IL-2 puts others to shame. **OPINION ALERT**

[Pongo]

I think that Il2 is stupendous. But I know nothing about flight models. It is quite different to fly then AH and my G2 is quite bouncy but I really enjoy it after one night.

The damage model seems suspect. Certainly a kill is harder to achieve then in AH. 300 sees a quite long shot. Can anyone imagine someone shooting down 7-8 planes with a G2 in that game with one mg151.....I cant.
Yet we know it could be done.

I can not think of anything that would stop me from purchasing Il2 and hopfully the Guadicanal and Malta versions that will follow.

[juzz]

FYI: Control surface deflection IS REDUCED with high airspeed in Il-2. Try a quick mission starting at high altitude - start rolling the plane in a dive while looking at an aileron - as speed builds you will see it slowly reduce it's deflection.

[ft]

juzz,
thank you for clearing that out. Sometimes finding out that you're wrong is really nice. Phew.  

Cheers,
  /ft

[Hristo]

Try watching the pilot stick in cockpit while deflecting your joystick.
 
Compression and travel time is modeled.

[Dweeb]

Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Cryno.. Planes in reality are sensitive, meaning.. than When giving a force on the stick at X airspeed, reaction occurs.

IL2 reacts the move force(aka limits) that you push onto your stick.

Just like reality.

Aces has atrificially dampend down Feel/Roll/stick imputs to compensate for lag..

THE ONLY THING i dont understand is WHY!

It seems as though this very topic was discussed on the SimHQ forum where the following exchange took place.

 

Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
Now about your description about forces on the control column. Some developers follow that description very much. THAT MEANS THAT THEY DO NOT MODEL AERODYNAMICS LAWS, BUT IMPLEMENT SOME TABLE AND TRIGGERS IN CODE THAT "SIMULATE" THAT.

To which Badboy responded:

 

Not correct, it is possible to model stick forces without compromising the aerodynamic laws, and you don't need tables to do it.

What you are saying here is that you allow every aircraft to achieve full and rapid deflection of the control surfaces regardless of the stick forces. That means of course that aircraft in your sim will be able to do things that their real world counterparts never could.

It means for example that while the pilot of a real aircraft was struggling against high stick forces to produce slow and limited stick deflection, resulting in degraded transient maneuverability, his adversary was, due to lighter better balanced controls, able to out maneuver him. In your sim the situation will be very different. Both aircraft will be able to achieve full and rapid deflection and the aircraft will therefore respond very differently... Like no real aircraft ever did.

That will have a profound influence on the resulting relative performance, which will in turn result in unrealistic aircombat, because simulator pilots will be flying the aircraft very differently from the way they were actually flown.

Badboy

I think Maddox was unable to defend the points being made because he responded with a lame one liner.

He has already said that he won't post his sources or data, and so we are expected to believe his incredible claims of "western myth" regarding the 109 v 190 roll rates are due to some secret information.  

There is only one thing to say to that... roadkill!!

Dweeb

[DeeZCamp]

Stick force modeling is very limiting. How do you/how could you make a clean slate across the board as to how much effort a pilot can fly his aircraft to?

each pilot has thier own abilites, and abilites to withstand high G.

If a pilot Pulls to hard reguardless of reflection, and reguarless of how good the ability to hold the Turn at X G force. The pilot will suffer from Energy loss and put him self at a disadvantage, blackout, or Throw himself into a Hi speed stall.

How about let people fly how they want,.. without some included control restriction because of leveling the playing field.

The pilot who flys right will win regardless of how many G's or defection in degrees the pilot can put his plane.

There is blacking out, and performance issues here that will kill the monkey wristed flyer.

[Staga]

Is that "Dweeb" nickname someones alter-ego for bashing Il-2?
I meant only few posts and looks like all about this same subject...

[Dweeb]

Originally posted by DeeZCamp:


The pilot who flys right will win regardless of how many G's or defection in degrees the pilot can put his plane.

