Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fscott on August 24, 2001, 10:47:00 AM
-
I'm talking in reference to the graphics/fps issue.
The graphics engine is a groundbreaking endeavour. This is one of the first sims I have flown that lets me run at 1280x1200x32 without a hiccup, WHILE having such amazing graphics.
Most sims that achieve high fps at this level have shortcomings in the graphic detail. Yet, IL-2 keeps the same high deatil level up close and far away.
This is the first time I have seen trees modelled with 3 levels of texture maps... what a brilliant idea that looks fantastic.
Oleg is a genius.
-
Visually, nothing even comes close.
AKDejaVu
-
cc. Just like when EAW and Janes WWII Fighters came out. No MMPOG could touch those two.
AH and WB III have now caught up to those 1997-1998 sims (for the most part. some stuff MMPOG just cannot do that box sims can). I'm smiling while looking at IL2 and thinking of how great MMPOG will look in a few years.
IL2 is stunning. But I miss having all real live human beings in the aircraft around me. As beautiful and nice as it is I don't think I'll be buying the box. Just as I passed on Op:Flashpoint.
Westy
-
..and like an athlete, you stay on top as long as your next race...
-
What if Il2 were to open up a dedicated sever(s) just like aces ;)
I think they COULD EASILY do it... They have amazed me so far... I think they could up their net code.. and take over the world.. hehe
If thats thier goal.. but most likely not ;)
IF that does happen... OH yes... I would love to try it...
After flying around in IL2.. I logged into aces... and kinda felt funny
I mean the graphics and immersiv factor of it all (il2) made aces feel nintedo like :(
I think aces could have graphics like IL2 but maybe they dont hae the resources, time,technology, experience.. to do it? idunno
<S> htc you guys are doing a Great job.. In now way am I saying your not trust me I love aces. Keep up the good work
-
I play with the Beta 32 Players online Dogfight,16 vs 16,i never see this on WB or AH.
There is sometime 50-200 Players online.But you never see all in a Dogfight,Massiv Dogfights in WB or AH just 5 vs 5 or 10 vs 10 or a bit more.
You can play Mission 16 Players, 8 vs 8 or 16 vs AI+Tanks+Bombers+big Groundwar(i love to see how German Tanks attack a City or Airport :) )
So IL-2 have all better ,for what you need 200 Players online? :D
-
"What if .."
Is just that, "what if". For example "What if B17-II had multi-play?" Well IF it had it B17-II could have been a tremendously succedfull release. Or another, "what if AirWarrior4 comes out with all the features AW's always wanted?..." Well, sorry, that one was mean ;)
Many box sims have limited MP. IT's fun for those who like a small gathering of people to fly and fight with. Buyt I like flying with and against multitudes of folks not 8, 16, 32 players in small arenas. Small numbers feels like eating French quisine; it's a few "medallions" of this sprinkled liberally with two peices of parsley. And when I'm done it always leaves me hungry and wishing I'd gone Italian or America :)
Westy
-
Well, actually there were huge furballs going on in two different locations in the MA at the same time last night. Each involving easily 20 planes per side. Feel free to continue talking out your bellybutton tho' Possi...ooh, maybe you can talk about the 109s some more!
SOB
-
Originally posted by Possi:
I play with the Beta 32 Players online Dogfight,16 vs 16,i never see this on WB or AH.
There is sometime 50-200 Players online.But you never see all in a Dogfight,Massiv Dogfights in WB or AH just 5 vs 5 or 10 vs 10 or a bit more.
It is obvious to me that if those 32 Beta Il 2 players could for a while supress their righteous disgust over the flaws of HTC abomination and join Aces High for one mission, they would not have a problem arranging the same 16 vs 16 dogfight.
Yet, despite much higher number of players in AH arena, it does not happen often. I think the problem must be with us - the AH players.
There must be something in the game (subliminal influence, subconcious assocoations, etc.) that only attracts retards incapable of such cooperation or finding their way in virtual skies.
I meant, would they have to put auto-takeoff in the game if we were capable pilots? Half of us are not even flying anymore but driving, sailing or <gasp> manning stationary shore baterries.
So go away, Possi. Do not spill salt on our wounds by reminding us of our intellectual inferiority. We are born to crawl, not fly. But you still have hope! Run away to the shining skies of Il2 before you get as deranged as we are here. Let our suffering be a warning to the humanity.
miko
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
"What if .."
