Realism, whats missing?

[Sailboat]

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I guess, anyone would tell you 'G-force' (on your butt) as first thing. :)

[Snake]

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?

I think you'll have a problem starting up the engine as long as in IL2 you just press a button to start up your engine! In real life is more complex! You can learn how to do it, quite close to reality if you play DCS - P51 Mustang!

[Buren]

I don't think so, it isn't a procedural sim.

I think the best analogy for a "Can I learn to do stuff from virtuality" is when you only, suppose, "learn" how to play a piano by playing around with a "virtual piano" app for a smartphone/tablet then you find yourself in front of a real piano -- you realize it's similar, but there's a lot more to it, which you can't learn only by the limited scope of virtual emulation.

[Sailboat]

I think you'll have a problem starting up the engine as long as in IL2 you just press a button to start up your engine! In real life is more complex! You can learn how to do it, quite close to reality if you play DCS - P51 Mustang!

Wow! I just watched the start up procedure in that game on youtube, its really cool. I know it would never happen but I wish we had something like that in Il-2. All i really have to do is press I and lower my flaps increase engine mix ._.


Still my favorite flight sim ever though! Not trying to hate on it trust me, this game as sucked away more of my hours then I like to admit :P

[T}{OR]

I think you'll have a problem starting up the engine as long as in IL2 you just press a button to start up your engine! In real life is more complex! You can learn how to do it, quite close to reality if you play DCS - P51 Mustang!

Seconded. Take offs and landings are so much harder there than in IL2. IL2 is a good start to learn the basics. Even though they are very new in WW2 planes era DCS represents a whole new ball game, from combat to flight modeling.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Up to now I didn't manage to start a P-51 in DCS... I cannot cope with the heavy left/right swing and rudder input. Is that really soo hard IRL?

[T}{OR]

Up to now I didn't manage to start a P-51 in DCS... I cannot cope with the heavy left/right swing and rudder input. Is that really soo hard IRL?

Pretty much yeah. From what I was able to see on YT (I do not own FSX), A2A models this the same way.

The trick lies in tail wheel lock. Keep the stick back for the first 2-3 seconds of rolling - that will limit its movement to 7° IIRC.

Also, make sure you are taking off into the wind. Tailwind, especially if it is a strong one and blowing from 4-5 or 7-8 OC will make it impossible to take off / control.

You do not need 3000 RPM or full 60" of manifold pressure as well. 41" with 2700 RPM (maximum continuous) will suffice. You only need full power if you are taking off a short runway with a full bomb load, coupled with topped off fuel tanks.

Here is a collection of tips from a real P-51 pilot (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?25120-P-51-tips-from-a-real-pilot), who commented how A2A sim models it. DCS is nearly identical from what I can tell.

[Snake]

Good find T}{OR and thanks for posting!

[Treetop64]

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?



Applying takeoff power before oil temp is at least 40 degrees Celsius, and - for air cooled engines - CHT is 100 degrees Cesius, is a big no-no.

Having to turn the prop before startup.

The pre-flight.

I'll say it again: the pre-flight.

The actual visceral experience and significant physical and mental demands of managing and operating an aircraft and relevant systems.

Working the radios, which depending on where you're flying, can be the hardest part of flying.



Detail things I'm not sure of:

Drag coefficients per airframe type.

Dynamic pressure on control surfaces at higher speeds.

Typical control surface effectiveness being reduced once deflected beyond ~.23 rads.

How propeller efficiency is modeled.


In short, the truth is that desktop flying is simplified in the extreme. It is never smart to assume someone can fly a plane in real life, just because they flew one in a video game, no matter how "authentic" they convince themselves it is. There is an awful lot more to flying than just flying the aircraft...

[BadAim]

Ok, I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I think you guys are answering the wrong question. The question that I see (although not articulated) is this: "If I'm in a Cessna with my buddy and he has a heart attack or he passes out from some medical condition, will my experience with IL2 help me not die?"

