Real VS IL2 (part 2)

[SCG_motoadve]

I ended up buying this plane CJ 6. warbird feel its really there.

 

After more hrs flying it , some comparisons with IL2, althought is not a Yak, or a Mig 3 some systems and instruments are the same, and the wing loading much more comparable than a regular general aviation aircraft.

 

Feeling of flight, IL2 has it better than any other sim.(I have  Prepar 3D, X plane 11, Aerofly 2, DCS)

Stalls , turns, cruise, take offs are pretty good, pretty realistic.

Taxiing with the air system is harder in real life, these drum brakes are grabby, but definitely having used IL2 really helped with my training for taxiing.

 

Landings are pretty good in IL2 , but ground effect its low or missing (have not seen a sim that models it right yet).

For some reason the Spiftire has more ground effect feel in Il2 than any other airplane.

Sounds , I wish for better sounds in IL2 , sounds are big to help immersion, this airplanes are really loud, and throaty sounding even with modern headsets.

 

They vibrate a lot, you can add vibration with a buttkicker attached to your joystick.(this is great for immersion, I have 2, one to my seat and another attached to my joystick).

 

Loops and rolls, not there yet, I want to put at least 30 hrs before getting some aerobatic training, but when I do, will report with a video.

 

Again, VR is amazing and the scale in case of the Oculus is perfect, I highly recommend it, and also a joystick with extensions.

The more I fly this airplane the more I say to ,yself while flying it , Il2 its pretty darn good.

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by II./JG77_motoadve

[pilotpierre]

You lucky bastard. I have a mate who owns one and I will admit it is a delight to fly, especially areos.

[TRRA15]

RL was a big education to me. Went flying a few times in a co-worker's homebuilt ( from a kit ) RV4....sort of like a 1/3 scale P-51 with fixed gear ( with wheel pants ) and 160 HP...and very fast for its power, and full aerobatic capability. The "education" for me was how sensitive the stick was ( rear of the cockpit had the rudder/aileron but no no rudder pedals ) and it's obvious the literal ham-handedness of newbie flight simmers ( and even non-newbies ) in the same plane would lead to catastrophe. Negative Gs are MOST uncomfortable, and even moderate positive Gs can make you fell like your arm is made of lead. The most humbling experiences though were in upside-down flight...just simple aileron rolls, not barrel rolls, let alone split-Sess: A combination of ( out of 5 ) 1 part "wow, that was fun/amazing" and 4 parts "OK, yeah, but that's quite enough, thank you".

At that point I really appreciated the stress on the senses it really takes to really do what we do hear in sims.

Edited October 29, 2018 by TRRA15
punctuation

[Guest deleted@50488]

7 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

 

Feeling of flight, IL2 has it better than any other sim.(I have  Prepar 3D, X plane 11, Aerofly 2, DCS)

Stalls , turns, cruise, take offs are pretty good, pretty realistic.

Taxiing with the air system is harder in real life, these drum brakes are grabby, but definitely having used IL2 really helped with my training for taxiing.

 

Landings are pretty good in IL2 , but ground effect its low or missing (have not seen a sim that models it right yet).

For some reason the Spiftire has more ground effect feel in Il2 than any other airplane. 

 

 

 

Thanks again for sharing!

 

Regarding ground handling, I still find the aircraft too sensible to x-wind on ground.

Regarding the ground effect, I believe what you're experiencing of different in the Spitfire is more due to the fact that that's the way neutral pitch stability is modelled. You pull the stick for the flare and the nose stays there, more than in the other fighters where their positive static pitch stability does it's work...

 

But indeed that "sensation of being there" is superb in IL-2 Great Battles!

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Von-Target

[Blackhawk_FR]

I also have very good flying sensation in IL2. Never tried DCS yet to compare. 

 

Just few little things I regret: 

- When taxiing even slowly, it feels like we have wreck brakes. If you crush one or your 2 pedals, the wheel should be blocked immediatly.

- Graphics and all visual effects about clouds. For sure I guess it's really tough to model. But once we'll have clouds that really looks like real, it'll be a boost for immersion. 

 

Also, it feel strange to be able to turn and move your head the way you want under high Gs, but it's the same problem in every sim (I guess?).

