Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 49 of 106 1 2 47 48 49 50 51 105 106
#1951257 - 04/11/06 02:42 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced *****  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
I know there are some egos that can't handle it, but a high fidelity sim that can be scaled down is far preferable to a dumbed down sim that maxes out at something less than realistic and leads to unending whingefests about that FM (or perhaps I should say MORE unending whingefests).
I've actually never read in any thread, anywhere, someone ask for a dumded down flight sim, or dumbed down FMs (it's all very relative now isn't it). ;\)

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#1951258 - 04/11/06 05:14 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
Neal Offline
Member
Neal  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
We want the SIM to be able to do the most. That doesn't mean that everyone should have to handle all of it, not with the way things are going.

Ditto with things like icons option. With IL2 series I am frustrated without when targets turn invisible as I approach to guns long range. Somebody's idea of realistic can be a disaster for someone else on different hardware.

Does anyone have to get into the other parts not simulated and also not compensated for except in options that may or may not be present? I hope not.

If the pilot could feel and react to what I can't feel at all then I don't mind the virtual pilot doing the automatic or less so the action toggled off. But not required for anyone, option on or off.

#1951259 - 04/11/06 06:01 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,204
akdavis Offline
Senior Member
akdavis  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,204
Fort Worth, Texas
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
I know there are some egos that can't handle it, but a high fidelity sim that can be scaled down is far preferable to a dumbed down sim that maxes out at something less than realistic and leads to unending whingefests about that FM (or perhaps I should say MORE unending whingefests).
I've actually never read in any thread, anywhere, someone ask for a dumded down flight sim, or dumbed down FMs (it's all very relative now isn't it). ;\)
It was just asked for above. Not making the FM "too real" because it would be "not fun" (while real is somewhat objective, fun is entirely subjective) is "dumbing the FM down." Sorry if the phrase itself offended. I did not mean to insult.

I have never personally understood it, but there is a large contigent of flight sim players who want the "hardest" difficulty setting not to be tied to fidelity to reality, but rather to a "balance" where "hard" is difficult, but not too difficult.

After seeing the endless whining about how the Il-2 FM became "too hard" following 4.x patches, I fear what could become of flight sim if the realism was handed over to those who want to balance it for their subjective perception of "just right" difficultly and not stay true to trying to achieve the highest degree of fidelity possible given the limitations of time available and current hardware, then allow people to back off from this with a wide array of customizable difficulty options.


--AKD

"I hope and I need." -Oleg Maddox
#1951260 - 04/11/06 06:36 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 393
=FB=VikS Offline
Member
=FB=VikS  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally posted by Takata:
Translation:
Founded in March 1988, Memorial Flight is dedicated to ......
Hi Takata, check yours PM please ;\)


VikS
Flying BARANS Forever!
"All wool - to the front!"
www.barans.ru
www.riseofflight.com
#1951261 - 04/11/06 06:38 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,621
Mogster Offline
Hotshot
Mogster  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,621
England
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Quote:
Originally posted by BA_Dart:
I really don't want them to be too close to original, though. What's the fun in ground looping Camel after Camel....
.....and this is a good point by Dart, as modern day pilots who have flown the originals and exacting replicas almost universally remark as to how difficult and unrewarding many of the era's planes are to fly. The mid-war agility fighter developments that culminated in the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker DR.I., led to planes that were so inherently unstable that subsequent designs retreated from the push for evermore maneuverability.....at the expense of controllability (and the training time and cost in lives it took to produce proficient pilots).

The inline-engined stability fighter configuration, which would culminate with the superbly pilotable, and high-altitude capable Fokker D.VII, became the ascendant design format by the end of the war. Even the last Sopwith rotary fighter seeing combat (the Snipe) was a retreat from the "maneuverabilty at all cost" school of thought.

