


    Really?? Wow. I had no idea..:rofl:

    This isn't the thread for that argument. But we'd be on the same side for that one.



    And I am not making an argument about that. The point is that its just ridiculous to argue that any of this nets a gain in realism.


    All simulators, until someone invents the matrix, are abstractions. As such, it make no sense whatsoever to act as if removing all the aides would somehow leave us with base reality. Its literally nonsense: it makes about as much rational sense as to say apples are oranges.


    Which is why I said this is just another bid from the "harder = more realistic" crowd to force everyone else to play their way. Lets not beat around the bush about this, if certain minimal aides were not enforced, it is extremely likely that it would be standard on the most populated servers. Like I said before, I am not opposed to a curated experience to some degree to prevent the player base from ruining the game in the multiplayer realm.



    • Haha 1

  8. 3 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:


    I wouldn't get my hopes up for speed even though the air frame was built for speed combined with the packard-merlin. Every recent WWII flight sim likes to believe American fighters were sluggish, only high alt potatoes.



    Its a shame. The P-51exceptional performance characteristic outside its range was its speed. Compared to any contemporary it as was rocket ship, at all altitudes.

    • Upvote 1

  9. 2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

    'Ballistic drop under G' isn't a thing. Once a bullet leaves the barrel, it is subject to 1G acceleration, vertically down. No more no less. The bullet neither knows nor cares what acceleration it was subject to before it was fired, and neither does it matter what acceleration the gun is subject to afterwards. Because physics...

    I didnt mean to imply that being under G should cause more drop. Only that in game the deflection required to hit targets when pulling more than 1 g appears to be more than in other games. I also dont know that that is the cause, assuming there is a problem at all, only that it is my impression.


    The only thing I know is this: In every other sim the bullets go roughly where i expect. In il2 they do not. So either il2 is right and everyone else is wrong, the reverse is true, or something else is going on here to produce the sensation that something is off.

  10. Let just say outright that I do not know if anything is for sure wrong. This thread is to see what can be done to find out.



    The potential problem: For some time now I have felt that the gunnery in il2 is significantly harder in some respects than other sims. Due to the lack of recoil, gunnery at low deflection is perhaps easier, but deflection shooting seems to be unusually hard. Compared to several other sims including DCS, the ballistic drop under G seems far worse.

    • Haha 1

  11. 15 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:


    Any higher end FM uses both tables and computations. Computations are only convenient within normal flight. Stalling and post stall properties cannot be computed. Airliner sims use huge tables to get systems etc. right. After a certain number of dependencies, you can‘t do it right with a simple forula.

    Specifically I am referring to the common practice these days or breaking the FM into hundreds or thousands of parts and then hoping the end results is that the Cdo of the plane under X condition turns out to be right. These are all using tables still as its been explained to me. This is the approach DCS uses and its why we have endless tuning issues with their FMs. The older flight models used tables at a more macro level, instead of making the plane 1000 sub models that have to add up right. Thats why in the F-14 dev diary some time ago you could see them talking about how they were trying to tune the turn performance without messing up the rest of the model too much.


    I dont know really what il2 uses. But whatever it is it appears to have alot of the same problems. Endless tuning. Random unpredictable errors that take time to even figure out what is causing them.


    To me, what matters in a flight model is getting the airplanes tactical performance right. Top speeds, acceleration, compression, turn performance, flap performance, engine outputs at various altitudes, etc. The more complicated the flight model is made to try to extract out an extreme level of detail and make the plane "feel" correct, the less reliably we seem to get accurate performance in those other areas.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  12. 36 minutes ago, jcomm-il2 said:

    The performance of the flight dynamics regarding, for instance, static and dynamic pitch stability when using  FFB controllers, is an "open" question for me because I never owned such a stick.


    I did try ( and didn't like it - but that was long ago with another flight simulator game ) a cheap one, it was NOT the MS FFB which I read was very good for it's time.


    I wonder if the use of a good FFB device in IL2 GB might give me a different feel regarding this "wobbling" effect ?