Is just that, "what if". For example "What if B17-II had multi-play?" Well IF it had it B17-II could have been a tremendously succedfull release. Or another, "what if AirWarrior4 comes out with all the features AW's always wanted?..." Well, sorry, that one was mean ;)
Many box sims have limited MP. IT's fun for those who like a small gathering of people to fly and fight with. Buyt I like flying with and against multitudes of folks not 8, 16, 32 players in small arenas. Small numbers feels like eating French quisine; it's a few "medallions" of this sprinkled liberally with two peices of parsley. And when I'm done it always leaves me hungry and wishing I'd gone Italian or America :)
Westy
LOL big arenas,100 Players online,you fly a hour to see any one.I fly AH online,i know it ;)There ist just take a Airfield or destroy a City, cool.
The big different is here,in Furball same many Planes and more AI.I make a Pulk with 16 HE-111 and 8 Yaks against them and 8 Bf109 against the Yaks, over the City where the German Tanks and Russian Tanks fighting on the Ground.
But the Big Point is the FM there in IL-2 more and more real as AH&WB.
I know you pay a lot of Money for AH.
So it must be the Best for you,i understand this really ;)
-
The big different is here,in Furball same many Planes and more AI.I make a Pulk with 16 HE-111 and 8 Yaks against them and 8 Bf109 against the Yaks, over the City where the German Tanks and Russian Tanks fighting on the Ground.
But the Big Point is the FM there in IL-2 more and more real as AH&WB.
Thats fine if you LIKE fighting AI - I don't and never will, and 32 players sucks in comparison to 200+.
I can't wait until Oleg fixes the porked 109 FM, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the IL-2 beta forum is already at a fever pitch over his last changes to it, I bet Posse throws down his pom poms and takes his ball home when it happens. :p
Other than graphics AH is better and has NOTHING to worry about from IL2, until the FM hits NACA data it's just a Nintendo game pretending to be a flight sim.
Wheeeeee - my uber duber BF-109 is funnnnnn, I just point that spinny thing on the front at enemy planes pull the flamethrower trigger and they fall down. :rolleyes:
[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]
-
Possi - AH and WB both have a 32 plane limit for simultaneous graphics display. So it's not even possible to have a fight with more than 32 planes in those games.
-
Are you sure about that funkedup? I thought there was no such limit in AH.
-
In WB you got a total of 32 planes and dots. In AH you get an (apparently) unlimited number of dots plus 32 planes/vehicles/chutes.
We discovered this during a memorial flyby a few months ago. There were about 50 planes/vehicles/chutes on a field but sure enough, you could only see 32 of them at once, and the rest were shown as dots even though they were only a few hundred yards away.
-
XXX # of players in an arena does not in itself constitue immersion, btw (I think this may prove the flaw of WWIIO).
Not taking sides on the issue, but you have to look at it from several points of view.
But FWIW, I have seen AI that can be more challenging than alot of players <G>.
-
One of the best features of IL-2 is squad training. As a squad you can go out on predefined missions using the mission builder, to define any type of mission you would like. The AI pilots in IL-2 are very good and know how to rope and dope ya, and all those other fun manevours. Can they replace a real pilot no, but they are fun never the less. I keep hearing this boxed game thing, like you can only play it by yourself... am I missing something.. Yakrobat
BTW, I am one the lucky beta testers for IL-2 and I also like AH, not flying AH right now as beta testing has kept me busy, but will be back online soon with you mugs :)
-
Guys,
Just thought I'd introduce myself here, some of you may know me from various IL-2 boards.
Some more on the IL-2 MP limitations:
The actual data being sent is very small in size; I ran some benchmarks during the beta testing, and as a server I send about 3-5K per second in a 32 plane match.
IL-2 was designed with potential to grow in mind. Even with current technology people with cable modems could probably set up a 128-plane match and enjoy smooth gameplay... In three months of beta testing Il-2 I'm yet to experience any lag - and I hosted international matches on my home machine
Also, remember that IL-2 has a very distinct type of multiplayer games called co-op. Any single player mission can be played in MP with no extra tweaking. It's a very different sensation to fly with 12 squad mates in 4th GvIAP La-5FN's to intercept 9 KG30 Ju-88's covered by the whole 7/JG53 in full force :) I don't personally feel like there aren't enough planes in the sky when slicing through the escorts toward the Junker's defensive fire - but that's of course only my personal opinion.
Lastly, Oleg Maddox (Il-2's lead designer) has always stated that a massive multiplayer sim was on his scope. It's not up to him to decide though, but rather a publisher needs to decide to support such a project.