In terms of simulation possibilities, the expression "be wary of what you ask for" comes to the fore, in that the layers of difficulty that combined to make such planes as the Camel so tedious to fly in real life (inherent instability, unharmonized controls, gyroscopic precession, difficult engine management, etc.), would be viewed by many of us simmers as "botched flight models", conspiring to appear nonsensical in their performance, and being largely unmanageable to fly. Without being able to convey the forces of inertia and weight shift, and the shift of the slipstream within flight simulations, much of the essential seat-of-the-pants feedback that WWI pilots needed to survive flying many of the era's planes is absent.

Obviously no one has been able to create reality yet through simulation, and simulated flight must also compensate for this fact, in that much of the true experience of flying is lost when we sit down in front of our computer screens, and get ready to fly it as "real as it gets."
Good post.

The Spitfire/Camel vid really shows how hard the Camel is to fly, it doesn't look fun or satisfying at all just constant hard work. The sort of flight behaviour that's obvious in the vid would be uncontrollable in a PC flight sim without physical feedback to rely on. like you say people would think the physics was broken, the forces would just appear random.

What's needed is a reasonable representation of how each aircraft flew with some unique handling quirks thrown in for each.


WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
#1951262 - 04/11/06 07:57 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Yep, never have heard someone say let's dumb-down the FM's......can't think of anyone who would really present their point of view in that manner.

You know, on the far end of these discussions about FMs, we could place fans who enjoy nothing more than flying the civilian simulators for hours on end.

I wonder if flying combat flight sims for fun makes us less of a purist than them?

#1951263 - 04/11/06 11:15 PM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,204
akdavis Offline
Senior Member
akdavis  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,204
Fort Worth, Texas
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Yep, never have heard someone say let's dumb-down the FM's......can't think of anyone who would really present their point of view in that manner.

You know, on the far end of these discussions about FMs, we could place fans who enjoy nothing more than flying the civilian simulators for hours on end.

I wonder if flying combat flight sims for fun makes us less of a purist than them?
Well, your question automatically excludes them from having "fun" flying civilian simulators for hours on end. Likewise, you're operating on the assumption that high difficulty/high fidelity is mutually exclusive with "fun." That may be the case for you, but not another (case in point the people who "have fun" flying civ simulators for hours on end).

Anyways, pretend I never said "dumb down" as this seems to be dismissed at face value as having no relevance in the discussion of a realistic sim FM. Instead, replace "dumb down" with "moderate." Meaning is the same.

Some feel that the sim, even at its highest difficulty settings, should have the realism of the FM moderated for the sake of "fun." Unfortunately, there are others whose definition of "fun" is then automatically excluded. Why? Why not have difficulty options? Then everyone can adjust the sim to their own "fun" preference.

I contend that the only reason not to do this is pure ego. Some people want the most difficult settings to not be "too difficult" (which they justify by claiming ownership to a universal standard of "fun").


--AKD

"I hope and I need." -Oleg Maddox
#1951264 - 04/12/06 12:55 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,438
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,438
Alabaster, AL USA
Whoa, slow down, partner.

I understand your viewpoint, and agree with it on principle.

However, there are some nuances with these birds that simply can't be translated to computers; all I'm saying is that there is "reasonable" and there is "unflyable" to 99.99998% of everyone.

Do I want the torque, slip stream, and wind to really, really make landing a Camel a white knuckle affair? Yeah, actually I do. I want to have to put that sucker in this ugly, nasty slip just to see ahead and below me on final, like that guy at the Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York, all the while blipping the engine with the greatest of hesitation, knowing that if I get it wrong I'll ground loop it or simply stall out.

What I don't want is something that is so finicky that landing becomes a function of "simming the sim," where one throws out actual piloting skill for the "book answer" (according to the sim), or a travesty of finding a loophole in the code that is completely wrong (but works).

I've seen both in sims. The whole "simming the sim" part is part of the reason I left RB3D. Getting really good at the sim meant flying the code, not the aircraft; from hit boxes to some bizarre quirks in the code, the really deadly aces found the best way to make the sim work.