 

 

Quote

Regarding ground handling, I still find the aircraft too sensible to x-wind on ground.

 

Really? To me they react correctly with cross wind. Landings with cross wind are also interesting and feel like reals.

Edited October 29, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Guest deleted@50488]

3 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Really? To me they react correctly with cross wind. Landings with cross wind are also interesting and feel like reals. 

 

I was referring particularly to ground handling under x-wind.

Reminds me a bit X-Plane 11, where it also tends to feel overdone...

Some aircraft will feel really difficult to taxi on a mere 5m/s ~ 10 knot wind...

Edited October 29, 2018 by Von-Target

[Blackhawk_FR]

With a free tailwheel it's normal to have difficulties to taxi over 10kts cross wing. When it's locked (as we can do on almost all aircraft), it's obviously easier. 

 

But the wreck brakes is to me the main explanation of why it's difficult (with or without cross wind) to taxi in that game. 

[Finkeren]

The thing about the breaks is deliberate IIRC. They are set to never engage fully to help out people without pedals to gain better control when using buttons for breaking.

[Cpt_Siddy]

IL2 "pro players" (and you know who you are) are notorious for pulling negative bazillion G and abusing the living shit out of pilot non simulated endurance and redout. 

 

Really realistikk simulator indeed  

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Finkeren]

Since when are effects of negative G not modeled?

[Cpt_Siddy]

4 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Since when are effects of negative G not modeled?

 

 

Oh they are, it just they are modeled by a person who never ever even hung upside down on a kids playground (thats, kids, is what negative 1G feels like), let alone pulled negative 4G for  5 seconds.

 

The G force modelling is inconsistent in this game, i can pull redouts and blackouts in spitfires no problem. It takes herculean efforts to do that same in yak-1. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Oh they are, it just they are modeled by a person who never ever even hung upside down on a kids playground (thats, kids, is what negative 1G feels like), let alone pulled negative 4G for  5 seconds.

 

The G force modelling is inconsistent in this game, i can pull redouts and blackouts in spitfires no problem. It takes herculean efforts to do that same in yak-1. 

 

Maybe that is because the Spitfires were known to have extraordinarily sensitive elevators.  "The elevator and trimming tabs are powerful and sensitive and must always be used with care, particularly at high speed".  Spitfire Mk.IX PN.   The NACA Spitfire report also discusses this in great length.

 

This is actually one of the things that seems to be right in the BoX Spitfires, unlike the ridiculous unpressurized cooling system.

 

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Maybe that is because the Spitfires were known to have extraordinarily sensitive elevators.  "The elevator and trimming tabs are powerful and sensitive and must always be used with care, particularly at high speed".  Spitfire Mk.IX PN.   The NACA Spitfire report also discusses this in great length.

  

This is actually one of the things that seems to be right in the BoX Spitfires, unlike the ridiculous unpressurized cooling system.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps, but the fact still remain that there is this threshold of blackout/redout that only one plane seems to be able to reach consistently irregardless of speed. 

 

This does not conduce well in to the simming experience when you see ridiculous sustained negative G turns from players being pursued. That, and the totally realistic back and forth stick jerking Pe-2's do  

[Finkeren]

35 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

The G force modelling is inconsistent in this game, i can pull redouts and blackouts in spitfires no problem. It takes herculean efforts to do that same in yak-1. 

 

That’s because the Spit pulls waaaaay more Gs than the Yak. Try pulling out from a 600km/h dive in the Yak and the Spit respectively and see which does it faster.

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Perhaps, but the fact still remain that there is this threshold of blackout/redout that only one plane seems to be able to reach consistently irregardless of speed. 

 

This does not conduce well in to the simming experience when you see ridiculous sustained negative G turns from players being pursued. That, and the totally realistic back and forth stick jerking Pe-2's do  

 

I have to agree that the game is in general rather forgiving of Gs - but then you have the threads by current fast jet pilots saying that it is not, so what do I know.  As for the sustained negative Gs - blame Hartmann.  

[Cpt_Siddy]

11 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

That’s because the Spit pulls waaaaay more Gs than the Yak. Try pulling out from a 600km/h dive in the Yak and the Spit respectively and see which does it faster.