So, if IL-2 is a commercial success - keep your fingers crossed. A dedicated server app running on both Windows and Unix is already written (with the same 32 player limit), and I think it's absolutely possible to create an MMP sim based on Il-2 engine.
Oleg even released some screenshots a while ago with their tests of player drivable vehicles, as an internal proof of concept :)
-
Originally posted by jihad:
Thats fine if you LIKE fighting AI - I don't and never will, and 32 players sucks in comparison to 200+.
I can't wait until Oleg fixes the porked 109 FM, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the IL-2 beta forum is already at a fever pitch over his last changes to it, I bet Posse throws down his pom poms and takes his ball home when it happens. :p
Other than graphics AH is better and has NOTHING to worry about from IL2, until the FM hits NACA data it's just a Nintendo game pretending to be a flight sim.
Wheeeeee - my uber duber BF-109 is funnnnnn, I just point that spinny thing on the front at enemy planes pull the flamethrower trigger and they fall down. :rolleyes:
[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: jihad ][/QB]
You know nothing,i can see on your Posting!
Go and watch James Ryan this biggest Stupidmovie on the World...
Fly this dream FM from AH :D
-
You know nothing,i can see on your Posting!
Go and watch James Ryan this biggest Stupidmovie on the World...
Fly this dream FM from AH
LOL!
I'm a beta tester so I know more than you think, if it wasn't an NDA violation I would post what Oleg has to say in the Beta forum about the turn rate of the 109.
Are you by any chance the whiney little squeak who has been crying about the FM change of the 109 G6 in the beta forum?
Have fun in your uber duber PORKED 109, like I said above - just point the end with the whirly thingie on it and use the flamethrowers.
Until it has a realistic FM it's just another wannabe flight sim, although a very pretty one. :p
-
Originally posted by jihad:
You know nothing,i can see on your Posting!
Go and watch James Ryan this biggest Stupidmovie on the World...
Fly this dream FM from AH
LOL!
I'm a beta tester so I know more than you think, if it wasn't an NDA violation I would post what Oleg has to say in the Beta forum about the turn rate of the 109.
Are you by any chance the whiney little squeak who has been crying about the FM change of the 109 G6 in the beta forum?
Have fun in your uber duber PORKED 109, like I said above - just point the end with the whirly thingie on it and use the flamethrowers.
Until it has a realistic FM it's just another wannabe flight sim, although a very pretty one. :p
Oleg dont say from any Data in the Demo and he also say the FM from the 109 is 95% complete :p
-
I like Il-2. I'm enjoying the demo very much.
The graphics are just plain amazing, though I would like my FPS to be faster, thats why I'm getting a Geforce 3.
The flight model feels good once you get used to the twitchiness and rudders are too sensitive (if anyone can tell me how to make them less responsive, I'd be grateful)
The gunnery model.. well.. I put around 40 20mm rounds on a Yak3 with my 109, and it didnt even die. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, maybe my settings are bad.
The P39 is a blast to fly, and its fun to blast those Ju87 out of the sky with the 37mm
:)
Now the views... I simply HATE them. Maybe I'm spoiled by the excellent AH view system, but I really dislike the view system in IL2. I dont like how the cockpit looks, and I find myself flying with no-cockpit for Situational Awareness and a big FPS boost.
The no-six view is also horrible. I understand you couldnt turn your head around in real life like in AH, but it should always be added as a gameplay improvement, I mean, we are playing on a 2D screen with no depth perception..
-
Possi=German MG???
Cobra
-
snapviews are allready implemented in the beta and will be included in the final release.It works just as well as in AH.
-
Animal I believe you can chance rudders sensitivity with DxTweak (http://www.wingmanteam.com/Latest_Software/Gadgets/gadgets.htm) thought you might want to change it back when playing in AH.
-
Yep.. Made up my mind... IL2 is Superior to any WWII Flight simulation I have ever played, seen or know of right now.
THE POSSIBILITY of the sim going.. (EVEN HAVEING the capibility already) TO have Massive ONLINE war scenerios like Aces has here is PURE GREATNESS.
This SIM will become THE NEW BENCHMARK IN PLAYIBILITY, GRAPHICS, AND FLIGHT MODEL.
IL2 is seemingly the game of the future.
I HIGHLY recommend that for those who want a RELISTIC VIEW SYSTEM.... Learn to FLY LEFTY like me,.. and USE the MOUSE for the VIRTUAL HEAD MOVMENTS.
MOUSE config AS FOLLOWS.
