Physics seem...easy?

[Praetor]

Unless I'm missing something somewhere, the physics seem very easy for some reason.  Trim is nearly always spot on, feels like a FBW plane.  Is there a physics setting somewhere in the menus?  I looked but couldn't find anything more than the check boxes for "simplifications".  The only thing I have checked is a warmed up engine.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Praetor

[Dragon1-1]

There's no turbulence, and physics certainly feel somewhat simplified compared to, say, DCS. It's most notable on takeoff and landing (just try handling the DCS Spitfire on the ground), but air to air gunnery is also much harder in DCS, and not only because you can't set convergence (OTOH, there's no engine timers in DCS). Unfortunately, this seems inherent in the flight model, there's no way to turn it off.

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There's no turbulence

 

There most certainly is. ?

[SYN_Vander]

9 hours ago, Praetor said:

...  Trim is nearly always spot on, feels like a FBW plane...

 

What aircraft are you flying? Because for me trim is NEVER spot on and I have to adjust continuously. In DCS it's easier to trim out to a stable configuration. Which one is better I couldn't say btw...

Edited July 7, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[Lusekofte]

I am no expert in software and coding. 
but no, I repeat no sim is accurate in simulation of environment. 
In DCS it seems like most of the environment is coded in the planes FM. And while DCS is good in some ways GB is better in others. 
aThere is turbulence in GB , that and the new weather where you can encounter rain during flight and not all the time. Makes it pretty good. 
wind is apparently all sims nemesis. And different experience on torque effect witch no sim has perfected. What you ask for no one manage to do realistically. And my guess when you find a sim that does it is very expensive 

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There most certainly is. ?

 

There is, but mission makers have to use it.  By default turbulence is off.  I suspect that many mission makers don't know this, don't bother, or choose not to use it (I strongly recommend adding some).  If there is no turbulence in the mission I can see where that would lead to the idea that flying is relatively easy.

 

Per the comment about planes always being in trim - that is definitely not my experience.  Simple test: take the plane up, level off and let go of the stick.  See how long the plane stays straight and level.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I always put on some wind and turbulence in my QMB setups. If you're flying there and not turning those things on you aren't experiencing some pretty decent (canned but decent) turbulence and real world considerations when flying around. Aiming is harder when there's a crosswind and your airplane is bumping around.

 

Aircraft are definitely not always in trim. The most extreme example I can think of is the Fokker Dr I but I'm generally trimming all of my aircraft. No fly by wire feelings here.

[FuriousMeow]

Harder does not equate to more realistic. If pilots had to fight and wrestle a plane to keep it in the air flying straight, it would not pass prototype stage let alone go into mass production.

 

I'm sure there's lots of areas that could be improved by more complicated maths, but something would have to give somewhere else in the processing.

[kestrel79]

I get annoyed when people write off IL2 as being "simple" or "easy" because it doesn't have clickable cockpits. I still think it has the best "feeling" of flight in any sim I've ever played, runs great performance wise too in VR. Can't beat that.

 

Those clickable cockpits aren't too fun when you are trying to play online in a server and it takes 34 minutes to start up the plane, taxi, take off, fly to target, get shot down, and have to do it all over again.

 

I think IL2's way is the perfect balance between hardcore sim and gameplay. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Systems are what's lacking, 109 checklist, hit start, wheels up, shoot.  Little bit too simplistic, but great to get into a quick helicopter fights.

[SCG_motoadve]

 

2 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

I get annoyed when people write off IL2 as being "simple" or "easy" because it doesn't have clickable cockpits. I still think it has the best "feeling" of flight in any sim I've ever played, runs great performance wise too in VR. Can't beat that.

 

Those clickable cockpits aren't too fun when you are trying to play online in a server and it takes 34 minutes to start up the plane, taxi, take off, fly to target, get shot down, and have to do it all over again.

 

I think IL2's way is the perfect balance between hardcore sim and gameplay. 