Some of them were absolutely shocked when they tried IL-2, as what they thought were flight sim skills were really RB3D skills that didn't translate at all. Most of those folks adapted quickly, but I remember shooting down a group of deadly RB3D guys that normally just laughed at me with ease, while they struggled not only to fly, but to shoot (the idea that one had to actually hit the aircraft to do damage is alien to a RB3D pilot).

Likewise, it would be heartbreaking to have nothing but ground loops by proficient virtual pilots trumped by some clown that figures out that one should make the final inverted and roll just before touching down. Or most everyone making dead stick landings, calling those striving for a power-on mad and reckless.

On the whole realism vs. difficulty argument, there's a fine balance.

Sure, there should be a checklist and a lengthy procedure before flight. But I just want to press "I," unless you want to simulate a crew chief, mechanics, armaments guys, etc., to help me out. If they put junk like that in there, give me an option to turn it off.

No two planes should fly the same, especially WWI crates. Some should perform much better than others, and each should have unique quirks. Can you imagine the howls when a virtual pilot draws the dog plane of the Escadrille? Or the claims of cheating and FM error when some spring butt virtual pilot shows that the D.V.a is either 50 mph too fast or slow than some data he has dug up, or is contrary to some real pilot's account?

"The ceiling is all wrong on plane X, I couldn't take it up to 15,000 feet, thought Flt. Sgt. Crumpets clearly wrote that he took his scout to 16,000 feet and came down only after getting dizzy."

"You probably got a plane that was off horsepower, was poorly doped, or just flat out warped in the wings, the fuselage, or both," writes back the developer.

And some should be completely unreliable. Every squadron had a "hangar queen" or two, where no matter what they did, the darned thing just wasn't right.

I think it would be neither fun nor a valuable lesson in "realism" to have my engine randomly konk out on takeoff, putting me into the treeline; nor do I want an oil pump to spontaneously stop working; or the gun synch gear to fail on it's own, thereby shooting off my prop; or the machinegun to become jammed to the point of not clearing on the first round. I don't want my avatar to develop hypothermia at 7,000 feet (though I'll accept hypoxia at 11,000), or develop a fever, have a hangover, get the clap, nurse wounds from a year ago, etc.

That's the realism I don't want.

I suspect you'll agree that at some point the "realism" effort is just a difficulty setting that few will use and serve only as either masochism for some and some wolf ticket selling from PR guys.

Are we closer to agreement?


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#1951265 - 04/12/06 01:20 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
Well, your question automatically excludes them from having "fun" flying civilian simulators for hours on end. Likewise, you're operating on the assumption that high difficulty/high fidelity is mutually exclusive with "fun." That may be the case for you, but not another (case in point the people who "have fun" flying civ simulators for hours on end).
Again, you make assumptions based on what you inferred......what motivates someone else's decision of what they do in their spare time is their judgement, not mine or yours.

Isn't it also an assumption to presume that if someone else's sense of "fun" doesn't match yours, that they must be doing so out of a need to protect their ego?

Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
I contend that the only reason not to do this is pure ego.
Are we then to conclude that if a sim's designers don't deliver on the flight models that any one individual expects, that they've done so to protect someone else's ego?

Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
Some feel that the sim, even at its highest difficulty settings, should have the realism of the FM moderated for the sake of "fun." Unfortunately, there are others whose definition of "fun" is then automatically excluded. Why? Why not have difficulty options? Then everyone can adjust the sim to their own "fun" preference.
Who in this thread has argued against having options to allow adjustments to in-game difficulty levels?

Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
Some people want the most difficult settings to not be "too difficult" (which they justify by claiming ownership to a universal standard of "fun").
Some people have "fun" when lots of people are having "fun", maybe that's one of the good aspects that comes from protecting a collective ego (might even work to sell some sims too)!