Left button = Throttle up
Right Button = Throttle Down
Middle Button = Brakes
Lkefty joystick set to any options one can benifit from.
Rudder pedals =Rudder athority.
IT IS SIMPLY Amazing...AFTER just Playing IL2 for over 3 HRS with HEAD TO HEAD. THe comfort level and ability to use the above configuration Puts you in the cockpit, with an almost simulated periphial vision feel.
I literally feel as If I am watching a Movie from a Camera placed inside of the Cockpit, or attached to a pilots helmet.
Simply nothing left to say... but try it.
:eek:
-
That's very cute Deez. :D
-
DeeZCamp and others, read this. (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001213.html)
This guy says the same things that I was saying, but he claims to have much more experience in such matters.
Il2 is vaery, very pretty and very detailed. I will definately buy it. That said, the FM needs quite a bit of work.
-
Originally posted by Animal:
I like Il-2. I'm enjoying the demo very much.
The graphics are just plain amazing, though I would like my FPS to be faster, thats why I'm getting a Geforce 3.
The flight model feels good once you get used to the twitchiness and rudders are too sensitive (if anyone can tell me how to make them less responsive, I'd be grateful)
The gunnery model.. well.. I put around 40 20mm rounds on a Yak3 with my 109, and it didnt even die. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, maybe my settings are bad.
The P39 is a blast to fly, and its fun to blast those Ju87 out of the sky with the 37mm
:)
Now the views... I simply HATE them. Maybe I'm spoiled by the excellent AH view system, but I really dislike the view system in IL2. I dont like how the cockpit looks, and I find myself flying with no-cockpit for Situational Awareness and a big FPS boost.
The no-six view is also horrible. I understand you couldnt turn your head around in real life like in AH, but it should always be added as a gameplay improvement, I mean, we are playing on a 2D screen with no depth perception..
The Bf109 Cockpit have in real Glass/Bullet-proof glass and there CAN`T open the Window in Flight and watch out like in AH.
This why you have not 100% six view and your Enemy also :)
Fly a long curve and watch back and you can see the Enemy ;)
The Cockpit from the 109 is also 100% real not like in AH!AH is for Newbis with a lot helps,IL-2 can fly also Newbis and Hardcore
virtuel Pilots.
Fly a Dogfight online with your Friends with the Demo you can see and feel the big different :)
IL-2 is the NEW KING OF THE SIM!
(online and offline)
-
You tell him POSsi! Whatever you said.
Great link Karnak. You ever time the roll rates in AH off that guys figures?
-
I think aces could have graphics like IL2 but maybe they dont hae the resources, time,technology, experience.. to do it? idunno
This has been explained before. HT or Pyro (maybe both at some point in time) said that the reason that they do not have super duper graphics like you see in WW2F and Il-2 is very simple. They want the sim to be accessible to as many people as possible. Two things contribute to the reason the graphics are not as nice as in those 2 sims.
First, not everyone is has a broadband connection like cable or DSL. Therefore, HTC needs to keep the download to a minimum. The small size makes it so that the more detailed graphics you find in Il-2 are not able to be put in. Think about it, how big was the demo file for Il-2? 102MB? How big is AH's current version? 18MB. See a little bit of a difference?
Second, not everyone who plays AH has the latest and greatest gaming rig available to them. If you look at the "worst" system vs. the "best" system used in AH, you will find a wide disparity. In order to keep the most people able to play AH, you need to keep the system requirements down. Compare the two games sys req's and you will see what I mean.
The graphics in AH have nothing to do with the abilities of HTC programmers. It has everything to do with their choices concerning the market they are trying to reach.
I hope Il-2 is a good game. It definitely has promise. Until it is out, released, bug free, etc. nobody here can accurately say it is the "wave of the future." How many games have said that and not lived up to it?
Il-2 looks to be the next generation of boxed sims. I will probably get it. Do I think it will replace AH/WB/whatever MMOL sim? No. Why? Very simple. These are two completely different types of games. One is built to be played out of a box, with the potential to be a large multi game. The other is designed purely as a MMOL game.
Until Il-2 is released, all the flag waving and bashing is pointless. Even if some people have the beta, it is still just the beta and not the final boxed product. Who knows what is going to happen between now and the release.
-
This guy is better than minus!
Yessir... Possi - excellent work - keep up the reporting, we are always eager for new information. We look forward to any news you may have or... hell anything.. just keep posting. You are clearly the man.
Minus - you have your work cut out for you.
-
Creamo,
No, but that is a new post.