Il2 its easy, and FMs are a bit simple, most likely made like this for the target audience. You can jump from one plane to the other without any practice, fly and shoot down planes.

With that being said, I don't think FMs are terrible.

DM got real bad about 2 years ago though, super easy pilot kills, and fragile planes, that was a big disappointment.

Pilot modelling is the best of any sim IMHO, turbulence not bad either.

 

Clickable cockpit , if you are referring to DCS , you can do auto start and forget abut clicking stuff. 

As for the feel, DCS warbirds feel very real to me, way more than IL2, for starters proper torque is modelled,  IL2 I like their FMs more than Cliff of Dover or MSFS.

[Praetor]

I didn't mention anything about a clickable cockpit.  I'm fine with what we have provided everything can be mapped.  No issue there.

It just feels like it's on rails.  I'm doing a P47 career, and while I didn't want to mention DCS on these forums since they're a competitor, it is what I'm comparing it to.  There's very little need to trim it out when you're changing power settings.  Maybe in a dive or with dramatic changes in power, but from A to B it's "set it and forget it".

I haven't played IL2 for about a year and getting the WWII itch again so thought I would reinstall.  I do love it, but got used to the more dynamic FM in DCS and I think that's why this feels so rock solid.  Either IL2 is too simplified, or DCS over does the p-factor and trim adjustments required.

[SCG_motoadve]

2 hours ago, Praetor said:

I didn't mention anything about a clickable cockpit.  I'm fine with what we have provided everything can be mapped.  No issue there.

It just feels like it's on rails.  I'm doing a P47 career, and while I didn't want to mention DCS on these forums since they're a competitor, it is what I'm comparing it to.  There's very little need to trim it out when you're changing power settings.  Maybe in a dive or with dramatic changes in power, but from A to B it's "set it and forget it".

I haven't played IL2 for about a year and getting the WWII itch again so thought I would reinstall.  I do love it, but got used to the more dynamic FM in DCS and I think that's why this feels so rock solid.  Either IL2 is too simplified, or DCS over does the p-factor and trim adjustments required.

DCS P47 is fantastic, and very well modeled IMHO.

This is why you feel a difference with the P47 in IL2, physics are modelled in a lot more detail in DCS.

Each one is geared towards a  different kind of customer, you cannot compare the amount of hrs man dedicated to a plane in DCS and one in IL2, this why they charge that much money for their planes, on average 20,000 man hr per every warbird.

On the other hand you can buy a full IL2 version with lots of planes for the price of just 1 plane in DCS.

Edited July 7, 2023 by SCG_motoadve

[RossMarBow]

On 7/7/2023 at 12:20 PM, Praetor said:

Unless I'm missing something somewhere, the physics seem very easy for some reason.  Trim is nearly always spot on, feels like a FBW plane.  Is there a physics setting somewhere in the menus?  I looked but couldn't find anything more than the check boxes for "simplifications".  The only thing I have checked is a warmed up engine.

Try it out in multiplayer 
You probably have some weird setting enabled 

In multiplayer most people use auto level mode a lot, because trimming is a lot of effort

 

7 hours ago, Praetor said:

I didn't mention anything about a clickable cockpit.  I'm fine with what we have provided everything can be mapped.  No issue there.

It just feels like it's on rails.  I'm doing a P47 career, and while I didn't want to mention DCS on these forums since they're a competitor, it is what I'm comparing it to.  There's very little need to trim it out when you're changing power settings.  Maybe in a dive or with dramatic changes in power, but from A to B it's "set it and forget it".

I haven't played IL2 for about a year and getting the WWII itch again so thought I would reinstall.  I do love it, but got used to the more dynamic FM in DCS and I think that's why this feels so rock solid.  Either IL2 is too simplified, or DCS over does the p-factor and trim adjustments required.