 

 

i get that, but the G forces that pilot experiences are way downplayed in this sim. And there is no fatigue either. There is reason why some planes became good fighters only after they got aileron boosts, like p-38.

 

In this game you command the power of Hercules himself and can abuse it all day every day to a ridiculous effect. 

 

Only way this game even remotely touched the pilots ability to pull on the stick is when he has few extra holes shot trough him. And then vision is all red and movement become sluggish. But the Negative 4G sustained turn? Who cares, you can turn while screen is all black. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Finkeren]

11 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

i get that, but the G forces that pilot experiences are way downplayed in this sim. And there is no fatigue either. There is reason why some planes became good fighters only after they got aileron boosts, like p-38.

 

In this game you command the power of Hercules himself and can abuse it all day every day to a ridiculous effect. 

 

Only way this game even remotely touched the pilots ability to pull on the stick is when he has few extra holes shot trough him. And then vision is all red and movement become sluggish. But the Negative 4G sustained turn? Who cares, you can turn while screen is all black. 

 

Yes, it is a deliberate design decision to not model most of the limits the pilot’s physique puts on air combat. They chose to go with the simple stuff that every flight sim models: G-effects only at the point were a real pilot would begin to lose conciousness, effects of wounds etc. Adding the effect of defective oxygen supply on top.

 

We can discuss this design decision, but keep in mind, that has been how most sims have done it over the years, and it has no bearing on whether or not this sim models the aircraft realistically.

19 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

But the Negative 4G sustained turn? Who cares, you can turn while screen is all black. 

 

I think you are using the term “negative G” wrong here. Negative G causes redout in the sim - not blackout - and I don’t think you can push much beyond negative 3G without losing conciousness.

 

Also: I don’t think any WW2 plane could actually perform a sustained negative G turn - let alone one of 4Gs - since it kinda requires you to fly upside down and then do a banked turn where you push your nose down into the turn without losing either speed or altitude.

[Blackhawk_FR]

Could be interesting to know at how many G we start getting effects on the pilot, in the game.

 

Sure G effects could be improved with:

- Tiredness of the pilot after pulling lot of Gs during a long dogfight

- Black out that come with less positive Gs after negative Gs

- "Redout" doesn't exist, we can push as much negative Gs as you can, you'll still see. But you can loose consciousness, as you can with positive G after black out.

 

Expect for the black out with less positive G avec negative Gs, it's probably too complicated to model correctly all G effects in a game (especially as it depend on the shape and the training of the pilot, which change all the time).

 

As I often say, it would be more important to do something about the "virtual super muscular neck" we have in the game, which make us able to move and turn the head anyway we want under high Gs. But how...

[LuftManu]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

IL2 "pro players" (and you know who you are) are notorious for pulling negative bazillion G and abusing the living shit out of pilot non simulated endurance and redout. 

 

Really realistikk simulator indeed  

Care to elaborate?

I don't think you can pull with the "Hercules power". I don't think of way to implement realistic fatigue as every pilot it's different on each airframe. The actual problem might be that you can still "control" the plane on the verge of a blackout but I think this might be the best way to represent that. I can think of other sims and the insta blackout cause you can actualy use the Hercules power ?

Edited October 29, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[Cpt_Siddy]

19 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

Care to elaborate?

 

Have you seen the way people abuse the Pe-2 in multiplayer? 

 

In real life, the female Pe-2 squadron had to have a back gunner help the pilot to pull the stick on take off. In here, you can jerk the stick back and forth to do the "cant touch this" dance all the way back to your field from target. 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Guest deleted@83466]

imo, repeated and/or sustained use of negative G manuevers should cause the pilot to accumulate a slight "wound' every time he does it, such that it's not possible to just do it all day long the way some pilots do it in our sim .  If Hartmann had used his Neg G manuevers as much as some of the pilots in Il-2 do, he probably would have popped his eyeballs out of his head!  Neg G is a valid and effective manuever, but it shouldn't come without a simulated cost.

Edited October 29, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[LuftManu]

17 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Have you seen the way people abuse the Pe-2 in multiplayer? 

