Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?

[wtornado]

After that video I think they know there is a problem lets see when it will be fixed.

[Monostripezebra]

Well, lets just say these types of vids are old.. very old.
 
And the implied question of Dakpilots post is maybe a valid one, in a sim you can test stupid things noone would try in real life, so judging "realness" based on some vids can be a bit tricky. After all those nasty FM-discussions, I still think BoS does in some parts a good job and in others a not so good one, but most people going crazy over those issues are not really doing the game justice nor are they super qualified to judge. In my eyes you have to live with some parts and rather enjoy them. I´ve said it before and I say it again: I think the pure "benchmark" numbers like speeds and climbrates, so many people go crazy about ranting, are absolutely not the issue, those are within some errormargin not unrealistic... In my eyes, it is the way energy retention and addition is handled under certain conditions, especially the influx of wingloading..
 

old vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNy1XrRUGGQ

 

recent 2.002b:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YryHwhsgZxo

Edited July 15, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[JG13_opcode]

I have not checked figures, but at absolute empty weight, as in the video, the power to weight of P-40 would probably be quite surprising

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

The empty P-40E weighs something like 6300 lb, so for a V-1710-39 making 1150 ponies, that's about 0.18 lb/hp.  P40warhawk.com says the normal loaded weight of the E model is 8280 lb, for a ratio of ~0.14

 

Doesn't seem like the empty P-40 should fly like a Fieseler Storch at either of those ratios.

 

 

 

Tgen you should be familiar to what happens to some models onve you supercool a fluid. You need a new set of models. Or when you include quantum effects for super conductor modeling. New model. This may be an area where the simulator doesn't work very well. But it excels in others.

 

You should also know that when you attempt a fix of some kind, you can break everything else. That is the problem of physics based models. It is never easy.

 

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if this behaviour was simply due to the discrete number of cases the engine can model instead of the continuum we have in real life. It might just hit a boundary on the lift/weight ratio and go haywire.

 

And his video shows an almost empty place fuel and ammo wise right?

 

I'm going to say this as politely as possible:  Your reply indicates to me that you aren't really familiar with how computer programming works (or perhaps flight dynamics).  If there are "boundaries on the lift/weight ratio" that cause the model to go haywire in the regime of flight that the video depicts, then I'm sorry to say it's a poor model.  I very much doubt this sim models supercooled fluids and if it models quantum effects then the developers have wasted a hilarious amount of time and effort so, respectfully, I find your response to be rather irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

This isn't some area where we're pushing the boundaries of what's possible to simulate.  This is just what happens when the model is immature and needs work.

 

Well, lets just say these types of vids are old.. very old.

 

And the implied question of Dakpilots post is maybe a valid one, in a sim you can test stupid things noone would try in real life, so judging "realness" based on some vids can be a bit tricky. After all those nasty FM-discussions, I still think BoS does in some parts a good job and in others a not so good one, but most people going crazy over those issues are not really doing the game justice nor are they super qualified to judge. In my eyes you have to live with some parts and rather enjoy them. I´ve said it before and I say it again: I think the pure "benchmark" numbers like speeds and climbrates, so many people go crazy about ranting, are absolutely not the issue, those are within some errormargin not unrealistic... In my eyes, it is the way energy retention and addition is handled under certain conditions, especially the influx of wingloading..

Here's the thing that I think everyone is overlooking.

 

Pretend you're someone that likes WWII aviation and is looking for a new flight sim to play.  You see youtube videos of things like DCS extolling the incredibly detailed cockpits and systems modelling.  You see gameplay videos of War Thunder which looks maybe a little arcade-ish but it's an MMO so there are lots of players and otherwise the game itself is a pretty polished product.

 

Then you see this video of BOS where the P-40 flies like a UFO and Steamcharts.com says the all-time maximum number of concurrent players was less than 250.

 

Which one would you choose?

 

This sim doesn't have scads and scads of players online.  It can't compete on that front.

 

This sim doesn't have the fanciest graphics in town.  It can't compete on that front.