    Regarding X-Plane comparisons - I've been using X-Plane in demo since version 2 and as a buyer since version 7 - can't really compare to IL-2 GB in many aspects. By far IL-2 GB does a much better / credible job in terms of "feel of flight" and detailed flight characteristics of it's aircraft than any similar aircraft type I have ever used for X-Plane.


    The hype around "BET" is a lot bigger than the end result - reason why it's IL-2 I use these days whenever I seat at the desktop PC to pretend I'm a pilot flying a powerful ww2  or awesome ww1 aircraft, even though war and air combat are far from being my "beach"...



    Nice to seem someone bring up how much BET doesnt live up to its hype. Doesn't il2 use some form of BET? DCS basically does and il2 seems to show all the same symptoms.


    I miss the older tabular fm-ing of the early 2000s. It was more predictable. Sure, you generally (although it wasnt impossible) didnt get to experience every little quirk of and aircraft, but at least stuff like top speed, climb rate, and turn rate were generally reliably implemented.Flight modeling before all the new sims came out in 2012-13 had its issues. But Ive never been able to see the rational in sacrificing a predictable flight model where speeds, climbs, turns, dive speeds, flap behavior are all basically correct so that X or Y plane can (theoretically) exhibit its unique adverse yaw characteristics or landing quirks. 


    All of the newer sims have a big issue with trying to do certain specific minutiae to an extreme level of detail at the expense of everything else. DCS being the most notable culprit. The P-51 flight model in DCS has been in tuning land since its initial release 9 billion years ago. Top speed fluctuating by 15mph at various heights.



    • Upvote 3

  13. On 7/26/2019 at 10:09 PM, Legioneod said:

    It should be around the 370-375 mph range iirc. 


    one hopes the mustang is faster than that, or they tone down the K4. At 1.8ata the K4 is clocking in at 377mph, about 20mph faster than german estimates at sea level. Of course if we geta 150 octane pony it should be clocking in at 380-390 on the deck.

  14. 2 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:


    The problem I see is everyone moves the throttle to exactly the 1% border of normal/combat/emergency, rather than a more normal inaccuracy. Without visual warnings and exact % notification you are forced to push the limits, run some risk, or be more conservative. There is none of that when they can ride the % engine mode delimiter, making the current crappy engine mechanics much more gamey.

    You do realize that’s not how engines work right? In the real world the times don’t apply in the same manner. And even if they did, hairline errors in power would not secretly put u on the clock. If there was instrument error and gauge tolerances would kill more engines than any pilot could. 


    Removing aides does not enhance realism necessarily. The game without aides is not real life. For the same reason that fools who think not having a hud in shooters is more realistic than having one. 


    And lets not not beat around the bush. If these features were removed, those of us who like them would run the risk of every big server removing them. Sorry, but I’m fully behind games having a certain level of curated experience. 

  15. 5 hours ago, Oscar_Juliet said:

    I hope that got your attention. I bought IL2-BOS years ago back when it was brand new. I learned to fly flight simulation on IL2 Cliffs of Dover with the TF mods. I moved onto DCS world, P3D, ect. WWII and German aircraft have a special place in my heart. All my WWII experience is on IL2 CLOD in BF109-E series. 

    I've spent numerous times trying to get into IL2-BOS just to throw it back into the pile to gather dust. My problem is that I can't seem to get the aircraft to fly decent. I'm hoping someone can help me narrow down why. Maybe it is my expectations from other sims. Or maybe its something I'm doing wrong as a pilot. 


    I've just spent hours on google, search the forums, and I can't find what I'm looking for. I watch Sheriff's Sim Shack and The Air Combat Tutorial Library a lot. 

    Here is my problem:
    When I fly the planes it feels like the plane is balanced on a stretched out rubber band. It wobbles side to side and seems to constantly require heavy joystick input to counter act the balance of the plane. In IL2 CLOD I don't seem to have that problem. The planes seem rather stable. When I watch Sheriff's Sim Shack he looks as stable and smooth while flying as any. Just like my experience with CLOD.