 

In real life, the female Pe-2 squadron had to have a back gunner help the pilot to pull the stick on take off. In here, you can jerk the stick back and forth to do the "cant touch this" dance all the way back to your field from target. 

 

(VIDEO)

 

I see your point but how amount of stress? How many degrees? Is there an amount you can measure?

This is an interesting point, don't get me wrong but we need to use figures. I'm sure you are not telling lies and that represents what a heavy aircraft might do. I see that too in Il-2 but not in that extreme so yes, you can tune but wich amount? I am fine with how it is now and as always would love further tuning for a more realsitic response if there is some but don't forget that there are some issues out there too.  Very important ones so you can appreciate what degree we have here on aicraft controls. What I am trying to say? This effect could be done more realistic but we need to prove how much. At least we have some degree already present.

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

 

 

Also: I don’t think any WW2 plane could actually perform a sustained negative G turn - let alone one of 4Gs - since it kinda requires you to fly upside down and then do a banked turn where you push your nose down into the turn without losing either speed or altitude.

 

 

Tell that to the last 190 who dove down from me and recovered the dive by pulling down on the stick....

[Sunde]

1 hour ago, LF_ManuV said:

-snip-

Are you not entertained!? 

[LuftManu]

6 minutes ago, Miller1 said:

Are you not entertained!? 

Lord, punish me ?

[Finkeren]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Tell that to the last 190 who dove down from me and recovered the dive by pulling down on the stick....

 

What does that have to do withvdoing a sustained turn under negative G?

[Cpt_Siddy]

37 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

What does that have to do withvdoing a sustained turn under negative G?

 

 

Well, when you normally recover from a a dive the normal side up, he did it ass up. Recovering from dive usually incur some nasty G force loading... 

[Blackhawk_FR]

10 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Well, when you normally recover from a a dive the normal side up, he did it ass up. Recovering from dive usually incur some nasty G force loading... 

 

So? Humans can take +7G and -4G without anti G suits (more or less, depending on shape and training).

Edited October 29, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

3 hours ago, LF_ManuV said:

I see your point but how amount of stress? How many degrees? Is there an amount you can measure?

This is an interesting point, don't get me wrong but we need to use figures. I'm sure you are not telling lies and that represents what a heavy aircraft might do. I see that too in Il-2 but not in that extreme so yes, you can tune but wich amount? I am fine with how it is now and as always would love further tuning for a more realsitic response if there is some but don't forget that there are some issues out there too.  Very important ones so you can appreciate what degree we have here on aicraft controls. What I am trying to say? This effect could be done more realistic but we need to prove how much. At least we have some degree already present.

 

Lol I’m confused if this video was sarcasm or not?

[303_Kwiatek]

7 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

With a free tailwheel it's normal to have difficulties to taxi over 10kts cross wing. When it's locked (as we can do on almost all aircraft), it's obviously easier. 

 

But the wreck brakes is to me the main explanation of why it's difficult (with or without cross wind) to taxi in that game. 

 

Yea You right in BOX brakes are too weak expecially during taxi.  When plane starts to circling on the ground you should stop it by brake but in BOX it doesnt work. 

 

Defnitly brakes should be more effective to stop drift druing taxi.

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

19 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

I ended up buying this plane CJ 6. warbird feel its really there.

 

 

The real question is how long have you had it, what's your GPH?, and how many quarts/litres of oil has it burned?  

 

Thought hard at a CJ6 but couldn't get over fuel/oil burn and the side effects of it being registered (non-experimental).  Chose rv8 instead.

[LuftManu]

1 hour ago, spartan85 said:

Lol I’m confused if this video was sarcasm or not?

Just appreciating the things we have in Il-2, people often think that other things are always better.

[SCG_motoadve]

3 hours ago, =BES=Coyote-66 said:

The real question is how long have you had it, what's your GPH?, and how many quarts/litres of oil has it burned?  

 

Thought hard at a CJ6 but couldn't get over fuel/oil burn and the side effects of it being registered (non-experimental).  Chose rv8 instead.

Its not the most economical, but not an AT 6 either, have had it for 2 weeks , flown it 10 hrs (I do fly my planes a lot, its cheaper long term).