 

What else can it compete on?  Realism and fidelity to historical accuracy?

 

Sure, we who already own the game know that it's perhaps just a corner case and most of the aircraft fly very well.

 

But if I didn't already own that sim and I saw that video, then I discovered you can still do that in the latest patch, well.... I'd save my money.

 

edit:  LOL come on, the P-40 FM is almost comical at this point:  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/23827-tailwheel-thales-and-why-il2-bos-has-its-physics-so-close-re/?do=findComment&comment=370646

Edited July 15, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[Dakpilot]

In every sim be it flight or car/race it is well understood that at the limits, the physics break down

 

in normal flight/combat this is not an issue

 

should more time/resources be spent sorting an issue reflected by 1% of flight time?

 

personally these vid's showing 'comical' parts of FM are a bit silly, but fair game if that is your thing

 

personally I don't see the issue...fly normally and this will not happen..even in professional F1 race simulators physics will have issues even when +millions of $ are spent

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BraveSirRobin]

edit:  LOL come on, the P-40 FM is almost comical at this point:  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/23827-tailwheel-thales-and-why-il2-bos-has-its-physics-so-close-re/?do=findComment&comment=370646

 

[JG13_opcode]

Bob King had to ditch that aircraft as I recall.

Easier to make a high speed water landing compared to carrying on casually back to your aerodrome wouldn't you say?
 
edit:  Dak, honestly, I think it's you who's missing the point.  Please re-read my earlier post because it's not about the 1% of time.  Maybe I'm not communicating well but the point I'm trying to make is that it's about dumb stuff being possible that makes the sim look more like X-Wing vs TIE fighter and discouraging buyers.

Edited July 15, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[BraveSirRobin]

Bob King had to ditch that aircraft as I recall.

 

Easier to make a high speed water landing compared to carrying on casually back to your aerodrome wouldn't you say?

 

 

Watch the video again.  The airfield was almost directly under where the collision took place.  

[JG13_opcode]

I did, and noticed that I'd skipped the part where after the nice controlled descent he flies through like 4 hangars with more than half a wing missing.
 
You're right about the distance though, sorry.

Edited July 16, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[Monostripezebra]

but you´re mistaken, if you think, we can´t have one winged fun in DCS.. we absolutely can, since ages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiR-UOxWU-Q
 
 
or one of my favourite sports, ramming a sabre repeatedly into another jet, then bellyland it on a field with gear up... and do a go around. Really, there is no flightsim without "funny stuff".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2AEfhfmZm8

 

I love both games, and which one you prefer really depends on what you want, I don´t really see them as "competing" it´s two different kind of animals. DCS is supergread if you love systems modeling, but the balanced combat between the modules is less homogenuous, especially in damage aspects and FM balancing, and if you want that more "fine tuned" MP fun then let´s say BoS currently suits that need better. It also has some simplifications to systems, fine graphics and beautiful crash mechanics I would miss in DCS... not to mention the different settings and planes. BoS has it´s place as well DCS. Why would any sim fan not have both, considered he could afford them both?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[BraveSirRobin]

I did, and noticed that I'd skipped the part where after the nice controlled descent he flies through like 4 hangars with more than half a wing missing.

 

You're right about the distance though, sorry.

 

The missing wing probably made it easier to fit through the hanger doors...

[Dakpilot]

Pretty sure that the graphic representation of damage is not exactly linked to FM damage

 

Of course things can be made more accurate but at what cost..there has to be a budget cut off and some performance goal

 

ED have shown that more sophistication takes an age to produce

 

Many people already complain that BoS is too expensive and that performance is not good enough on low/medium PC's

 

Do people really want to pay $50 per A/C like DCS and many civilian flight sims?..there has to be a balance

 

The FM Dev (who also worked on introducing the DCS AFM) explained long ago that they had a much more advanced model , but it brought most computers to a crawl

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

With Il-2 they achieved something that feels very real, which to the average end user matters the most. Everything from the flying to the combat to going through a cloud puts you there.

