Those are my thoughts exactly. I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one.

I had to go back and dig this post up by Mogster, because it mirrored my gaming experience over the past few years closely:


One thing "general gaming" has going for it now, at least as far as most recent FPS titles are concerned, are robust multiplayer components. In fact I've read that many gamers played through COD4's single player missions in something like six to ten hours. I have no interest in a sim/game that I'll experience in just a few days time. However, if a title supports robust online elements, a multiplayer fan can anticipate many months or even years of competitive game action.

Check out GameSpy's top 40 games online presently, there's tens of thousands of gamers online as we speak. The question I'll forward for consideration, is to contemplate how many of these listed gamers no longer touch their title's single player missions anymore, but still continue to have fun online?

http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

Luckily Jet Thunder is planned to feature a single player campaign, and single player missions, and a mission editor, as well as a varied multiplayer component too (with "dogfight room, cooperative, and online-campaign" modes).

http://www.thunder-works.com/features.htm

I get very frustrated when I read on forums that single player fans say they care not whether multiplayer formats will be supported in an upcoming title (because by default they expect their single player desires will be serviced anyway). However, it's very possible that many flight sim fans have now migrating to spending their time playing more of these "general gaming" titles, and in no small part because they robustly support continued multiplayer gaming (of course this does not even take into account the growth of the consoles multiplayer gaming phenomenon).

If I were to take a position to debate, whether exacting trim tab actuation was implemented in a flight sim, as opposed to whether the flight sim supporting good multiplayer modes or not, I'm sure for the general title's success, and really for health of this genre overall in fact, multiplayer support would win hands down!

In my case, I'd fly the sim if it had accurate trim modelling but a bad netcode, while I wouldn't play it if it had a great netcode but badly modelled trim. But I am a primarily multiplayer simulator user, all the same. Nearly all of my simulator flying is multiplayer. But, yes, in the long run the simulator would do better with good netcode and bad trim than vice versa. It's not as though it's a choice between one or the other, however.

Whats your background Benny ? do you have any real world aviation experience ?

Anyway this is a Jet Thunder forum so lets argue about other Sims FMs in their respective forums. Jet Thunder has a number of helpers that have actually been qualified pilots on many of the aircraft featured in the Sim and that will go a long way to getting things just right

Yes. I've only had a few hours in Cessnas (mostly 152). However, I've studied the subject of flight more than 99% of "serious" simulator users. It's my dream to fly, and simulators are as close as I can get.

Now, I know you're setting me up for a "a few hours in a Cessna don't make you an authority on how warbirds should fly" argument. I've seen the same old one a dozen times. It does not matter. While it is true that I don't have first-person experience with warbirds, my minimal flight experience with Cessnas gives me a hands-on feeling of how certain universal or nearly-universal things work. This meshes with my research and observations of real warbirds to give me a better idea of how they work than almost any other simulator enthusiasts.

An example is brakes. I know from real-world experience that you can pivot a Cessna on a wheel on the tarmac by fully depressing one toe brake. I also know from watching various warbirds do this very thing that it's also possible to do it in them also. Thus, when I find that it is impossible to do likewise in a simulator such as IL-2, even in the very aircraft I've seen do it in the real world, I feel qualified to state that the simulator is wrong on that point. This is reinforced by knowing from research that the warbirds in question used the same sort of braking system as did the aircraft I flew, so I know that I'm not simply failing to get the desired result in the simulator due to improper action.

Sure, there are simulator enthusiasts and developers who know more about the subject than me (Mr. Cagle is an example in this very thread). Most of those are or were real pilots as well as simulator enthusiasts. Others simply have done dedicated research in pursuit of their dream. At any rate, I feel significantly more qualified to point out what is and is not realistic than the average "flight sim fanboy" who religiously defends his pet simulator not because he knows from experience or research that it is correct (which he doesn't), but because he feels offended that "his" simulator is getting slammed.

Benny, at some level of detail no sim can claim total realism, it really just depends on how far one wants to press the argument.

Well Benny I am a Il2 Fanboy, I think the trim is pretty good in fact I think Il2s FM is yards ahead of Aces II, The High lift on the "buffet model" of Il2 is a million times superior to Aces II.
Its accelerated stall behaviour is also miles superior.... btw I had a little to do with it

You said:

"my minimal flight experience with Cessna's gives me a hands-on feeling of how certain universal or nearly-universal things work" .... A lot of things in flight are not quite so universal as you believe.

Did you know real Warbirds unlock the tail wheel when they do their pivot turns ? Because they cant do a pivot turn without unlocking it.