There is blacking out, and performance issues here that will kill the monkey wristed flyer.

Sounds like you should be flying Air Warrior's relaxed realism flight model.

If you want to take away all the natural limits in flying, like the pilot's physiological limits that should properly restrict the load factor or G force that can be pulled and the rate and degree that the stick can be deflected, then you end up with nothing more than a game with aircraft in it. As said by others... A game in which "the aircraft can do things the real ones never could" and if you want something unrealistic like that, I guess IL2 will be just what you want.

Dweeb

[DeeZCamp]

Dweeb you are obviously one. What is your real name? secondly  

If anyone here is more anal about realism with Flight model here.. IT IS ME.

3rd of all HOW can you DETERMINE what the limits are for any given person?

You think that this is releaxed, but your sorley mistaken.

So far Ive seen nothing but more realism in the way Il2 handles flight than aces in many aspects. For a good part however they share good simularities.

Some of the performance numbers may be off.. or different than the established "HOLY grail of all TRUTH" the mighty NACA tests,   But who is to say that the other established russian performance data is Wrong?

It is funny that if america establishes a standard everyone is blind to just follow or accept it.

Il2 feels about as good as it looks, and thats pretty amazing to say the least.

I always love poeple talking roll rates and how this does this at x airspeed. pretty funny.  

I suggest some of you guys check out that Czeck film about the Spitfires again, the actual footage shows a spit doing a nice snap/accerated roll. It is funny that the spit seems to be a slug in aces with the roll. But then again that is Due to dampening right?

This exapmle carries over to most of the planes in Aces, and the differneces to them in contrast to Il2.

AND ITS ONLY beta!  

[GRUNHERZ]

fscott what ever happend to WW2offline????  

[luthier]

Hey guys,

First of all, I'm very happy to see a generally positive reaction for Il-2 over at AH forums.

And second of all, a note on flight models in Il-2.

Oleg Maddox the lead designer and most of his programmers have worked as aviation engineers at leading military manufacturers in Russia, so they know they way around aeronautics.

However, being from Russia they were exposed to a completely different set of flight test data than us in the West.

When I first heard about this about two years ago, I was extremely sceptical, and quoted Stalin's repressions, fear, communism, etc in bashing Soviet flight test data as completely unreliable. What I later found however is that Soviets have indeed tested German planes more rigorously than even Germans themselves!

There were two completely separate institutions set up, which did independent evaluations of each captured aircraft. Results were then compared, and in case of discrepancies a third party tested the aircraft again. Parties responsible for the original mistakes were, in the usual Soviet practice, punished   So, Soviet scientists were under pressure from the government - but not to downgrade their opponents potential, but to be as objective as possible.

Lastly, USSR being involved in a land war with Germany has had many opportunities to capture German aircraft completely intact and well maintaned at airfields, in many cases capturing them brand new. Before the war started USSR bough numerous Bf-109E's and a few Bf-109F's directly from Messerschmitt factories, and many bomber and transport aircraft. Post-war, it operated several PVO (border guard) squadrons fully equipped with FW-190D9's captured brand new in boxed in late 1945.
All in all, hundreds of various German aircraft from Fi-156 to FW-200 were tested by USSR during the war, results compliled together by the central authority, TsAGI institute in Moscow.

The point is: TsAGI data for German aircraft is very different from US and UK flght test data available here. It is however very close to German manufacture data. Oleg mostly used TsAGI and German data in his FM.
So you may see aircraft in Il-2 behaving differently from what you believe is an absolute truth.

Please, before you go ahead and bash Oleg's work - do some more reading on TsAGI. Let me know and I'll direct you over to scans of some reports. Approach IL-2 FM with an open mind, and you just might discover something new and unexpected  

[Pei]

I haven't tried the deom yet but certainly will once I get my machine set up.