My answer is yes, of course it will! If you have someone on the other end of the radio that can give you approach speeds and flap settings and the like, I bet you'll be just fine. I mean you know what an altimeter is and you know what flaps are, and you know which way to push the stick to make the nose go down (and up). You might very well still splat yourself all over the runway, but you'll have a hell of a lot better chance than the average schmuck (which is to say, any chance at all).

That said, keep studying Sailboat, you never know when you might need your skills..........:)

[Treetop64]

Put that way, absolutely. I agree.

The knowledge gained will certainly give you a better chance than the schmuck who's likely to confuse the pedals for the gas and brake.

[MaxGunz]

IL-2 simulates flight and does not have _all_ the real factors and motions but does cover the major aspects down to a number of minor effects.

But when near the ground the differences between the sim and reality get a bit farther apart. What ground-effect simulating there is only occurs over landing strips and covers what happens less well than could be desired.

Some of the planes seem to have too much lift at low speeds though it was worse in release versions of FB and Aces. At very high speeds the differences between the simulation and reality spread out more and more with increase in speed, effects of compression on props and airframe is not detailed giving a noticeable difference in results that many players have shown.

Even if you can find charts for a particular IL-2 model, matching down to the prop/engine/etc, the performance of IL-2 will have places that do not match.
You get in the real plane and expect to change speed or alt in a certain way then you could possibly get in trouble especially near to ground where IL-2 less fully covers effects and differences can lead to unwanted contact with the ground then what would your last words be?

Have a chance? Certainly. Maybe a good one. You might even learn something about wind socks IRL but you won't in IL-2.

[K_Freddie]

IL2 doesn't have this, but neither does DCS, strangely enough for a 'study sim'.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4m8fc52j0k73ovj/Turn_Smart.flv

But IL2 does model yaw stalling sooo much better than DCS - they were very upset when I told them so. DCS does seem lack a few FMs, but generally the feel is smoother than IL2 and does feel more like a real plane.

The engine startup procedures are nice in DCS and one has to be carefull with certain items as you could blow them (Engine starter).
IF TD can implement these things into IL2, DCS would take a backseat as it still lacks a lot wrt gameplay.

[T}{OR]

Interesting. I was told that IL2 over exaggerates certain effects and FM/DM, in general DCS is more difficult to fly (P-51). In my short flying experience, DCS, CloD and RoF feel much closer to what I experienced when flying a Cessna.

Never yaw stalled in my virtual sim life, guess I'll have to try it some time.

[K_Freddie]

Sorry.. meant with a bit of elevator input + full yaw.

Using a P51 in IL2 and DCS.. I tried to snap roll it using full elevator and rudder with no aerolons. Engine was on idle to minimize torque and propwash.

1) The IL2 replied with immediate wing stall and roll
2) The DCS P51 made an attempt to yaw and nose up.. and refused to do anything. It hung there wobbling, as if in a software loop that was going nowhere. They went off their rockers when I pointed this out....:evil:

Having found that great instructional video that I've posted, I set up both aircraft turning with full yaw and slight cross controls, so as to keep it just on the stall zone. I then applied full aerolon which should have induced a stall.

DCS again did nothing and rolled in the direction of application, still refusing to stall when I applied complete cross controls.
IL2 also did not respond fully but did wobble a bit... and was much slower to roll over - but effectively showed that this FM wasn't modeled that much.

:cool:

[T}{OR]

Do you have a thread about this over at ED forums? If so, I'd like to see it.

At what speed and altitude were you doing this maneuver, and what fuel/weapon loadout (presumably empty). I'd like to try and replicate this in both IL2 and DCS.