 

P47 is pretty easy on the trim - which is why a lot of people bind elevator trim to stick

Not all planes are though
P47 has a controversial FM in general - most people just don't fly it in IL-2 
The only thing its good at is speed and moving ordinance 

 

Some planes need a lot of trim some don't
I have no idea but I wonder if it is because the p47 has such a huge surface area

If you compare the stang and the p47 - at full fuel - the stang is barely flyable - while the p47 behaves pretty normally at all fuel %

 

 

But yea I would say 99% of people would say the P47 in this game is rubbish and you really shouldn't use it in single player

Edited July 8, 2023 by RossMarBow

[Charon]

9 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

DCS P47 is fantastic, and very well modeled IMHO.

 

DCS nevertheless gets a few things wrong.

 

The RPM-Throttle interlock is modeled as a two-way latch; every source I can find says it should instead be a cam, as Il-2 models it.

 

In DCS, engaging the quadrant interconnects requires first aligning the levers and then toggling the locks; in reality they engage automatically with a movement of the throttle, as Il-2 models it.

 

DCS's R-2800 suffers prompt master rod bearing failure if run at high RPM and low MP; this is a misunderstanding of that failure mode; IMO this is a serious deficiency.

 

DCS's P-47 is missing the take-off stop on the throttle (although it's only cosmetic in Il-2, so we can call this one a draw).

 

I'm suspicious of the extreme sensitivity of the trim controls, but I can't prove anything here one way or another.

 

----

 

Overall I think 1C gets too much flak for the P-47 in Il-2: people misunderstand how the turbo works, mismanage it, and will claim things like "you don't lose any power interlocking the controls", even though if you measure this you'll find that it does indeed result in less power at partial-throttle settings.

[SCG_motoadve]

4 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

 

DCS nevertheless gets a few things wrong.

 

The RPM-Throttle interlock is modeled as a two-way latch; every source I can find says it should instead be a cam, as Il-2 models it.

 

In DCS, engaging the quadrant interconnects requires first aligning the levers and then toggling the locks; in reality they engage automatically with a movement of the throttle, as Il-2 models it.

 

DCS's R-2800 suffers prompt master rod bearing failure if run at high RPM and low MP; this is a misunderstanding of that failure mode; IMO this is a serious deficiency.

 

DCS's P-47 is missing the take-off stop on the throttle (although it's only cosmetic in Il-2, so we can call this one a draw).

 

I'm suspicious of the extreme sensitivity of the trim controls, but I can't prove anything here one way or another.

 

----

 

Overall I think 1C gets too much flak for the P-47 in Il-2: people misunderstand how the turbo works, mismanage it, and will claim things like "you don't lose any power interlocking the controls", even though if you measure this you'll find that it does indeed result in less power at partial-throttle settings.

Not a big deal for me how the levers interconnect, OP is referring to the physics, which feel very different in DCS and IL2

[Charon]

Yeah, but nobody's going to lend me a real P-47, so "which sim feels closer to reality" is something that will remain unknowable.

[Avimimus]

On 7/7/2023 at 3:45 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

There's no turbulence, and physics certainly feel somewhat simplified compared to, say, DCS.

 

This is very silly. There is a turbulence slider in the quick mission builder! Even if one isn't paying attention to notice the various types of turbulence when flying, one should at least notice that?

 

On 7/7/2023 at 9:35 AM, ShamrockOneFive said:

I always put on some wind and turbulence in my QMB setups. If you're flying there and not turning those things on you aren't experiencing some pretty decent (canned but decent) turbulence and real world considerations when flying around. Aiming is harder when there's a crosswind and your airplane is bumping around.

 

Aircraft are definitely not always in trim. The most extreme example I can think of is the Fokker Dr I but I'm generally trimming all of my aircraft. No fly by wire feelings here.

 

Yes, try some Flying Circus aircraft... ones which can't be trimmed in flight... it is very very noticeable... as in aircraft go from nose heavy to tail heavy if one gains 40 km/h in speed, some aircraft loop continuously if one centres the sticks etc. etc. The claim that the aircraft all have autotrim is... well, impressively hard to understand.