I do have one question:

Almost all data from western sources (including , flight tests, pilot suggestions etc.) suggests that FW190 had an excellent roll rate in most circumstances and beat the 109 in that regard (and in fact almost all other aircraft of WWII).
However it looks like flight test data from the USSR (as was) suggests otherwise. So my question is what is the cause of this discrepancies? I find it difficult to believe that all the sources such as NACA and the RAF are wrong, however I also find it difficult to believe that official VVS tests would be incorrect. Is there some differenc ini the circumstances or methods of testing that can account for this?


BTW: does anyone have any links to this new (to us westerners  ) data or any sources I can get hold of?

[DeeZCamp]

You would proably think the russians would have a greater degree of what the german fighters were like.

Its a big conspericey I tell you..  

So if it is found out that the German/russian data was/is more accutate, then will aces change over?

[Pei]

I think that if it can be proved that the data is more acurate (which is of course likely to start a flame fest in itself) then aces should change. The question is what is the cause of this apparent conflict between different sets of data (for example the russian data and the NACA data)? I'd also liek to get access to the data (obviously need some transaltion since my Russian is somewhat rusty   so I can compare and see what the real differences are.
Right now we have a large amount of data from respected sources supporting the current view (to one extent or another). If we are to overturn this view then we need to see the hard data and also understand why there are differences. If the western view of FW190 vs Me109 roll rates is a "myth" then we need to understand why, especially when there is hard data to support this view.
I don't see why one side should have a more accurate view than the other if both sides fought against these aircraft and both sides had acces to these aricraft for testinig both during and after the war. Obviously the Russians had a better chance to access the factory figues for these AC since they held the part of Germany with most of the AC works, but this isn't the same as testing and experience with flying against them. Also does anybody have any good references for what the actual LW thought? That would be really interesting to see.

<phew sorry for the long post>

[luthier]

FW-190 vs Bf-109:

Quote from the Falcon IV manual:

"While flying F-15's out of Germany, Hands (Phil "Hands" Handley) had the opportunity to talk to Adolf Galland, the great World War II German ace. Hands told the German ace that it was obvious to him that of Germany's World War II fighters, the Fw-190 was the superior aircraft based on published performance data. The Fw-190 was faster, could turn better and could could climb higher than the Me-109, the plane in which Galland had recorded most of his kills. Adolf Galland smiled and said that Handley was correct in his analysis of the two planes relative performances--but wrong in his assessment of which aircraft was superior. The German ace had flown both aircraft and believed that the Me-109 was the superior fighter because "flying it felt like wearing a glove". It was smooth as silk and easy to control, whereas the Fw-190 was difficult and unruly. Galland could fly the Me-109 to his--and its--maximum performance, and this made it the better combat aircraft"

Here's what I got from a Luftwaffe veteran who flew both the Bf-109 and FW-190 on the Eastern Front, and ended the war in a Me-262. I cannot name him at this point, but you'll see his endorsement in the IL-2 manual:

"German pilots used two types of rolls: controlled rolls and so-called "reiЯende Rolle", or tear rolls. People don't use them any more as they can kill you. Even during WWII reiЯende Rolle were forbidden
Plane with wing guns roll slower than planes without them; the actual stick design is also very important.

FW-190 has wing guns!

And Bf-109 had little metal balls in the wings specifically put there for better rolls"

And finally, from the TsAGI book publishing most of their unclassified reports on WWII aircraft:

"Even though the published flight-technical characteristics are based on documents, a certain caution in evaluation is advised and one has to take into account that even though being highly objective these data cannot give an exhaustive understanding of the aircraft combat capabilities. The data given here are, of course, important, but only combat practice can give the objective understanding of the combat capabilities."


The last is I think the most important point. But that takes us slightly beyond the roll rate discussion. I'm waiting to receive actuall roll rates figures for various models of the Bf-109 and FW-190 from Oleg. Once I receive them, I'll be sure to post them here so you can review them yourselves