Anyway, he is simply refering to the NACA test data that we have all seen and debated here on the AH BB. I even put a post on the BB refering the the P-39D-1's NACA roll performance. His post was more complete than mine and he states that he has flown a P-51 and a Spitfire MkIX in 4 to 5G aerobatics, thus he is a more reputable source.
I was thinking of pointing AH out to him in an attempt to get his opinion on the AH FM.
-
Absolutley. Tha'd be interesting.
Cool.
-
Originally posted by Mathman:
This has been explained before. HT or Pyro (maybe both at some point in time) said that the reason that they do not have super duper graphics like you see in WW2F and Il-2 is very simple. They want the sim to be accessible to as many people as possible. Two things contribute to the reason the graphics are not as nice as in those 2 sims.
First, not everyone is has a broadband connection like cable or DSL. Therefore, HTC needs to keep the download to a minimum. The small size makes it so that the more detailed graphics you find in Il-2 are not able to be put in. Think about it, how big was the demo file for Il-2? 102MB? How big is AH's current version? 18MB. See a little bit of a difference?
Second, not everyone who plays AH has the latest and greatest gaming rig available to them. If you look at the "worst" system vs. the "best" system used in AH, you will find a wide disparity. In order to keep the most people able to play AH, you need to keep the system requirements down. Compare the two games sys req's and you will see what I mean.
The graphics in AH have nothing to do with the abilities of HTC programmers. It has everything to do with their choices concerning the market they are trying to reach.
I hope Il-2 is a good game. It definitely has promise. Until it is out, released, bug free, etc. nobody here can accurately say it is the "wave of the future." How many games have said that and not lived up to it?
Il-2 looks to be the next generation of boxed sims. I will probably get it. Do I think it will replace AH/WB/whatever MMOL sim? No. Why? Very simple. These are two completely different types of games. One is built to be played out of a box, with the potential to be a large multi game. The other is designed purely as a MMOL game.
Until Il-2 is released, all the flag waving and bashing is pointless. Even if some people have the beta, it is still just the beta and not the final boxed product. Who knows what is going to happen between now and the release.
I agree with you Mathman!But dont forgot what Luthier say there Player with a very good connection can also playing over 100 Players.I like to hear that too :)
You say:
_____________________________ ________________
These are two completely different types of games. One is built to be played out of a box, with the potential to be a large multi game. The other is designed purely as a MMOL game.
_____________________________ ________________
The different is not the MMOL so big,the realism and the Quality is the big different.
So there not so completely different types of games.Both a Flysim!
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Creamo,
No, but that is a new post.
Anyway, he is simply refering to the NACA test data that we have all seen and debated here on the AH BB. I even put a post on the BB refering the the P-39D-1's NACA roll performance. His post was more complete than mine and he states that he has flown a P-51 and a Spitfire MkIX in 4 to 5G aerobatics, thus he is a more reputable source.
I was thinking of pointing AH out to him in an attempt to get his opinion on the AH FM.
When AH have also Data from NACA for the Bf109 and FW190 then is there which falsely.
-
Possi,
The NACA test chart doesn't have data from the Bf109.
The AH Fw190 is reasonably close to the NACA Fw190 test data, considering we have no idea what the stick force in AH is.
But my concern is for Il2's FM in this case. I am going to buy the sim and I would like the FMs to be as accurate as possible.
(http://angelfire.com/nt/regoch/42.gif)
FWIW, the AH Fw190 should roll a bit faster at low speeds. I believe that AH is modeling a stronger stick force than the 50lbs in the NACA test.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Possi,
The NACA test chart doesn't have data from the Bf109.
The AH Fw190 is reasonably close to the NACA Fw190 test data, considering we have no idea what the stick force in AH is.
But my concern is for Il2's FM in this case. I am going to buy the sim and I would like the FMs to be as accurate as possible.
FWIW, the AH Fw190 should roll a bit faster at low speeds. I believe that AH is modeling a stronger stick force than the 50lbs in the NACA test.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Ok,i have no so mutch idea over USAF Planes,just German Planes.This why i canīt say a lot over the USAF-Planeīs.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
-
Does anyone know how we changed from "IL-2's pretty graphics" to "IL-2's flight modelling"?
Can you people ever stay on topic for more than 5 posts? If not, then let it die and start a new one.
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Simply nothing left to say...
:eek:
Oh how I wish that was true!
Cobra
-
Cobra, What do you think of the entire enchalada of IL2??
Lets hear your Opinon :p
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
DeeZCamp and others, read this. (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001213.html)
This guy says the same things that I was saying, but he claims to have much more experience in such matters.