 

About funny flight model parts, I remember a very specific episode involving the Leatherneck MiG-21 on DCS when some nitpickets were whining that the FM (developed in tandem by a flight engineer and a MiG-21 pilot) was totally broken because if you climbed at a 100 degree angle, cut the engine then hit full afterburner and full left rudder and aileron the aircraft did some funky spin that was unrealistic. The FM guys promptly said they made a simulator that replicates the MiG-21 flying as it's supposed to be flown, within its envelope instead of flight sim circus moves. Same thing here - while obviously there will be one-off situations past the envelope when behaviour will not be 100% correct, but by and large 99/100 times the sim will get it right so there is no need to pretend anything is broken.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Testing of extreme situation and sometimes unrealistic flight attitudes in a siulator is nessecary to varify FM characteristic. One example that shows that clearly is the prop wash modeling implemented in BoS. There's a bunch of sims / flight games that do reasonably well without it and their aircraft "feel fine" to the average user, too, until you try to fly some stall manouvres ect.

[Monostripezebra]

Testing of extreme situation and sometimes unrealistic flight attitudes in a siulator is nessecary to varify FM characteristic. One example that shows that clearly is the prop wash modeling implemented in BoS. There's a bunch of sims / flight games that do reasonably well without it and their aircraft "feel fine" to the average user, too, until you try to fly some stall manouvres ect.

 

I think those devs that say "you´re not supposed to do that" are partly looking for an excuse. Off course the modeling focuses on the "normal" flight envelope, but the real quality of modeling is the one you see outside of that..  And why the hell wouldn´t you want to try all risky things, it´s what sims are for!

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

I think those devs that say "you´re not supposed to do that" are partly looking for an excuse.

 

 

What about those users so quick to draw swords in defense of an obviously flawed flight model?

[BraveSirRobin]

 

 

What about those users so quick to draw swords in defense of an obviously flawed flight model?

 

 

Or those who declare it flawed only to have the same flaw in DCS rubbed in their face?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

How did we get from "my airplane is not competitive enough" to a full blown FM discussion? Either get back on topic or risk a lock my friends.

[JG13_opcode]

it's not really been rubbed in anything. I don't own DCs so I have no idea if the FMS are good. Only that'd it has that rep.

[JG13_opcode]

How did we get from "my airplane is not competitive enough" to a full blown FM discussion? Either get back on topic or risk a lock my friends.

the original topic has run its course and been exhausted. It was some guy whining about getting owned and then changing his story when it was shown that contrary to the topic, the VVS do have "a chance" against the LW.

 

They could add the Yak 9 which would be just as legit to have here as the 190 but I doubt it'd change the amount of salt in here.

 

What else is there to say?

Edited July 16, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[BraveSirRobin]

it's not really been rubbed in anything. I don't own DCs so I have no idea if the FMS are good. Only that'd it has that rep.

 

OK, then maybe you shouldn't be talking about how great it's reputation is when the exact same flaw exists as in the BoS video that you're hyperventilating over.

[JG13_opcode]

I assure you that fending off [Edited]  on an Internet site does not cause me to hyperventilate.

I must have upset you if you're resorting to appeals to emotion like that. Please accept my apologies.

Edited July 18, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[BraveSirRobin]

I assure you that fending off [Edited] on an Internet site does not cause me to hyperventilate.

 

I must have upset you if you're resorting to appeals to emotion like that. Please accept my apologies.

 

Not sure which [Edited] you're talking about.  You were just hyperventilating about the "flawed" P-40 flight model when it was demonstrated to you that those "flaws" exist in all current flight sims.  Apparently now you're trying to pretend that this did not happen.

[JG13_opcode]

I think what I did was laugh at the P40.

 

If all current flight sims are bad, does that make it ok?

[BraveSirRobin]

I think what I did was laugh at the P40.

 

If all current flight sims are bad, does that make it ok?

 

Yes, it does.  At least until you can code something better. 