Hey, don't get me wrong either, I'm willing to try this high difficulty/high fidelity/high immersion thing......lets make it really worth it though......and the first time we crack-up in-game on takeoff trying to wrestle a tempermental Camel into the air, it's time to delete the sim off the hard-drive forever (game over man).....now that's REAL fun!!! ;\)

#1951266 - 04/12/06 02:20 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 328
Oilburner Offline
Member
Oilburner  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 328
Cedar Park, Tx.
Since we're talking about the IL-2 engine here, it's pretty much a mute point. The physics required to create a true flight model are well-beyond this engine's ability and beyond the abilities of most computers. What we will get is pre-programmed reactions which try to simulate real-world physics. Instead of talking hard or easy, smart or dumb, I hope the developers can accurateley re-create the true personality and quirkieness of each aircraft so that the majority of us can agree that "this is as close as you can get to flying a (insert your favorite here) on a PC".

#1951267 - 04/12/06 03:02 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,157
BBury Offline
Member
BBury  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,157
Houston,Texas
Well said Oilburner.

#1951268 - 04/12/06 04:56 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,974
Slap Offline
Senior Member
Slap  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,974
London UK
Fantastic pics and info Takakta! Thank you for the link m8

S!ap


"never judge a sausage by it's skin"
#1951269 - 04/12/06 09:11 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 46
k5054 Offline
Junior Member
k5054  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 46
Oxford, England
Let's not lose sight of the fact that these a/c were flown in combat by ordinary guys who might have less hours than you need nowadays to solo in a C152, and this when they had no previous exposure to the technology at all. Most of them, for example, couldn't drive a car. Difficult, yes. dangerous, definitely. But even the worst aircraft should not be too difficult for the average simmer to fly most of the time. Oh, there'll be a lot of crashes, but basic flying and manoeuvering should not be too hard.

At the time, pilots were delighted with their Nieuports, Pups and Tripehounds, once they had a little experience. This should be considered when considering the views of modern-day pilots who fly preserved or replica aircraft. Maybe modern habits of flying are confusing the issue. A case in point, WW1 a/c don't seem to have been rolled using the ailerons. Maybe banked a little, but to get a fast roll they would use a flick/snap technique, which is very unlikely to work in a sim. (Lots of people don't believe this, I'd refer them to Winged Victory, which has a section on half-rolling a Camel, and the RFC booklet called, IIRC, 'How to get your hun'.)

#1951270 - 04/12/06 11:08 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
As K5054 and others have mentioned, there will be plenty of nuances to discover in "Knights", much of which depends on whether GT can successfully adapt the IL-2 engine to reflect the peculiar characteristics of the WWI era. I will be happy if they can capture the most salient differences between piloting modern day aircraft from those of this early aviation period. I also think modern accounts from pilots who have flown original and exacting WWI replicas can be very useful in helping to contrast the state of aeronautical refinement that has occurred over the past century. Yes it is true that the world's aerodynamic realities haven't changed in these intervening years, but man's understanding of them has, and aircraft design has reflected this fact. I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves that our understanding of flying has benefitted from endless aeronautical research over time, and that much of what we assume to know about it today was the grist of hard-won discovery, and this continual research, and there were many unknowns. To a degree even the language of "then and now" reflects these differences...........they were "aeroplanes" back then.

Allow me to quote one of my favorite stories, that helps to illustrate just this contrast between the "then and now", and it comes from a conversation I had with member Bald Eagle on the Aerodrome forum, who is an accomplished pilot deeply familiar with flying WWI aeroplanes (and replicas), and also modern day aircraft. To set the stage for the story, the place is Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and the occasion is an episode filming for a PBS documentary:

"FlyX,
I just got back today from the Monocoupe fly-in at Creve Coeur Airport in St. Louis. Wish I'd thought to time the rate of turn of the Monocoupe to see how it compared.

One of the biggest differences between flying modern aircraft and flying vintage aircraft is the importance of the proper use of the rudder in the older types. If you don't believe it ask "Heater" Heatly, the F-14 pilot who crashed the Triplane I used to fly at Rhinebeck. He discovered, too late, that rudder pedals were used for more than steering the machine around the carrier deck. He let the Dr.1 yaw so much, first one way, then the other, right after take-off, that it finally stalled and spun in. If he had not hit the telephone wires at the South end of the Aerodrome he would've been killed, as it was they broke his fall and he walked away from it. Nothing was left worth saving but the rudder, one side of the rudder fabric from it is on the wall of my old bedroom at my parent's house.