[vpmedia]

A while ago the french Histomod team was working on realistic operating procedures for the 109's and other aircraft.

http://vk.com/video-4113931_163109128

[Buster_Dee]

Funny story. A friend was a P51 candidate in WW2 attending one of those experimental, abbreviated programs (don't recall which). He said several students never got past taxiing, crashing and burning to death instead (so, yes, torque, etc was brutal). He was relieved when the USAAF decided it could make enough pilots without this school, and closed it. He then became a combat engineer, and made one of the follow-up landings on D-Day. He still considered himself luckier than being in half-baked pilot training. Several years after his service, the Army grilled him for turning in a different serial-numbered weapon than he was issued. He wrote back that he had misplaced his in the surf while "distracted" on D-Day and, having found a trooper who could no longer use his, borrowed it. The Army returned an apology and thanked him for his service.

I knew him from work. The Military had contracted a P-51 to show their pilots "how badly" an aircraft can fly (they were spoiled by newer hardware). I can tell a Merlin from a long way off. Whenever that P51 was visiting, I would rush outside. Not once did I beat my friend to the parking lot--even though he was in his 70s at the time. We would stand together quietly until the a/c departed the area. He had no faith in his particular training, but he loved that airplane.

[Buster_Dee]

Sorry. Back to the topic. I will say this: sims can definitely work against real flight. I once hit the wrong rudder on landing roll-out because the twist grip rudder on my joystick had planted an opposite body movement in my head. My instructor knew the cause immediately and said "I want you to stop flying your simulator until you've finished training."

I bought rudder pedals instead.

[IceFire]

Sorry. Back to the topic. I will say this, sims can definitey work against real flight. I once hit the wrong rudder on landing roll-out because the twist grip rudder on my joystick had planted an opposite body movement in my head. My instructor knew the cause immediately and said "I want you to stop flying your simulator until you've finished training."

I bought rudder pedals instead.

Probably the best reason I've ever heard for splurging on some rudder pedals! :)

[MaxGunz]

On realism the fact that IL-2 does not model 3D mass distribution leads to less than real rotational results.

[Treetop64]

On realism the fact that IL-2 does not model 3D mass distribution leads to less than real rotational results.

I'd be interested in seeing the MoI numbers, as well as all the other parameters.

At any rate, from the flight modelling point of veiw, I think the very point of "realism" in IL-2 isn't so much about getting the absolute correct results for a particular aircraft, as much as it is about getting the relative performance between all the aircraft in the game within an acceptable bracket.

[MaxGunz]

Thread title is?

[T}{OR]

Sorry.. meant with a bit of elevator input + full yaw.

Using a P51 in IL2 and DCS.. I tried to snap roll it using full elevator and rudder with no aerolons. Engine was on idle to minimize torque and propwash.

1) The IL2 replied with immediate wing stall and roll
2) The DCS P51 made an attempt to yaw and nose up.. and refused to do anything. It hung there wobbling, as if in a software loop that was going nowhere. They went off their rockers when I pointed this out....:evil:

Having found that great instructional video that I've posted, I set up both aircraft turning with full yaw and slight cross controls, so as to keep it just on the stall zone. I then applied full aerolon which should have induced a stall.

DCS again did nothing and rolled in the direction of application, still refusing to stall when I applied complete cross controls.
IL2 also did not respond fully but did wobble a bit... and was much slower to roll over - but effectively showed that this FM wasn't modeled that much.

:cool:

Similar results with my (quick) testing. The plane flips over in DCS but does not enter a stall / spin like in IL2. Even in IL2 it is hard to stall it properly. Which one get the job more accurately I do not know. I do know that the landing in P-51 is much closer to what you can see in YT videos than in IL2 where one can put it down soft and easy (ground effect or low speed handling over modeled??).

EDIT: I was too gentle with the controls. Cut back on power suddenly coupled with full left of right rudder and a touch of positive elevator and she snap rolls and stalls immediately. I'll try to do those other maneuvers show in the video you linked.

Which version were you testing this in? IIRC the whole module is still WIP, from sound etc..


Probably the best reason I've ever heard for splurging on some rudder pedals! :)

Seconded. :)

[Alexovercozumel]

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago. I do think this sim would help non pilots in an emergency with such a plane.