[JG13_opcode]

Yes, it does.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

At least until you can code something better.

Ah yeah this old argument again.

 

Honestly, if I had help with the rendering aspect of it, I'd give it a shot. Graphics rendering is not my forte.

 

Also I have a pretty well paying job that I'm not going to quit to become a video game programmer, so there's that, I guess.

[BraveSirRobin]

Then I guess you're just going to have to learn to live with "bad" FMs.

[JG13_opcode]

Or I could remain dissatisfied and hope the developers improve them.

 

I'll probably keep doing that if it doesn't upset you too much.

[BraveSirRobin]

Or I could remain dissatisfied 

Good luck with that!

[JG13_opcode]

Thanks 

[Dakpilot]

 

The empty P-40E weighs something like 6300 lb, so for a V-1710-39 making 1150 ponies, that's about 0.18 lb/hp.  P40warhawk.com says the normal loaded weight of the E model is 8280 lb, for a ratio of ~0.14

 

Doesn't seem like the empty P-40 should fly like a Fieseler Storch at either of those ratios.

 

 

 

 

Fieseler Storch has about 0.19Ib/hp

 

there are other figures for P-40E empty weight which bring its P/W to almost the same value, delete the 2 wing MG,s and it really is in the same ballpark

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

To be honest I find that p-40 flying not utterly unmatching. (10% fuel, no ammo, 4 guns) Prop wash might not be 100% spot on but I rather have a prop wash effect and a bit silly stuff at and below stall speed then a scipted stall speed without propwash. Generated airflow (by a prop here) is a very complex thing to simulate that draws huge resources to calculate the closer you want to get to the real thing.

Edited July 17, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[wtornado]

I guess many like and don't mind  that Warthundery flight feeling like in the empty P-40.
 
I guess when you keep on pumping out new planes. and material you miss the really big bugs like that
being a small team and all.

Edited July 17, 2016 by WTornado

[Monostripezebra]

What about those users so quick to draw swords in defense of an obviously flawed flight model?

 

I´ve never said Il2:BoS is completely flawless.. Infact I´ve tried to point out some bugs with as factual and objective reports as I could, but a lot of flight model discussions where superfrustrationg because a lot of people who haven´t flown a single plane type in reality are absolutely convinced they know what is real and have to voice that agressively. I´m no super duper heropilot, but I´ve had the luck to fly a tiny bit and have had some years in school about aircraft stuff, so I hope I can use comon sense, phyiscs and observation to point out some things.. but in the end we have to take a game for what it is: a game. And I´m having fun with it..

 

and flying all sides, I find it quite balanced, albeit the russian side definatly needs to coop more to be competative. Which is, given the lack of 2-way radios at the time, totally ahistoric ;=)

 

If you´d asked my pure personal wishlist it would look something like this:

 

-first: before anything else: bugfixes and better testing before rolling out a patch. Things like the recently re-introduced sticky reargun bug only throw a needlessly negative light..

 

-second:

1) reduce the durability of fuselage and inner wing hit boxes of the Pe2 slightly. It´s a tad bit too tankish currently

2) adress the abuse of the 109 trimable stabilizer, albeit I wouldn´t know how.. having the flaps be more speed-affected might also be worth considering in the 109

3) tone down energy retentention and low speed handling of the Il2:41 it is doing too well in keepting energy in turnfights and re-accelerating. Stuka is similar, but it affects gameplay less

4) give the yak more high speed stiffness and increased drag at high speeds, after all replacing the wobbly fabric covering with bakelite solid surface was one of the big deal issues that made the Yak9 so much better.

5) give the 190 a tiny boost in energy retention.. it is a very heavy plane, but the stored potential energy seems gone quickly.

6) make the 110 wings a tiny bit more durable.

but that is just a very very personal "I think that would make sense" list.

 

apart from that, I like to point out, that over at DCS-forums, people wish for the airmass and bomb blast radius modeling of BoS, which currently other games lack.. ;=)

Edited July 17, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Sunde]

Well said Zeebra, if they fixed / added what you listed, i feel like this game would (at least for me) go from a 7/10 to a 9/10. For me nothing comes close to the quality presented in this sim, but why not make it better?  

