Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: lasersailor184 on April 22, 2004, 02:45:02 PM
-
Is how they are portrayed in IL2 accurate?
It seems to me like they have a huge spread and I can't figure out why anybody would want to do that.
-
Nice flamefest on ubi forum. 33 pages. Happy reading ;).
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=979109092&p=1
-
They do seem to have pretty ridiculous spread in Il-2. Very hard to concentrate fire on a particular part of your target, and recoil in that game is so powerful that it would be hard enough with a tighter spread. The P38's nose .50 cals in the Ace expansion have a terrible spread, when they should remain extremely tight.
Il-2 remains by far the most beautiful combat sim, with a really great planeset, but there are still a number of issues with the game that really bother me.
-
It also remains so ridiculously biased towards the Russian planes in general that it makes me sick to play it.
-
i agree with ya urch, it is unbelieveably biased.
am i also the only one that finds the AI planes doing impossible (and infuriating) moves?
-
Apparently the AI doesn't use real-world physics, it just does stuff.
However... the La-7 in that game is nutty. In a players hands. It will turn (nose to tail, one circle), with a Spit 5.
It is always possible that I just suck very badly, but AH and IL-2 are similar enough that while I wouldn't expect to be the cream of the crop over there... I would'nt expect to be a completely suckass newb either.
-
Yeah, I hate the 109's in FB.
They can pretty much stop in mid air, yet retain energy.
-
Try Jane's. Surprizingly good.
-
It also remains so ridiculously biased towards the Russian planes in general that it makes me sick to play it.
Yes, that's a big problem. It seems like the Russian aircraft can outfly anything. Sometimes a little I-153 can give you more grief than anything. And it seems odd that the historically poor russian ballistics aren't represented at all. Most of the Russian cannon are more accurate than Browning machineguns!
As for the AI, well, if you record some flights and watch the AI in furballs, they often defy the rules of aerodynamics (powersliding 262's, anyone?). And, while they aren't very smart in a tactical sense, they seem to have GODLY throttle/flap control (perhaps sometimes combined with bending the laws of physics), such that you can almost never make them overshoot, even if they're coming in fast. Combined with inhuman gunnery skills, it can be pretty frustrating.
My final beef with Il-2 is the view system. It's trash. Anyone who plays Il-2 after AH will hate it. It's absurdly restrictive.
1. Your head is jammed into a rotating vice. You can't change head positions. Very frustrating when instruments are obscured by the stick or yoke, or when you wish you could peer around that one canopy spar that's blocking your view of an enemy in front of you.
2. Views pan absurdly slowly. It's like you're wearing a helmet made of lead. Unless you're pulling hard Gs, anyone should be able to snap their head around quickly. We also have things called eyeballs, they can move too.
3. No rear or rear-up view. Doesn't make sense. Anyone can look directly behind as long as you can move one shoulder a few inches. We don't need to be able to move our heads around a continuous 360 degrees like in AH, but no six view is silly. There should be a different six view for looking over each shoulder.
The the system in Il-2 conspires to make good SA annoyingly hard.
Yet, despite these flaws, I still enjoy the game very much, and wish Maddox more success. I hope they improve in these areas with their next projects.
-
You can change the pan speed in the conf.ini file - if you look for Hookview Config in the list, the last entry is speed, I think its 6 by default. Views are bad though.
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
Yes, that's a big problem. It seems like the Russian aircraft can outfly anything. Sometimes a little I-153 can give you more grief than anything. And it seems odd that the historically poor russian ballistics aren't represented at all. Most of the Russian cannon are more accurate than Browning machineguns!
Wich Russian gun would have poor ballistic ?
Give me some example please.
Your post cover the whole russian gun ever or still produced :D,that's a pretty large spectrum :p
Have you done a Browning/ShvaK test in AH ?
-
Try thinking in the way that the things bother you may actually be something better matching reality.
..
* Most of the 50cal armed planes have wing-armament. They are very sensitive to convergence ranges.
* Also, the fact that the 50cals don't contain any HE component calls for a concentrated, prolonged shot on a surface that matters.
* Add in to the fact that quality of hits are also modelled in that game and explains a lot of the troubles you may be having.
"Ridiculous", is something like getting a kill by a spray of 50cals that knock the entire tail appendage out at 600yards.(Which is ofcourse, pretty much very unlikely in FB/AEP opposed to what would happen in AH)
Check your convergence, and fire only from that range - too far, or even too close, will greatly reduce the effectivity of the guns. Use it right, and there's nothing "ridiculous" about 50cals in FB/AEP - a 1 second burst usually kills the target plane, or damages it to near fatal levels.
-
I have np with 50s in Fb, the light most planes quickly.