[354thFG_Rails]

On 7/8/2023 at 4:04 AM, I./JG3_Charon said:

Overall I think 1C gets too much flak for the P-47 in Il-2: people misunderstand how the turbo works, mismanage it, and will claim things like "you don't lose any power interlocking the controls", even though if you measure this you'll find that it does indeed result in less power at partial-throttle settings.

How do you know this? Have you measured it somehow?
 

I don’t think they get that much flak. The plane is pretty good just needs to be flown different and not how other planes can be flown. It does lack in its FM though, a lot evidence has been shown and support it being tweaked. 

[Charon]

@86th_Rails

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/il2sturmovik/comments/13kq4am/p47d_boost_lever_mythbusting/jkuyx1g/

 

Quote

Here's a test I just ran: P-47D-28 at 20,000ft, standard atmosphere, Oil Neutral, Intercooler Neutral, Cowl Flaps closed, Auto-Rich, Trim Neutral, 2280 RPM, full fuel, no mods, 34.4" MP. These are straight out of the Jan 1945 pilots manual, page 50, column III*. I ran three trials**:

Full Throttle, Boost as needed: 223mph indicated.

Interconnected: 221mph

Full boost and throttled back: 206mph (a 15mph penalty!)

I then did three more trials at 30,000ft, 2290rpm, and 35.0" MP.

Full Throttle, Boost as needed: 194mph

Interconnected: 194mph

20,000 turbo RPM and throttled back: 192mph.

It's clear from this that throttling losses are indeed being modeled. The penalty for interconnecting at cruise power is small, but is measurable at some power settings and altitudes. The penalty for running full boost and then throttling back is larger.

 

[354thFG_Rails]

Nice write up. Thanks for taking the time to put in that work. Hope to see part 2 with your comparison. 

[Dragon1-1]

On 7/8/2023 at 6:01 PM, Avimimus said:

 

This is very silly. There is a turbulence slider in the quick mission builder! Even if one isn't paying attention to notice the various types of turbulence when flying, one should at least notice that?

Should probably be more specific, I was referring to wake turbulence - which is notably absent in Il-2 while in DCS, it's notorious for making aiming from directly behind somewhat difficult.

 

Although, I haven't noticed much turbulence in normal flight, either. I don't know if it's because the setting doesn't work or mission makers don't use it.

[SCG_motoadve]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Should probably be more specific, I was referring to wake turbulence - which is notably absent in Il-2 while in DCS, it's notorious for making aiming from directly behind somewhat difficult.

 

Although, I haven't noticed much turbulence in normal flight, either. I don't know if it's because the setting doesn't work or mission makers don't use it.

Wake turbulence adds immersion for sure, it is not modelled in IL2, in DCS its spot on, just like IRL, and now 4YA Overlord Server has been implemented, its a game changer.

[Avimimus]

Are you sure wake turbulence isn't modelled?

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

Different game? Could be under modeled in il2. Just do a quick test and get right behind an aircraft. You won’t get bucked around that much if at all. If it is modeled it’s very hard to tell. 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, 86th_Rails said:

Different game?

 

It's a video that NeoQB (the original publishers of ROF) put out way back when ROF was still in the early stages of development.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It's a video that NeoQB (the original publishers of ROF) put out way back when ROF was still in the early stages of development.

 

Indeed. It was early on in development - and may well be a feature that was dropped. It does show that the engine can model this though. It is in the coding somewhere. The question is whether this coding is active, and how strong the effect is (if it is).

 

It would appear the development diaries #11 and #14 mention plans and/or research regarding implementing wake turbulence.

[SCG_Tzigy]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:37 AM, I./JG3_Charon said:

@86th_Rails

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/il2sturmovik/comments/13kq4am/p47d_boost_lever_mythbusting/jkuyx1g/

 

 

 

I just really wanna thank you a whole bunch;  for the last couple months I have been struggling with perceived inconsistencies/lack of data, I got pretty much all the manuals on P47 from eBay and other sources and just could not figure out  the low altitude seemingly controversial or contradictory recommendations in some of the guides!!!  It all makes better sense now!!!!