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

2) adress the abuse of the 109 trimable stabilizer, albeit I wouldn´t know how.. having the flaps be more speed-affected might also be worth considering in the 109

Not trying to start a new debate but as somebody with equal interest in FM discussion here's my thoughts on this.

 

The Bf-109 had a sensetive stabilizer trim that worked effectively at all speeds. The manual does mention the use of trim to recover the aircraft from high airspeed dives when the elevator becomes uneffective/too heavy and there's a detailed testing document of a F/Pre G series aircraft undegroing high speed dive and recovery trials. INfact the trim was so sensetive pilots were advised to use it with great caution as you could overstrain the airframe when applying too much of it (a finnish pilot report mentioned that the pilot used a bit of flaps to recover from his dive instead of trim for this reason).

 

So making the wheel rotate slower at higher airspeeds is technicly not right. What could be done is changing the wheel rotation motion from continues to incremental. That way trim action would be interrupted every ~ half rotation of the trim and overall trim time increases by the ammount of breaks beween the increments so the pilot needs to spend more caution while trimming the airplane. However, no sim has really attempted this before and I'm not sure what ressources are nessecary to get this to work perfectly with key and axis input.

 

I fully agree on the other points you mentioned.

Edited July 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[JG13_opcode]

Fieseler Storch has about 0.19Ib/hp

 

there are other figures for P-40E empty weight which bring its P/W to almost the same value, delete the 2 wing MG,s and it really is in the same ballpark

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Interestingly enough I realized I kinda borked that math up there.

 

Not knowing much about the Storch, I just did a quick google and it is about 11.5 lb/hp according to Wikipedia figures for weight and power.  I was surprised to learn it only makes around 240 HP!

 

Empty P-40 is around 5.5 lb/hp and loaded is around 7.2

 

So the Storch actually has a worse power:weight ratio than the P-40.  Learned something today.

[Dakpilot]

So are you saying that the P-40 having Storch like capabilities is perhaps not so far fetched, and the FM is maybe not so flawed 

 

And maybe people who had a different opinion did not need to labelled as "Fanboys"

 

At one time I used to fly a large Cargo aircraft that also had remarkable short field performance, when close to empty weight it had more in common with a helicopter 

 

There are many flaws in BoS, and most other Sims, it is not so much a matter of incompetence or laziness of the Dev's but what can be included due to budget and hardware performance considerations

 

Many Sim/Game companies have been too adventurous in their scope whether in dynamic campaigns or feature creep and are no longer around anymore

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You can't compare 2 entirely different aircraft based on p/w ratio only. Aerodynamics and weight also have a big impact and aircraft behaviour and the Storch is without doubt the better slowflyer of both.

 

My guess is that there's sth wrong with the way prop wash is being modeled giving some aircraft remarkeble controll authority even within a stall and extremely high alphas.

[Monostripezebra]

You can't compare 2 entirely different aircraft based on p/w ratio only. Aerodynamics and weight also have a big impact and aircraft behaviour and the Storch is without doubt the better slowflyer of both.

 

My guess is that there's sth wrong with the way prop wash is being modeled giving some aircraft remarkeble controll authority even within a stall and extremely high alphas.

I was thinking the same..

 

Overall it isn´t really that gameplay relevant mostly, as nobody goes without ammo and fuel to the fight, and once the planes stalls, the MC202 actually falls down pretty cool...  so it´s more like a fun item.

[JG13_opcode]

So are you saying that the P-40 having Storch like capabilities is perhaps not so far fetched

Certainly not.  As 5tuka rightly said there are other differences such as full-span slats, wing loading, achievable Clmax, etc.

 

 

 

And maybe people who had a different opinion did not need to labelled as "Fanboys"

The only people I'm labelling [Edited] are the ones that can't read criticism of a video game without getting emotional.

Edited July 18, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin