Author Topic: Aircraft found (Read 1630 times)

scottydawg · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2007, 07:57:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nimrod45
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.

Nimrod, lots of opinions of that game on this board, I'd say do a forum search but I can guarantee the search engine will come back saying IL2 is too short of a search term.

Personally I don't like IL2 much, in-game graphics are nice, but the rest of the interface sucks AFAIK... Also I find the flight model very bouncy and a little on the forgiving side.

evenhaim · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2007, 08:55:25 PM »

il2 is a complety fed up flight model which featurs a standered of 2 or 3 vectors rather than the hundreds aces high employs its a bad flight model and you have to try hard to die if you have a decent ounce of skill

Benny Moore · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2007, 09:45:58 PM »

Exactly. Since IL-2 lacks numerous vectors (such as the dozens which Aces High II has, as Freez pointed out), IL-2's flight model is very unrealistic and arcade. The stalls, in particular, are badly wrong. But I'm only posting this for the very few who are genuinely interested in realistic flight. The majority can keep on believing that IL-2 is realistic, since they don't really care how real airplanes work. I couldn't care less which game any of you choose.

Makoyouidiot · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2007, 01:21:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nimrod45
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.

I own Pacific Fighters (the sequel to Il-2) and it is actually quite good...I dunno how the multiplayer is, since nobody else in my area has it, though.

Makoyouidiot · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2007, 01:23:38 AM »

Although, I did find it exceedingly difficult to stall/crash without actually trying to. The flight model was much worse than AH, as I'm sure was already mentioned, but I skip to the bottom of everything.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #20 on:** July 16, 2007, 06:56:44 AM »

Il-2 is to AH as what AH is to FA.

Makoyouidiot, you want to go online, then go to Hyperlobby.

Benny, IL-2 is not a vector based game.

windmill · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2007, 07:32:22 AM »

I downloaded Fighter Ace to get a direct comparison. As Angus said, it sucks.

The graphics appear to come out of a Tom and Jerry cartoon, which doesn't work well in a flight sim. Some of the parts of your plane look flat, demonstrated best by this screenshot of the left landing gear.
http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php/Image:MiG-3_Left_Side_Gear.jpg

The flight model is horrible. It's simply throttle up, pull up, and go. You have no fear of stalling at anything other than vertical. It's very simple and arcade-like.

Fighter Ace does have more aircraft than Aces High, however, I prefer a good flight model to a bunch of airplanes.

Nimrod45 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:26:11 AM »

What do you meen il-2 is to AH what AH is to FA

Husky01 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2007, 11:40:32 AM »

Dang trying to sign up for this thing but its a pain in the areas I click free acount then set my password but it wont let me log in. Any tips?

HoseNose · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2007, 12:35:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Exactly. Since IL-2 lacks numerous vectors (such as the dozens which Aces High II has, as Freez pointed out), IL-2's flight model is very unrealistic and arcade. The stalls, in particular, are badly wrong. But I'm only posting this for the very few who are genuinely interested in realistic flight. The majority can keep on believing that IL-2 is realistic, since they don't really care how real airplanes work. I couldn't care less which game any of you choose.

Just out of curiousity, how is it so bad? i.e. What are these vectors of which you speak?

I'm planning to get it so I would like to understand as much as possible how it's bad. I've tried it before and other than the 'bounce' it seemed fine to me. One thing I especially like is the CV landings.... they seem more realistic but thats just my opinion.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #25 on:** July 16, 2007, 07:40:33 PM »

Aces High II uses dozens of vectors, such as lift points and drag points. For instance, each wing has many of these lift points at which are calculated the lift based on the speed of the aircraft. Or something like that. Here's a picture.

IL-2 has no such thing. Contrary to what MiloMorai says, IL-2 does use vectors (currently, all flight simulators do, although the unreleased Knights of the Sky by Gennadich is supposed to be using fluid phsyics, which will be better). However, IL-2 only uses the traditional four vectors, which are lift, drag, weight, and thrust. That makes for a very, very unrealistic flight model, in particular the stalls and the drag. Aces High II's dozens of vectors make it dozens of times more precise.

You can see irrefutable proof that IL-2's stalls are terrible wrong by taking up a real airplane and stalling it and by going to Zenoswarbirdvideos.com and observing how the real fighters stall in the training video. If you're blind, the narrator even describes them. There's no excuse for not realizing that the IL-2 stalls are simply wrong.

Treize69 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:09:57 PM »

Bets way to tell the IL2 stalls are wrong is to read the pilots manual for the Bf-109 and fly it any other sim, then fly it in IL2. The flight manual states, and any sim but IL2 replicates, that all you have to do to get out of a spin in a 109 is chop throttle and release the stick, with light rudder input, to recover.

In IL2, 90% of the time my spins in the 109 are irrecoverable, indeed following the procedure in the RL manual results in a more violent spin in the opposite direction.

That was what really turned me off to their FM, and it qwent downhill after that.

IL2s only saving grace is its graphics, its gunnery and damage model is total BS too.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:13:44 PM »

I actually found the spins in IL-2 to be much easier to recover from than in Aces High II. However, that may be because I played IL-2 for far more time than Aces High II. I spent four years or so in IL-2. If only I'd known about Aces High, that would have been a lot less time wasted of the crappy IL-2 series (not to mention $200 down the toilet).

Treize69 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:15:49 PM »

I was in the open beta for IL2 back when it first came out and I still flew WB regularly. All the WBers complained about the 109 FM and were told it would be fixed in the final release, it was just a testing model.

Almost 10 years on and its still the same FM...

SgtPappy · « **Reply #29 on:** July 16, 2007, 09:34:48 PM »

Hah i bet i'll get burned at the steak for this but my avatar is an IL-2 screen xD

What can I say, i love the graphics. But I haven't had much time flying in the game.