    I don't know why it feels like the plane is constantly out of balance. There doesn't appear to be a way to trim it out. I also have trim wheels on my stick that can artificially trim an aircraft which doesn't usually have it. Even that doesn't seem to help. I feel like I'm always fighting the aircraft to fly straight and level rather than flying. Everything feels extremely touchy. I'm using CH products with a full hotas and pedals. 


    Maybe someone will have insight. If a WWII plane is suppose to be this pain in the rear to fly, constantly fighting the stick, then I guess I have to get use to it. Otherwise let me know what I may be doing wrong. 

    The wobble you are describing in an error in the flight model this game uses. It was much worse before the 2.0 update, where some things were done to try to address it. This is not how planes fly in general. Source: consultation with several real world pilots, including people who have flown ww2 planes. People on this forum who have flown the planes. Watching videos of planes in general flying where the stick movement can be compared to aircraft movement. And the fact that literally no other simulator has felt this way, including DCS which has some of the most sophisticated flight modeling available.


    The general flight model of this game is certainly not beyond the scope of doubt. For a long time the rudders on most planes did not work and only caused planes to roll. Compression was not implemented for a long time. The behavior of flaps is inconsistent. The wobble was way way worse before 2.0. The developers have constantly improved the model over time and I think they will continue to do this.


    Despite what people are telling you, stick curve settings are not a solution to this problem. They only help control it under certain circumstances. The issue is that the pitch axis of all planes (although some are worse) is extremely unstable and reacts to stick input rather oddly. Specifically, if you are inducing and upward pitch on a plane in il2 and then you lessen or neutral the stick, the plane will jerk in the direction of decreased pitch input and then rebound back towards the original input before settling.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 3

  16. This is a dumb idea.


    -Engine throttle settings are an unrealistic abstraction and not having the technochat would make it even more absurd to manage.


    -The engines enter combat and emergency if they are just a hair over spec, which means you could be in emergency and not know it. it would last longer, but this is still a problem.


    -Some damage options have no manual data to aide them, like flaps damage speed.


    this is just another bonkers case of the hyper-realism crowd assuming that all harder = more realistic, and that any game aide that does not exist explicitly in reality yields a less realistic result.


    This is not the case. If you remove all game aides, what you end up with is not reality. You end up with a game that is a abstraction of reality at every level.


    • Upvote 3

  17. 4 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:


    Agreed with the former.


    For that latter, that'd be nice, but not necessary. They would need to implement a proper fuel handling system to make those useful. And really, they won't be: in our maps we really don't need massive range.


    I feel bad about that kid. Grew up in china only to get separated from his parents by the Japanese. And then he was reunited with them only to move to Gotham and have them murdered by a grinning psycho.


    Oh well. At least his taste in warbirds is spot-on. :)

    Short range missions is what I want them for. The P-51 can loiter at very high speed at its cruise settings due to low drag. Hence why it has so much range. With drop tanks you could carry 25% internal fuel and tanks. Then drop them when u run into bandits. Other fighters could do this, but the P-51s low power cruise lets it get back to base easier because it needs little fuel to do so.


    A P-51 at 25% fuel is like a 109 with 50% fuel in terms of flight time at full power.

  18. 11 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

    I think they mean the turret front, while the 80mm front hull has decent protection against the US 75mm and Soviet 76mm at medium ranges, the 50mm turret is still a weakspot.

    Sort of. P4 80mm plate is a interesting array that is the cause of many contradictory opinions in various historical works. The 80-85mm driver plate is face hardened or a combination of plates on most models and can be defeated by M61 APCBC out to 1000m.


    Same thing goes with the 20mm plate that is below the drivers plate that alot of people seem to think will just deflect shells. Vs 75mm or 76mm rounds there is sufficient over match so that the plate resists like 60ish-mm plate. (i forget the exact numbers)


    Homogeneous plate was introduced on P4-J during the second half of production, which would bounce M61 even under 500m.

  19. While I think the current stall sounds are great, I really wish the game did more to indicate and imminent stall. Buffeting is referred to in almost every account of stalling I have come across, and it is also what most games use. Specifically, some kind of visual buffeting to augment and add to the sound effects.


    Could we get this in il2 please?

  • Create New...