Good question about the flat turn, the Triplane does indeed want to bank into the turn, even though it doesn't have dihedral. You do have to hold opposite aileron to keep it from banking, which doesn't seem like something you'd do in combat. The ailerons are important in turning, more so than in an SE-5 or other aircraft with dihedral (Fokker D.VII), which tends to convert yaw into bank. If I remember right, the SPAD that is now flying at Rhinebeck would yaw sloppily without banking unless aileron was put in, again no dihedral.

Pretty much all of the WW1 aircraft have a lot of adverse yaw when you put in aileron, so the rudder is important to take care of this, most modern aircraft have friese type aileron hinges to do away with adverse yaw, a lot of them can be flown through turns with your feet on the floor. Not so the old stuff."


- continued -

"I wasn't there at the time, but my father was. He said that they first had Heatly fly a Cub and then a Great Lakes to prepare for the Triplane, in hindsight not enough transition. My dad said to him that there must be quite a difference between flying an F-14 and the old planes, and he said that Heatly replied, "Yeah, it's kind of boring." I believe that the Triplane was within hearing distance, and thought, "What? We'll see about that..."

I think that the jet pilot equated simplicity with being easy, and thought that because the stuff he flew was so complicated that it must be much harder to fly. Not true when it comes to stick and rudder.

They said that as soon as he broke ground he started to yaw to the right, eventually heading almost 90 degrees to the runway, then yawed back to the left almost 180 degrees, all with the nose level, before the airplane finally stalled, and being in wildly uncoordinated flight, snapped into the beginnings of a spin, interrupted by the ground. He disappeared behind the small trees at the south end of the Aerodrome going straight down and crashed. Nobody wanted to go down there and see what was left, but of course they did, and "Heater" was pulling himself out of the wreckage. The left wings, I believe, had caught the telephone wires, turned the airplane sideways, and the right wings absorbed the impact, saving his life. He landed right on the road, last time I was there you could still see the splices in the telephone wires. "Heater" of course cried, "Wind shear!"

Stories are common in the vintage aircraft world of jet pilots taking the controls of old airplanes and being notoriously unaware of what the rudder pedals are for, since the jets apparently will fly fine with your feet on the floor, until you need to steer around on the ground. The Triplane is of course more critical than most in this regard because it will yaw so easily, with no fin, and that small but sensitive rudder.

They wanted somebody who could talk first hand about the differences between an F-14 and a Fokker Triplane for a PBS documentary called "Top Gun and Beyond", I've always said that they should have let me fly the F-14..."


Now allow me to offer my own "philosphical" take on motivation and consequences (this none of you need pay any mind to), but I differed with AK above about his "ego" imperative, in that in my opinion it's not ego but arrogance that makes it so difficult learning from those "hard-won" experiences of others.

Some people (as illustrated in the story above) have nothing but luck to thank for the difference between the "then" and the "now".

#1951271 - 04/13/06 02:32 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,343
Copterdrvr Offline
Member
Copterdrvr  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,343
Lafayette, LA. USA
1. Jets don't have torque.
2.With regard to ego-he who smelt it, dealt it.

Copterdrvr


Skids are for kids!
#1951272 - 04/13/06 03:29 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Ah, the forum's back here!

Wonder what's in store for this week's GT update. \:\)

#1951273 - 04/13/06 04:04 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
Neal Offline
Member
Neal  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally posted by akdavis:
After seeing the endless whining about how the Il-2 FM became "too hard" following 4.x patches, I fear what could become of flight sim if the realism was handed over to those who want to balance it for their subjective perception of "just right" difficultly and not stay true to trying to achieve the highest degree of fidelity possible given the limitations of time available and current hardware, then allow people to back off from this with a wide array of customizable difficulty options.
The ones who say "too hard" are nowhere near so dangerous as the ones who are self-appointed test pilots who "know" that the FM is wrong because of what they can't do and/or what they make of what they have read. Those are the ones who make the demands and who get backed up by unsatisfied... err, players.

