Author Topic: Spitfans  (Read 1169 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spitfans
« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2005, 11:40:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TexMurphy
The view system of the Il-2 games is sooo bad that it totally ruins the game experience.

That is what kills it for me.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spitfans
« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2005, 12:04:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
That is what kills it for me.


You better have a top rate rig to get the best/most out of 1C's games.

The 190 is especially castrated.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfans
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2005, 01:39:08 PM »
Ok, got 2600 mhz, and 128K video. Have a good time with AHII, although it's almost too heavy.
I recall running Il-2 older versions (the original box and then the FB) on a smaller machine though, but once I had tuned down the graphics enough to feel more comfortable, it was little above AHI, which I could run in utter resolution with better fps.
The planes always felt "mushy" to me, basically in all axis, and the acceleration in i.e. takeoff was way off. The gunnery I liked, the clouds were good, and some stuff, but overall, I got that "feel" better in AH, and I'm very happy with most things in AHII. Was flying the other day (Socata), and was quite impressed with how the feel was similar to AHII!!!!
Anyway, the Il-2 series have some good offline missions anyway, and an awesome planeset, so I'll have a go one day ;)
I'll wait for the BoB, and go kick some xxx's, hehe :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Spitfans
« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2005, 03:18:58 PM »
Well, the 4.01m FM is an improvement over others.

 At least they got torque now.


 But I'm guessing they tried to put in the gyro effect with planes and that went bad. As a result, not only do these planes have that distinct 'roll inertia' we used to see in WB, but they're also really mushy and nauseating to fly in.

 It's still better than before, but IMO got a long way to go.

 Who was that vet, whom in the past AH conventions was invited to speak about his WW2 experiences in Spits? IIRC, he is quoted as saying the nose bouncing, mushiness, delayed inputs are all a myth, and the wartime planes responded with clear and crispness. I remember him to be an ANZAC... (not sure tho')

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfans
« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2005, 05:19:34 PM »
Ahhh, the word I needed, CRISP

the opposite to "MUSHY"

Exactly the feel, basically, if you touch an aircraft inflight :)

Bear in mind that HTC rattled around in mock-up fights in a P51!
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Spitfans
« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2005, 06:29:14 PM »
hi guppy.

i ment no disrespect to the pilots of 602 squadron.

i was talking stricly from a "viewer" point of view.
it is very historical accurate, but if you ignore the history related, its pretty dull.