Use IL-2 Compare as Reference

[ESCOMM_FlyMaker]

How much planes on BoX have diference in engine performance and turn radius from 1946? We can use 1946 compare to reference BoX planes?

[LukeFF]

Don't even bother. Two games with entirely different engines coded ages apart.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

3 hours ago, ESCOMM_FlyMaker said:

How much planes on BoX have diference in engine performance and turn radius from 1946? We can use 1946 compare to reference BoX planes?

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Don't even bother. Two games with entirely different engines coded ages apart.

 

I think you can use it to get an idea of relative performance but I would not use it as gospel. 

[CrazyDuck]

Why not? IL-2 1946 is a sim with extraordinary level of fidelity, only much older. Spits didn't suddenly start to turn worse than 190s in recent years.

Like AeroAce said, you'll get a very good picture of, say, Bf 109F vs I-16 performance by checking IL-2 compare.

As long as you don't expect it to be accurate down to the fifth decimal, you'll be fine (read: Don't compare very similar AC down to single digit kph max speed).

 

Oh, and use it for low-ish altitudes only.

[E_Davjack]

The newer games seem to model "digital air" so much better that IMO, older games feel like they are on rails.  Original IL2 1946 was very good for its time, but I doubt the stall characteristics are anywhere near as good, and so "turn rate" vs "pushing the envelope" will be a bit different. 

[GP*]

1 hour ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

The newer games seem to model "digital air" so much better that IMO, older games feel like they are on rails.  Original IL2 1946 was very good for its time, but I doubt the stall characteristics are anywhere near as good, and so "turn rate" vs "pushing the envelope" will be a bit different. 

 

Gahhh. This sentiment flares up time and time again like a bad case of herpes. 

 

For the record, I agree with what I think you're trying to say. The overall modeling in BoX vs '46 is indeed much better.

 

But we've fought very hard to instill in people that the antithesis of "flying on rails" isn't necessarily more realistic. The bounce-fest that characterized the first iterations of this game were certainly NOT realistic, but were lauded by lots of gamers for the immersive feel (despite not actually being realistic). 

 

Rant over, enjoy the game!

[E_Davjack]

I wouldn't know, but my only real world flight experience is in Cessna 152s and 172s, so I can't imagine how smooth a WWII fighter would have flown.  RoF feels just right for light aircraft. 

[ESCOMM_FlyMaker]

I will try to update manually the il2 compare with BoX data

Accord to il2 1946 4.11 compare F4 turn much better than Yak1, in box that is inaccurate.

First i will update speed chats (much more easy to do), later i have to create a method to update curves

 

Later today i will reply here my methods and the firsts tests

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Bear in mind that 4.11 IL-2 1946 doesn't have the Yak-1 model 1942 in Battle of Stalingrad, it has the 1941 one with a weaker engine. In BoX you can sort of recreate this by flying the Yak-1 at 85% throttle as max power.

A better comparison would be with the Yak-1B, Yak-7B (1942) and Yak-9 in 1946.

Edited September 25, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[DD_Arthur]

4 hours ago, ESCOMM_FlyMaker said:

Accord to il2 1946 4.11 compare F4 turn much better than Yak1, in box that is inaccurate.

 

3 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Bear in mind that in 4.11 IL-2 1946 doesn't have the Yak-1 model 1942 in Battle of Stalingrad, it has the 1941 one with a weaker engine.

 

Oh look, this has become an exercise in nonsense already

[ESCOMM_FlyMaker]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Oh look, this has become an exercise in nonsense already

Not exactly

 

I will scrap all 1946 compare data. The program just read txt files and this can work perfectly

We have option to add or exclude any plane we need