Il2 is vaery, very pretty and very detailed. I will definately buy it. That said, the FM needs quite a bit of work.
Oleg has a rather comprehensive reply to RWORDWAY. Basically, the NACA tests are not the TsAGI tests, and the P-39D is not the P-39N/Q. The P-39N and Q models that went to Russia were modified according to TsAGI recommendations. Most, if not all, aircraft in il2 are based from German/Soviet testing, not western Allied, ie NACA.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: leonid ]
-
Deez,
I already gave my opinion of it in the thread you started on the AH General Board.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Cobra:
Possi=German MG???
Cobra
No :)
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
His post was more complete than mine and he states that he has flown a P-51 and a Spitfire MkIX in 4 to 5G aerobatics, thus he is a more reputable source.
LOL, it's Richard Ordway! :D
SOB
-
from what I head, Oleg used data from Russian some type testing thingy :rolleyes: during WW2. To me it feels very right. But Aces High got dweebs, thats why I'm here :)
-
Originally posted by SOB:
LOL, it's Richard Ordway! :D
SOB
Is this a Pilot from WW2,like this Russian and German Pilots there testing for Olegīs IL-2?
I never hear from him.
-
Yeah, SOB. Laughed out loud when I figured out who it was they were talking about.
-
I cant wait for IL2's Mupltiplay Servers to come up :D
I think we are going to have a new king of MMOPG's
-
I can't help but wonder.. The Wobble?
-
So who is this Richard Ordway ?
-
The ORDBOT!
-
OMG! You mean we have simmers that haven't heard of Richard Ordway?!
Drop by the newsgroups and you will get to know him very well. He has the "I have stick time in the P51 dual seater, and it is pretty close to the wartime loading blah blah blah blah" macro programmed and uses it on every post.
After you read it a while it all blends together into some kind of psychodelic montage of opinions. Look for the trademark "My sticktime in the dual seat P-51 doesn't corroborate that finding, blah blah blah".
When I left the groups the readers had finally shamed him into posting that macro somewhat less frequently. ;)
-
Lol, so that 2 seat thing is true..
He also stated, that 180 degree/sec roll rate is impossible due to laws of physics..Hmm, even that BIASED NACA chart ( ;) ) shows, that 190A5 can roll 180deg/sec..
But maybe they didnt have the experience of 2 seated looks-like-warbird passenger?
-
Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one. But certain people are so full of sh*t that they need to have an opinion on everything, just to get it all out.
I think that describes certain frequent posters in the NGs quite well. Faked air of credibility that convinces newbies but makes everyone who's read a few posts laugh.
Cheers,
/ft, who once saw an airplane and thus is an expert on everything aeronautical
-
Well, I'm by no means an expert in nothing related to WW2 airplanes, but here's my opinion:
Graphically, IL2 is stunning, and the only thing I don't particularly like is the looks of the tracers from afar and the dulled terrain.
The FM of the planes seem far too sensitive. I fly in RL some small airplanes (C172 and Robin 200 and 400) and the planes in IL2 remind me more of the F16 in Falcon 4 than a real WW2 bird.
But, as I said, who am I to say anything's wrong? I simply think there's something funny about the FM, it's just a feeling.
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
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!
I have been Testing IL2 Multiplay.. and Have tested the ROLL rates... THERE IS NO WARP.
Does IL2 have beeter net code or sumthing??
Idunno.
All i know is that WHen you move your plane to its limits on your FE, that is what the other guy sees on his in IL2.
-
Cyrano I think planes made for civil use (no aerobatic) are meant to be stable (and easy to fly) when military/aerobatic planes need to be more able to do fast moves (almost labil/unstable, like modern fighters). IMO of course.
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Aces has atrificially dampend down Feel/Roll/stick imputs to compensate for lag..
THE ONLY THING i dont understand is WHY!
Deez, why don't you tell us why? You're the one who keeps fabricating false and deragatory statements about our flight model and motives. Oh wait, you already have told us why.
Perhaps the reason we model stick forces is because we think it's an important characteristic? Throw that out and in theory, the Zero would outroll the F6F at 350 mph. In practice, it did not. If you think that's a better way to do it, you're entitled to that opinion. Just don't issue it by making stuff up about what we do and why and then state it as fact.
-
Yes, its just an different approach of simulation. Both ways have their pros and cons.