But then you maybe don't visit the Zoo?

#1951274 - 04/13/06 04:18 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
Neal Offline
Member
Neal  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,657
It might be kind of nice to have some display of G forces on the pilot, let me know when the plane is sinking despite holding attitude when we have no VSI. Something like that could go far towards being able to fly those planes.

OTOH it may hurt as pilots will testify that inner ear reconing can get you in deadly trouble, why they have under the hood instrument practice, hey?

Viks, I don't know where to find it but one German Officer Pilot did find, verify and explain that going through a cloud those (and maybe other) planes would change heading as much as over 90 degrees. It has to do with something like p-factor and the heavier air inside the cloud but just how/why I have forgotten since 1998.

#1951275 - 04/13/06 07:05 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,361
Freycinet Offline
Veteran
Freycinet  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,361
Quote:
Originally posted by Oilburner:
Since we're talking about the IL-2 engine here, it's pretty much a mute point. The physics required to create a true flight model are well-beyond this engine's ability and beyond the abilities of most computers. What we will get is pre-programmed reactions which try to simulate real-world physics. Instead of talking hard or easy, smart or dumb, I hope the developers can accurateley re-create the true personality and quirkieness of each aircraft so that the majority of us can agree that "this is as close as you can get to flying a (insert your favorite here) on a PC".
I don't think it is a moot point at all. Unlike MSFS the il-2 series is not table based. Rather the planes in Il-2 are continually running through mathematical equations as they fly. Their performance is not calculated from X speed at Y height equals Z performance. In stead the calculation of their position and speed is based on the last known position and speed and then with the results of the continuously running performance equations added. Events such as a stall are actually continuously calculated and not scripted events.


My Il-2 CoD movie web site: www.flightsimvids.com
#1951276 - 04/13/06 11:54 AM Re: WWI sim, based on the IL-2 engine announced  
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,524
Keithb77 Offline
Member
Keithb77  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,524
UK
Quote:
It might be kind of nice to have some display of G forces on the pilot
Flying Corps Gold (Rowan) had something like that - two red bars at the top of the screen, indicating the lift from each wing so you could see when you were close to stalling one or both wings.
Battle of Britain 2 has excellent force feed-back, you can feel the burble of disturbed air under the wings ('pull until the tickle').

I believe IL-2 has a 'generic' flight model with a few tweaks for specific characteristics, not as bad as MS FS, but not as good as BoB2.......
Stalling in particular feels very canned (IMHO)

Quote:
One of the biggest differences between flying modern aircraft and flying vintage aircraft is the importance of the proper use of the rudder in the older types.
Also applies to gliders, with those looong wings adverse yaw is significant and without rudder you just dont turn. In fact a trial-lesson at your nearest gliding centre would be a very good way to understand how the older planes actually flew......and quite cheap.

Cheers,
Keith

Page 49 of 106 1 2 47 48 49 50 51 105 106

Moderated by  Avimimus, RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Star Wars IX Final trailer
by Chaz. 10/22/19 01:48 AM
CoD MW Article
by Rick_Rawlings. 10/21/19 06:15 PM
Time marches on
by No105_Archie. 10/21/19 03:02 PM
Why Looney Tunes is great for history buffs
by PanzerMeyer. 10/20/19 11:05 PM
IJN Kaga found.
by NH2112. 10/19/19 10:32 PM
Grouch (Joker Parady)
by Arthonon. 10/19/19 02:19 PM
Nike vs B-17
by KraziKanuK. 10/18/19 08:30 PM
Grouch
by Chaz. 10/18/19 01:49 PM
How to pi$$ off Londoners...
by Chucky. 10/17/19 12:16 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0