I have looked through that guys site about "dispersion" and it looks more like the cone of fire on 50s maybe a bit large (AH has adjusted the same cone). Firing at convergence works fine.
Also if you think Soviet guns weren't accurate then you need to do some research. Shvaks are excellent.
-
I'll retract the line about gun accuracy, that was purely anecdotal.
-
Depends on the version Ecliptik.
To be fair, the early FB version did have a bug concerning the P-47 where the spread was caused by incomprehensible shaking of the nose. That's pretty much solved about now.
Frankly, the accuracy of guns and ease of aiming in FB was mostly caused by how much the nose shakes around under maneuvering/firing conditions.
I won't go as far as to say it's biased, but the tendency I have felt, is that the Russian planes hardly shake at all - the nose(and thus, the aiming reticle) stays almost rock-steady in Russian planes even when after rolling or turning, or during fire, etc. US planes under Russian service are portrayed that way too.
Compared to that, the German planes have a very noticeable tendency of side-slipping during rolls which momentarily shakes the aim off.. and the US planes shake all over when firing all 50cals.
This tendency gave rise to the comment where people would emphasize "the 6x50s on the P-40(Russian used) are more powerful than the 8x50s on the P-47"
..
A lot of that's solved now... or at least I perceive it to be.
-
Kweassa, have they done something about the 190 over-the-nose angle?
-
moot, not a chance that will be corrected, which is truly very sad. The word is even in the new game, BoB (is more than just BoB time), the Fw190 will still have the castrated aiming view of Il-2/FB. The multi page threads showing this view is incorrect has Oleg claiming the view is correct.:rolleyes: This subject is now very much verboten.
Refraction cannot be modelled but no work around for this has been attempted by 1C/Maddox Games. Oleg's proof that his modelling of the Fw's cockpit and view was a joke. **Even the Fw has a better over the nose view than the Spitfire, which is historically correct. This is not seen in IL-2/FB.
edit: ** is now more easily understood Barbi?
Another touchy subject is the gun flashes. Why one would model them as seen at night (Oleg's reason) when almost all of the 'flying' is done during daylight is beyond comprehension. Night was only one of the lame excusses given. The flashes were complained about since Il-2 beta. Instead of correcting this, the time was spent on more eye candy. Only the people with high end 'putes can see this eye candy while the gun flashes effect all players, especially those with low end 'putes.:(
-
Even the Spitfire has a better over the nose view than the Fw, which is historically incorrect.
You mean the Spitfire Mk V ? Could be, the Spit V had a much shorter nose, than the Mk IX.
As for Oleg not listening, it`s BS. I have been in contact with him for 3 years, he is extremely open minded until people attempt to force things on him in an agressive manner. Only then he says "discussion closed". Understandable. And in general, I think many opinions in this thread are rather hastly drawn conclusions... Il-2 has of course bugs, but it`s lightyears ahead of anything else, regardless if some people want to think the .50 was a Death Star laser, or that all Soviet aircrafts sucked from treetop level to the stratosphere.
-
Thanks Milo.
Ise,
.The submission of the facts was civil at the time I checked them,
.the game view doesn't match the pictures of the real view.
we can add:
.the thread in question might have gone flamefest,
.the correct modeling (refraction etc) might not be possible,
.Oleg doesn't like flames.
The conclusion I make is:
.The Il2FB 190 cockpit view is wrong, refraction or not,
.Oleg doesn't follow the facts: He can scan a mass of historical docs to sort out the truth to model a bunch of planes accurately, but he can't filter a stupid thread to find the facts, with hundreds of posts, if that many?
-
The aircraft mounted M2's were light barrelled versions, which were markedly less accurate than the heavy barrelled version used by the Army. If there is one thing I don't like about the modelling of the M2 in AH, it's the damage. The M2 should not do so much structural damage as it should inflict critical hits. How often do you hear stories where they shot wings or tail sections off? The vast majority of "kill stories" with .50 cal armed planes describe how the target plane starts smoking, leaking coolant or start burning. The few times I've heard or seen wing failures due to .50 cal fire (especially the 190) it has clearly been a result of ammunition explosion in the wing magazines.
-
The main change between the ground and air M2HB was the barrel length. The ground being 1.143m long and the air 0.914m long.
-
The air version is not an M2HB. The "HB" stands for Heavy Barrel, and the barrel alone weighs 25 pounds.
M2HB - 84 pounds.
(http://www.sfu.ca/casr/m2-3.gif)
M2 - 61 pounds (barrel - 9 pounds 8 oz)
(http://www.reese-457th.org/b17-36.jpg)
-
M2 LWAW is a different model than the M2HB. The LWAW uses a different back plate on the reciever, barrel, and springs. That's why it has a much higher rate of fire. Same ammo, reciever, bolt, bolt carrier, etc..
Crumpp