Deez i think you are little bit overreacting to things right now, time will tell.. :)
Btw Pyro, maybe very experienced Zero pilot could outpull newbie f6f pilot from 350mph dive dont you think? Then, maybe not, but we could think something like p47 vs 109 etc.
Thats what Oleg has been saying, that more or less the compression related crashes in ww2 were due to inexperienced pilot getting in panic. If charts show only 50lbs pulls, then we can only rely on subjective reports of testpilots, when it comes to high speed dives. "cement stick" statement arent after all scientific measurement, so you can get easily far off creating objective models from subjective material.
After all, it is rather simple implementation on the code so that cant be the reason.
<S> for both teams for these marvelous games and this all is just opinion of a humble peasant.. ;)
-
Did anyone but me get the impression from the statements by the IL-2 team that they have indeed gone back in time six years or so and coded rudder deflection as a direct function of stick angle? I do hope I'm misunderstanding things but it sure seems like if this could be the case. This sure isn't the way things are in RL. Even in modern aircraft with powered controls, they go through lots of trouble to artifically stiffen the controls at higher airspeeds to provide proper feedback and avoid overcontrolling.
Staga, fighters are built to be more agile. Low/mid wings, less dihedral etc etc. You want them to react fast to control inputs. What you do not want is them jittering all over the place, swaying back and forth etc trying to stabilize since this makes a lousy gun platform (many WWI pilots loved the S.E.5, not since it was agile but since it was stable and made aiming easy). Unfortunately I think I'm seeing quite a bit of jittering in IL-2. The rudder sensitivity definitely has to go down a LOT from the default setting for example, gonna try that next. Oh, and we need a turn coordinator somwhere where we can see it...
Oh well. It's a beta after all and I have high hopes for this one anyway. As it is now, something is wrong IMO.
Cheers,
/ft
-
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.
-
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.
-
juzz,
thank you for clearing that out. Sometimes finding out that you're wrong is really nice. Phew. :)
Cheers,
/ft
-
Try watching the pilot stick in cockpit while deflecting your joystick.
Compression and travel time is modeled.
-
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
-
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.
-
Is that "Dweeb" nickname someones alter-ego for bashing Il-2?
I meant only few posts and looks like all about this same subject...
-
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
-
Dweeb you are obviously one. What is your real name? secondly :D
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, :rolleyes: 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! :eek:
-
fscott what ever happend to WW2offline???? :D
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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.. :D
So if it is found out that the German/russian data was/is more accutate, then will aces change over?
-
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>
-
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 :)
-
You know what I notice... I notice that in america things are always ended with happy endings, things are told in twisted ways to make only the good or at least the percieved outcome of something seem good.
In college, learning german, you hear of stories from german resources and other countries, simple and yet effective stories.
Examples are childrens stories that are told from generation to generation to teach, and inform children of day to day activities.
An example is a story about a child who doesnt want to eat his soup. Throughout the tale it illustrates how the child lost more and more weight up to the point where he lost so much weight that he died, and keep in mind this is a children's story. Another story that I can remember is about a little girl playing with matches...and again, in graphic detail, the story illustrates exactly what would happen to the child if they were to play with matches....a little girl going up in flames, and again, dying.
In contrast, American children's tales, for example, Pinochicco, have this little wooden marionette(sp?) lying his way throughout the whole story with his nose growing longer and longer with each lie. At the end of the story freaking pinochicco gets his wish and becomes a real boy and everyone lives happily ever after. As of this moment, I can not think of one story that doesn't live happily ever after..
corruption in the system of america.
MY POINT AFTER ALL THIS:
American Ideals and Data may not be the most Accurate, or truthfull in thier details. :(
I tend to beleive that the country whom fought the enemy and interacted with for a longer time would have some, if not more accurate data.
-
By looking at Pinochicco you come to the conclusion that American test data might be inaccurate?
A bit of a reach isn't it :)
------------------
Ltn. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)
-
I came to same conclusion. If they created Pinochio, then my god what other evil things they might have done?
ps. You can already compare those TsAGI climb rates which i posted few days ago in Aircraft subforum. They are very similar to NACA.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio:
I came to same conclusion. If they created Pinochio, then my god what other evil things they might have done?
Don't forget PUFF the Magic Dragon! (he lived by the sea)
-SW
-
OK... very funny FDBs, how many times have I told you DON'T MESS WITH DEEZ's DOSAGE!!!
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
American Ideals and Data may not be the most Accurate, or truthfull in thier details. :(
I tend to beleive that the country whom fought the enemy and interacted with for a longer time would have some, if not more accurate data.
-
A little note on why Oleg doesn't "share" his data with the community.