13 GPH

1 quart of oil per hr, but the coolness of the radial is worth it.

[SCG_motoadve]

Regarding G forces, they are hard on the body, I was doing 3 Gs today, and not even doing proper acro, just fast sustained 60 degree turns.

With time I bet you get used to it a bit but 2 or 3 Gs, more than that will always be tiring, and impossible to just continue doing them while looking everywhere like nothing.

 

How to simulate something remotely similar? no idea, must be hard though.

 

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

G sustainanability comes down to training and physical fitness of your body. The fewest of us are likely to be trained fighter pilots and have varying limitation when it comes to G forces.

As a glider pilot I don't mind 2G at all. It's not too uncommon to get there in high bank turns while circling thermals. At 4.5G (my max continous so far) it is difficult to freely swivel your head as the muscles harden up to fight G. But still, to my own suprise, I found myself to be quite capeable of dealing with those forces. With training I'm sure it could be even better.

Edited October 30, 2018 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Lusekofte]

I think the OP evaluation is taken way too literary .

I agree with him about the feel of flight, The authentic feel of flying in a real environment. Sometimes you even get turbulence in this game.

Aside from that I still got a much more authentic feel of being in a plane flying the YAK 52 in DCS, but that is probably caused by how seriously I take procedures on startup and taxiing.

More aware of these things flying GB planes , I would probably not notice that.

So personally I think it is the attitude while flying that matters . I fly GB for fast fun , and DCS for something else.

Edited October 30, 2018 by LuseKofte

[Dakpilot]

17 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Oh they are, it just they are modeled by a person who never ever even hung upside down on a kids playground (thats, kids, is what negative 1G feels like), let alone pulled negative 4G for  5 seconds.

 

The G force modelling is inconsistent in this game, i can pull redouts and blackouts in spitfires no problem. It takes herculean efforts to do that same in yak-1. 

 

This has been explained long ago in FM section sticked at top of subjects by Han. 

 

The Lagg is not capable of inducing more than negative 1G

 

The La-5 is not capable of more than 2G

 

And Yak more than 3G negative 

 

This is due to actual design of control authority at full 'push' with max trim. 

 

190, 109, and Spitfire for example have much higher elevator authority and are thus able to induce critical negative aoa/G much more easily.

 

This translates to more forgiving/foolproof handling of some VVS fighters, the reason for which is mis-understood and complained about by many.. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

The most I have done is maybe 30 mins of aero (not straight one manoeuvre to another, but practicing fairly hard) and that was pretty tiring. The 20 minute continuous hard manoeuvring you might see on a DF server strikes me as unlikely, though the human body ‘can’ withstand a lot of acceleration and general punishment.

 

For a start, anyone actually flying that hard for so long would likely be looking to get the hell out before fate caught up with them.

[Willy__]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The most I have done is maybe 30 mins of aero (not straight one manoeuvre to another, but practicing fairly hard) and that was pretty tiring. The 20 minute continuous hard manoeuvring you might see on a DF server strikes me as unlikely, though the human body ‘can’ withstand a lot of acceleration and general punishment.

 

It would be nice if there was some modeling to that, it would stop the non stop turning circle jerk we see online..... buuuuuuuuuuut, this was already brought up on the forums, but it was met with desdain and condescending attitude by the usual red advocates.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

2 minutes ago, Willy__ said:

 

It would be nice if there was some modeling to that, it would stop the non stop turning circle jerk we see online..... buuuuuuuuuuut, this was already brought up on the forums, but it was met with desdain and condescending attitude by the usual red advocates.

 

 

Modeling it strikes me as very very difficult and largely subjective (as well as the inevitable cries of: "But I'm really fit [in reality / my fantasy as a fighter pilot], I would totally be able to pull more Gs than this!"

 

It's basically the same about going for a jog / some exercise in shorts and a t-shirt vs. in a training weight jacket / heavy back-pack, or infantry in BDUs vs. chem gear* - sure you 'can' function as normal but the cumulative fatigue, lactic acid build-up and your becoming less aware and creative is not small.

 

Modelling that? Not sure it is worth the candle

 

* Which I wore once, as a semi-joke at an RAF base, and do not want ever to do again if possible.