You said:

"Sure, there are simulator enthusiasts and developers who know more about the subject than me (Mr. Cagle is an example in this very thread). Most of those are or were real pilots as well as simulator enthusiasts. Others simply have done dedicated research in pursuit of their dream. At any rate, I feel significantly more qualified to point out what is and is not realistic than the average "flight sim fanboy" who religiously defends his pet simulator not because he knows from experience or research that it is correct (which he doesn't), but because he feels offended that "his" simulator is getting slammed."

P.s. Like you I think I can talk with authority I have a little aviation experience myself, about 13,500hours qualified on the following types, Pa28,C172,Winjeel,MB326H, Mirage IIIO, FA18A,B767,B744,A330

Now back to Jet Thunder. From what I can see this Sim is going to be a winner.

Regards Ivank "Flight Sim Fanboy"

Ah, you're that Ivan? The one who said, regarding a fighter that is twice as heavy as another, "There's no way an airplane that heavy will turn with one that light," completely disregarding the fact that weight is far from the only factor in such a comparison? If you have twice as much power and a proportionate increase of lift, an airplane that heavy will turn with an airplane that light!

If I seem bitter, well, I am. That quote has been stewing for years. It is that ignorant attitude which makes the IL-2 series so shoddy. Superior accelerated stall behavior? How can you possibly say that when IL-2 completely fails to model the kind of accelerated stall where the airplane falls straight forward? I've seen real warbirds do it (although many IL-2 "fanboys" say that they couldn't because they were "poorly designed" or some such rot). But IL-2 always scripts a wing-drop, whether or not there should be one.



Yes, I know that. In the IL-2 series, they cannot pivot on a wheel even with the tailwheel unlocked. Not even with full brake, full power, and full rudder into the turn can they come even close to pivoting on a wheel. The brakes in IL-2 are simply too weak.

"Are you that Ivan?"

I don't think so, where is that quote Benny :)... lets see it in full ...cant say I can recall it all. Its Ivank (with a K on the end). I think perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.I do have a modicum of understanding of Specific excess Power.

That aside I would be happy to engage you on the subject of sustained turn performance. Keeping it in forum context perhaps the Mirage III v the Sea Harrier FRS1

By the way Pivot turns are not really a good idea they put a lot of unnecessary stress on the gear and tyres.

Ah, when you mentioned your association with 1C Maddox Games, I thought you must be CrazyIvan. He was the one who said (and I quote in full), "There's no way an airplane that heavy will turn with an airplane that light." He was referring to a pair of fighters, one of which was roughly twice as heavy but with also roughly twice the power and a lot more lift.

Fortunately for my sanity, I know next to nothing about the performance and abilities of the aircraft which will be portrayed in Jet Thunder, so I will be able to fly them without being irked by any deficiencies in their specific modelling. It's the general flight model which will be under my scrutiny in Jet Thunder.

As for pivot turns, I've never heard them described as harmful, as long as they're performed at slow speeds. At five miles per hour in a light airplane, I don't see how they can damage the struts. I've seen countless real pilots use slow pivot turns to park their aircraft. My instructor had me do them, too.

In some aircraft they are prohibited. As to Il2 the best I can do a 180 in is around 1.7m.

That's still not like the real deal, of course, but I'll admit it's a sight better than it was when I played. I played IL-2 from the original release up until 4.04; that's when I got fed up with the bogus physics and left. Back then, the tightest pivot attempt I could make, either using the brake key or using my toe brake axis (IL-2 would only allow you to bind one, of course), was about three times as wide. That was with full brake, full rudder into the turn, and tailwheel unlocked, and using varying amounts of power.

Say, what sort of aircraft would pivot turns be prohibited in, other than heavies? Surely not fighters; I know I've seen fighter jets do them.

Edit: Looking at your picture again, I think I see why your turn diameter is so much narrower than mine. Try using an aircraft with a wider undercarriage, such as the P-47. I'll bet you get a diameter of three or four times as wide as you got with the Me-109.

At any rate, the brake strength in IL-2 is quite wrong. It's such a simple thing that I cannot comprehend why Mr. Maddox cannot get it right. Surely someone has told him that full brake pressure on an airplane locks the wheel, right?

So we are all winners


Its one of the strengths of IL-2 that Oleg has kept tight control of it....its also one of its
weaknesses.

Cheers,
Keith

OMG the mighty BM rides again

Love these FM discussions...Used to be some humdingers in the F18 forum, IIRC.