Just a thought, I am not sure that it's so - but I think it's reasonable.
Oleg got some flight test data from TsAGI and LII. He probably even had to pay them for it. The case is that people who work there make money selling this data, and they could easily make Oleg sign some kind of NDA. Not because of the good old Soviet habbit to classify everything, but because if he will share the test charts with public - they'll be unable to sell it to someone else.
To Luthier: please, don't be surprised that many people here still think that all Russians are evil commies wearing fur hats with red stars. Some people even think that hammer and a sickle are a traditional Russian weapon. ;) It's one of the reasons why Western public is so hostile to anything that comes from Russia. So, prepare to be treated as "imbecilic communist bastard" (c) Jay Littman.
-
Thanks Luthier! I look forward to finding out more about the IL2 postion on this.
DeeZCamp:
The RAF data conocurs with the US data and the RAF was fighting against the LuftWaffe for quite a while before the invasion of Russia. Also I believe that the USAAF had quite a bit of experience in combat against the Me109 and the Fw190 :).
I won't go into your arguments that US data is inherently inaccurate. There is more data than the NACA to support the currently accpeted theory and for me and for many others it will need quite a bit of evidence to oveturn this. It would also require a reasonable explanation of the differences in the data.
I do not believe that the current theory should be set in stone but I do believe that theory has a lot of evidence to support it and I would think it reasonably that in order to overturn it evidence should be supplied.
Boroda:
Characterizing westerners as prejudiced and stupid is as unfair and offensive as westerners characterizing Russians as "imbecilic communist bastard"s. I have a great deal of respect for Oleg Maddox and the work he is doing, I, and many others here, just have some questions about the FM. I am still very much looking forward to playing the game.
Maybe I will meet all of you in a IL2 server in the not to distant future and you can teach me the error of my ways ;)
-
luthier
Galland also reccomended to Hitler and Milch that the only the FW190 and Me262 be produced as the Me109 was obsolete.
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
In contrast, American children's tales, for example, Pinochicco, have this little wooden marionette(sp?) lying his way throughout the whole story with his nose growing longer and longer with each lie. At the end of the story freaking pinochicco gets his wish and becomes a real boy and everyone lives happily ever after. As of this moment, I can not think of one story that doesn't live happily ever after..
You do know that Pinnochio was originally written by an Italian, in Italian, for Italians?
So much for strictly American fairy tales.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
luthier
Galland also reccomended to Hitler and Milch that the only the FW190 and Me262 be produced as the Me109 was obsolete.
Thats correct,becouse there only just need Fighters for attack B-17 and attack Groundtargets.Germany go in the Defensive this Time and not in Offensive.
IL-2 is Revolution and there looks like there Win :D
-
Thx DMF to point at that, was already with pointer on Replay button. ;)
Strange how a Spaghetti-man can write a tale translated in a number of languages near to the holy bible.
Naaa.... must be an US immigrant ;) :p
-
More on BF-109 vs FW-190:
This info is from Leutnant a.D. Alfred Ambs (JG7)!
He was telephoned today and askabout the whole subject. This is what he said:
1.A 109 can roll very fast when she flying above 300 km/h. She can roll in 3 sec. or a little big quicker. Faster Fly = quicker
Rolls
2. Some people stated that Bf-109's were too easy to pull out of a dive in Il-2. However Herr Ambs states that it is incorrect, Bf-109 had very smooth elevator control at high speeds and could exit dives even above 700 km/h
3. Finally, about whether the FW- 190 can make faster rolls than a Bf109 and he said a very strong NEIN!
Hope you can find this opinion trustworthy.
-
This is gonna be interesting.
-
"This is gonna be interesting."
Not really. When discussion of any FM in a computer programs gets backed up with 60 year old memories and pilot anecdotes it simply turn into a flame war and ends in hurt feelings.
Westy
-
So, I've read in books from German pilots that the 190 rolls faster than the 109..
I guess they are all wrong, but since they aren't alive today we can't tell them that.
-SW
-
Truth is out there... :D
-
Now this is a FW 190 that a Bf109 can definitely out roll :D
(http://members.fortunecity.com/kg200/SlowrollerFW190.jpg)
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: -dead- ]
-
Originally posted by -dead-:
Now this is a FW 190 that a Bf109 can definitely out roll :D
(http://members.fortunecity.com/kg200/SlowrollerFW190.jpg)
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: -dead- ]
The question is not can the 109 the 190 out roll!
The question is can the 190 faster roll! :eek: