Il2 sturmovik original fight model was different?

[Bolelas]

I was told that the original sturmovik game was much more difficult (regarding the flight model) and that the folowing versions were "softened" to make the game more arcade style in order to atract more begginers. Is it true? The guy that said that to me also said the game had more realistic stalls and spins, trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again? :)

[lorenzoj]

I wasn't able to run my original IL-2 Sturmovik to compare but it seems to me that at the very least, the flight models in the HsFx mega mods installation of 1946 are very varied and challenging. Also, depending on the aircraft, "more difficult" is not necessarily more realistic.

[Blackjack]

I did fly 1.2 sometimes just for fun, and depending on the patch level of the old il2, they are quite difderent, not the individual models.

The energy bleeding in 1.2 feels excessive if not exaggerated, flying an il2 does not feel like flying an aircraft with an powerful engine, but like a brick with extended airbrakes.

This all changed with the release of forgotten battles, and resulted in some general flight model between il2 1.0 and 1.2, as there is no il2 compare data , this is how it 'feels' having flown those versions on- and offline.

[jermin]

The most realistic and challenging FM is the one before 4.0, namely 3.04. In that version, you have to carefully manage your energy. Even a duel with the same planes could be much fun, because each pilot's energy management skill varies. Energy fighters like Bf-109 could be a deadly weapon in the hands of a veteran. Nobody used flaps to help turning at that time, since it did no good for keeping energy. But with the FM in later versions, you don't have to worry about energy management any more. Planes are much less prone to stall. You can even lower flaps to landing position to shorten your turning radius, which is of course ridiculous.

I didn't know whether this was a decision of Oleg (We were given the impression that the emphasis of the development had shifted to BoB around the time when PF was released. So Oleg might have already given up IL-2 before starting BoB development.) or the management of 1C. But what is certain is that arcade players has been gradually dominating the online community ever since the 4.0x FM came out. There were hardly any wonder-woman-view servers before the 4.0 series. Even playing in servers allowing external views were considered dishonourable.

It is funny to see those wonder-woman-view addicts gloating over their easy kills in their I-185s.

But they are not even the worst things. The worst thing is that most members of the current developer (TD) are these greeners who don't have a deep understanding of air combat.

Sadly Oleg's BoB dream came to nothing.

Oleg shouldn't have put all his promised features on the new game. He put IL-2 at a position that is way too low while put BoB at a position that is way to high. When people asked for improvements of IL2. Oleg's most frequent answer was "We will impletemen that in BoB". Actually BoB and Il-2 woud run abreast for a long time even all the promised features of BoB were enbodied.

One evidence supporting this assumption is that he didn't try to make an enhanced patch for IL-2 when they found 800m USD was still not enough for the development of BoB. I'm sure many players would empty their wallets for it if he did. Lock On is also an old title with more or less the same age of Fogotten Battles. But their developers are still polishing it and use it to make money to support their new projects. There will be a brand-new Su-27 cockpit in the incoming Flaming Cliffs 3. IL-2 is such a great game that it is really really sad for me to see it end up like this.

Anyway, I still want to thank Oleg for the fun IL-2 has broght me and my squad mates during the 9 years of online play.

Since 1C still keeps IL-2 in an abandoned status. It is more likely that the original decision was from 1C.

[Bolelas]

Thanks for your answers.
@jermin: well, at least TD is improving lots of things, i think they are making a wonderfull job (as far as my opinion goes, but i am not expert in some more delicade matters, like the FM`s), and it would be good if they decided to change the flight model, the way you mentioned. I myself dont fly with servers on external views, and i like realism, but, the majority of players are arcade and there is nothing i can do about it...

[Treetop64]

Of course flight model is going to be "different" when you consider the lengthy development of the game, more than ten years now. The idea of having the same flight model algorithms today as was used back then is ludicrous.

The FM in the latest version of the game feels far more refined and, depending on the aircraft, appropriately progressive than in the original v1.10 of IL-2, especially considering the variability of FMs between differing types of aircraft. Stall behavior in the original game feels generally "scripted" by comparison. Also, as lorenzoj pointed out, you should consider that because "some guy" perceives something as being more difficult for him in another version doesn't meant that it was more realistic.

Having said that, when Pacific Fighters was originally released, it was criticized for having a simplified low-speed flight model to help virtual pilots deal with the rigors of landing aircraft on carriers. This was rectified in later versions of the game.

So, in short, the fight model we have now is much more preferable to the comparatively crude (but very good for it's day) FMs used in IL-2 ten years ago.

[Bearcat]

The whole sim was different... The FMs were no exception. I think that the FMs that we have now are better .. but even then IL2 was the best thing smoking.

[IceFire]

I think whoever that was had no idea what they were talking about. Version 4.0 of IL-2 introduced a new FM system that was much more advanced. Stalls, spins and others are more dynamic and more natural. There was some regression from 3.0 largely because 3.0 was very finely tuned from what the original IL-2 flight model was capable of... but 4.0 and onwards is definitely more sophisticated. Feels more like flying a real plane (with my limited RL stick experience anyways).

There are problems, bugs, inconsistencies, and the like... but there has been for the entire run. Bottom line... the most difficult and sophisticated flight model in the IL-2 series is right now with the latest version. It's not dumbed down or arcade in any way.

[Bolelas]

Ok, tank you for your ansewers, Treetop, Bearcat, and Icefire. I am more relaxed now. :D
I am sure that 4.12 will bring us even a better sim.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

But they are not even the worst things. The worst thing is that most members of the current developer (TD) are these greeners who don't have a deep understanding of air combat.


Pls leave you offensive statements for yourself. Up to now, almost everyone in this forum knows, what your personal oppinion toward our team is.
You should think more about your own signature:
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place? Who of the DT do you really know? (rather a rhetoric question)



So regarding the FMs... I frankly don't know about the first IL-2, I just cannot remember and my Win7 just won't run it. But I remember, that I had a worse impact in my flying abilities with 4.0, when the 'whobbling' FM was introduced. Its still the base of what we have now and back then, it was a major step forward. Thats my oppinion. And regarding FMs, I'm not 'the one in the know' in our team. I'm then just a player here.

[Janosch]

But with the FM in later versions, you don't have to worry about energy management any more.

Yes you do.

arcade

Now that is a good point. Servers with padlock + externals combined (I think it's that particular combination that sucks), or enemy views, full icons, open cockpit etc allowed, are toy servers. I cannot understand why people pay for a simulator to play it as an arcade game. Then again, maybe they didn't pay.
And if some server truly allows I-185 with no limitations, then it's not worth playing on.

[Luno13]

I was told that the original sturmovik game was much more difficult (regarding the flight model) and that the folowing versions were "softened" to make the game more arcade style in order to atract more begginers. Is it true? The guy that said that to me also said the game had more realistic stalls and spins, trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again? :)

Your friend needs to take off his foil hat.

From personal experience with the Il-2 Demo and Il-2 FB, the old FM systems are pretty lack-luster in comparison to the current one. Everything flies on rails, and I don't think the spin and torque behavior was great either. Still, it was the best at the time (Microsoft CFS:1 FM's are joke, and everything looks like the 1/2x slow-motion guncam footage you see everywhere).

The introduction of Pacific Fighters brought a new FM system which improved the feeling of flight. There will always be issues with individual aircraft performance, and some aspects of the flight envelope are simplified to run on PC's at decent FPS, but overall, it's quite good, and only superseded by the latest flight sim systems like CloD and DCS.

So, although the FM isn't perfect, it's satisfactory to me, and I do have real-world flight experience, though not in WWII aircraft.

blah, blah, blah...

Well, that was an entertaining read. I have to ask though, why are you still here?

[jermin]

Don't want to start a fight, but this is not your territory either. Stop being sounding like a host. Actually I was here 4 years before you came. Just sit and watch, mate.

[JtD]

The flight models never were more realistic than they are now. In Il-2 early days, AI occasionally swapped the plane around and continued chasing you tail first. Quite a sight. Unfortunately I can't find a youtube video. :)

[Luno13]

You mean, like, flying backwards? Whoa man, I'm trippin' out. :o

[T}{OR]

... trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again? :)

That alone couldn't be further away from the truth.

[JtD]

You mean, like, flying backwards? Whoa man, I'm trippin' out. :eek:

Yes, exactly. It was a rare thing to happen, but happened.

Generally it was easier flying backwards, pulling up vertical and then start a tailslide. I managed to go under a bridge, turn the plane around and continue flying that way, as well as several backwards landings.

Good old days, was a lot of fun. But certainly not realistic.

[fruitbat]

There used to be a vid showing an i16 flying under a bridge, pulling up vertical until it stalled without any wingdip and then flying backwards under the bridge and -300kph.

Anyone who thinks that the fms have been dumbed down and are less realistic now, is on the crack pipe.

[IceFire]

Now that is a good point. Servers with padlock + externals combined (I think it's that particular combination that sucks), or enemy views, full icons, open cockpit etc allowed, are toy servers. I cannot understand why people pay for a simulator to play it as an arcade game. Then again, maybe they didn't pay.
And if some server truly allows I-185 with no limitations, then it's not worth playing on.

Ahh but that's the beauty of it. Not everyone has to play the same way. Some want the full authentic experience... some want a lighter experience. Both are enthusiasts of WWII air combat but their wants and desires are quite different. I don't think it's too hard to understand why people might want one, the other, or both.

[JtD]

The tracks won't work any more, but attached two screenshots of v1.2. :)

[zipper]

The game has improved a lot since the beginning and yet there are still a lot of factors that aren't even modeled yet (It would be so nice to get, at least, roll axis inertia which was the reason the 109 had the wing guns removed - and why gunpods hurt it so much *but not in game*). And I still would like to see more realistic stalls across the board (for instance, P-39s with ammo were not difficult to recover from spins within the first three turns, to say nothing of how easy to prevent from spinning in the first place), but stalls are now easily the best they've ever been. The game is in no way a substitute for real flying but it's a heck of a lot cheaper and, regardless of the style of flight termination, one is free to go out to dinner immediately afterword with no thought of deductibles or co-pays.

[K_Freddie]

Well, I've flown a few aircraft since 2001, but nothing compares to a DCS P51.
This is a new ball game altogether..

I was reluctant to 'convert'. but after sampling.... hasta lavista.. baby!!
(and I'm a FW190 fanboy) :grin:

Maybe with TD radical changes... I'm open to options ?

[Jumoschwanz]

It certainly has been interesting flying the sim up through all it's patches from the beginning. I still have the original IL2 installed patched up to 1.2, I also have an early version of FB installed (1.21) and a few later versions of IL246. It is fun to periodically fly them all in one sitting and see how they differ. Last I looked someone still had a server up on HL for the original IL2.

If the early IL2 is harder to fly it is just because it is not too good compared with the latest one. The aircraft often fly like they are cars on a roller-coaster track and the weapons, damage and other things are not as sophisticated. It was the best there was though and lots of fun at the time.

A friend I fly with is an old vet who still has a private license, and he says some of the aircraft in IL246 fly like a real aircraft and likes the P-47.

Back to the question, I do not think there is any reason to doubt that the latest patch of IL2 is a much better simulation of a real aircraft than it was ten or twelve years ago.....

[Derda508]

Ahh but that's the beauty of it. Not everyone has to play the same way. Some want the full authentic experience... some want a lighter experience. Both are enthusiasts of WWII air combat but their wants and desires are quite different. I don't think it's too hard to understand why people might want one, the other, or both.

Thank you for this one!
It can get really tiring to read the posts of people who are convinced that their personal way of doing things is the one and only correct way.
There are a multitude of ways to play Il2 and the right one is just the one you have most fun with. And this might just be the reason why Il2 is still alive and as fascinating as ever.

[RPS69]

Yes, exactly. It was a rare thing to happen, but happened.

Generally it was easier flying backwards, pulling up vertical and then start a tailslide. I managed to go under a bridge, turn the plane around and continue flying that way, as well as several backwards landings.

Good old days, was a lot of fun. But certainly not realistic.

This was true. Not only flight models were coarse, but gunnery was fantastic. You could hit a bomber with a 45mm form 1Km away on those times easily. Thing are far better as they are right now.

[MaxGunz]

I was told that the original sturmovik game was much more difficult (regarding the flight model) and that the folowing versions were "softened" to make the game more arcade style in order to atract more begginers. Is it true? The guy that said that to me also said the game had more realistic stalls and spins, trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again? :)

LOL!

The original FM was able to run on the average gaming PC in 2001. Later on elements were added or refined as computing power increased.

As to how hard -- In 2001/2002 it was harder for those of us (practically all of us) used to what came before. Reading was harder in 1st grade too.

Some time around 3.2 there was a thread at UBI where many RL pilots, aerobatics pilots and instructors weighed in on the inability to fly a stall and speculations as to why.. some kind of auto-rudder. Following that was announcement that the FM from the upcoming new game (much upgraded IL-2 FM with weight distribution modeled) would be transferred over and then it was.
4.01 knocked a lot of people over. Rudder control was required to fly right, and not just token efforts. But it took until the handling changes of 4.07 where stick data was interpreted a bit differently before it became comfortable, and still those who didn't learn about rudder or slip/skid did not do so well and of course blamed the game as unreal for it.

Sometimes one feature has been dropped to allow others but the only one I feel ambivalent about is when engine destruction went from a drawn-out path to quicker in general. The game is a total system, we gained more with every release than we ever lost and then there were patches and patch fever as adjustments were made to what should have been given more time. Back in those days it was easy enough to understand the public beta test approach -- all you had to do was visit the screaming UBI ZOO to see why.

It is now the best it's ever been. Harder does not define better especially when 'harder' is just 'screwier' misspelled.

[jermin]

It's really delightful to see those self-proclaimed experts talking about the the core of the game as if it was created by them.

Pick any online air-quake flier from HY and I am sure that he would have a better understanding of the game than they do.

[JtD]

This was true. Not only flight models were coarse, but gunnery was fantastic. You could hit a bomber with a 45mm form 1Km away on those times easily. Thing are far better as they are right now.Yeah, you're right, had forgotten about that. :grin: Set convergence to 1km, get the crosshair over that pixel sized bomber and down it went. It was a great way to stay away from the sniper gunners of back then.

[T}{OR]

It's really delightful to see those self-proclaimed experts talking about the the core of the game as if it was created by them.

Pick any online air-quake flier from HY and I am sure that he would have a better understanding of the game than they do.

A friendly advice: you will never get your message across with insults and that kind of attitude. Quite the opposite. Arguments and examples is what does the trick. And I've yet to see one from you.

[jermin]

I'm sorry, but who are you?

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

[MaxGunz]

Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?


I'm sorry, but who are you?

:rolleyes:

[RPS69]

Yeah, you're right, had forgotten about that. :grin: Set convergence to 1km, get the crosshair over that pixel sized bomber and down it went. It was a great way to stay away from the sniper gunners of back then.

The other jewel was the Mig 3, you could bring it out of longitudinal stability, and go out flying as a shuriken. It was a flat spin at high speed. Then was the 190 slower than il2.

Also landing at some point was very difficult, because a P39 won't slow down.

Later came the 190 and i16 rolling over at take off, if at full throttle. But this was allready FB. We have to relearn this sim plenty of times, and allways there was someone discordant with the flight model. Right now, it will be better to stop for a while on that, and take care on other aspects much more important for the improvement of this sim. Specially playability.

[mshpctech@gmail.com]

i have the original il sturmovic and i think it's hard but i like it so far the best
i just haven't been able to master it and have many questions about it
for one what updates do i need and i did try one but it won't work in my win 8
i first bought the game just to pla on my pc but that was a few years ago like when the game first came out
i haven't played since and started to play it and would like to play on line can any one help
also i have paciific fighters and lock on it all came together as the ultimate flight collection
is all that out dated and will i need to buy the game again
someon please help

[MaxGunz]

I've gotten suckered into buying collections of obsolete games too.

You want IL2:1946 from a bargain bin ($10 or less) and then all the patches to get to what level you will play. At every successful patch, make a backup and keep the backups that let you run the mods you want.

If you want to play online with many others, that is what you need.

[Pfeil]

You want IL2:1946 from a bargain bin ($10 or less)

$9.99 on Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com/gamecard/il_2_sturmovik_1946)

[War_Emergency_Picnic]

Maybe its due to Windows 8?

[War_Emergency_Picnic]

$9.99 on Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com/gamecard/il_2_sturmovik_1946)

This. Never, ever, f****** buy this gem from Steam, EVER. At least from GoG you OWN it and can play with it WHENEVER you want to.

[MaxGunz]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=IL2%3A1946

I did the highlight below. Shipping will be added to those.
IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 by Ubisoft (DVD-ROM -Mar 13, 2007)

$19.99 $10.12 PC
Order in the next 15 hours and get it by Friday, Mar 22.
More Buying Choices - PC
$4.25 new (23 offers)
$4.24 used (7 offers)

(96)
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
ESRB Rating: Teen
Video Games: See all 13 items