About warbirds, I came across this while reading reviews on IL2 1946:

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik-1946-Pc/product-reviews/B000N4JENW/ref=sr_1_cc_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

"I've been a pilot for over 40 years and have flown everything from '20s biplanes to Navy carrier jets...and this sim is awesome.

Note: it is on DVD not CD as stated here. And it is NOT a game. There is a significant learning curve involved to successfully fly these aircraft in full-on realistic mode. It does have 'simple' modes that make it possible for anyone to fly, but don't think of this as an arcade game in any sense.

Trust me, if you can fly these birds in full realism mode, with a little time flying under the supervision of an instructor you can fly the real thing. Here there are fewer cues (just sight and sound), but in real aircraft you also have so-called proprioceptive sensations too (the seat of your pants, for one), among others.

Buy it, you'll like it! The graphics are gorgeous, the scenarios are amazing. You won't find modern airliners, but you'll find most of the WW2 machines (Russian, German, Japanese, British and American).

A flight over the cliffs of dover at sunset in a Spitfire may bring tears to your eyes...it did me."

What do you think?

Watch your six, Alex

[Treetop64]

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago.

Closest I've ever come to losing my lunch in an aircraft was when a buddy and I took a Tomahawk up over Williams, CA for some stalls and falls years ago during my Coast Guard days. Fun airplane!

[K_Freddie]

Similar results with my (quick) testing. The plane flips over in DCS but does not enter a stall / spin like in IL2. Even in IL2 it is hard to stall it properly. Which one get the job more accurately I do not know. I do know that the landing in P-51 is much closer to what you can see in YT videos than in IL2 where one can put it down soft and easy (ground effect or low speed handling over modeled??).

EDIT: I was too gentle with the controls. Cut back on power suddenly coupled with full left of right rudder and a touch of positive elevator and she snap rolls and stalls immediately. I'll try to do those other maneuvers show in the video you linked.

Which version were you testing this in? IIRC the whole module is still WIP, from sound etc..

Seconded. :)
I started with DCS123, and it's nearly the same in DCS124, with the exception that there seems to be more rudder response - I haven't changed my stick settings. Same for IL2 V411 and V412.

DCS is definitely the better feel sim. I was actually very ham-fisted with the DCS stick/rudder inputs.. but to no avail.

Here's an external view of Free flight over Poti (V124) where I show the control surface inputs.. and the P51 refuses to behave
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u9eveurzfkmtpxo/Model_Problem.f4v

All controls settings are Linear and 100% plus no 'fore'play

[K_Freddie]

I can get DCS to so called 'snap roll' if I apply aileron in the direction of roll... but this is not the 'official snap roll', which is the application of elevator and rudder only - as the guy does in that AG video.
He then applies momentary and then opposite aileron, after the roll, to help bring the wing out of stall.

Maybe a full fuselage tank might help, but this is not the idea :grin:.

[K_Freddie]

Now if TD can take a sample out of DCS modelling (and extras) and give it the same feel... which I feel would not be too difficult, coz AFAIK, Oleg's FM consisted of a core FM with plugin parameters for aircraft - it could trounce DCS completely. Maybe I can help - please :)

DCS cannot yet compete with IL2 (forget CLOD) for overall WW2 aircraft.. and I reckon they probably never will.. IL2 has a massive core base and requires a few quirks here and there to bring it into the next/future generation sims.

[Treetop64]

IL2 has a massive core base and requires a few quirks here and there to bring it into the next/future generation sims.

Lol, it has enough "quirks" as it is. It needs fewer of those! :grin:

[K_Freddie]

Lol, it has enough "quirks" as it is. It needs fewer of those! :grin:
Ja.. true, but not as bad as the other c.r.ap that we've been dished up with nowdays - in the name of 'next generation'.. bah phooeyy!!
:)

[T}{OR]

I started with DCS123, and it's nearly the same in DCS124, with the exception that there seems to be more rudder response - I haven't changed my stick settings. Same for IL2 V411 and V412.

DCS is definitely the better feel sim. I was actually very ham-fisted with the DCS stick/rudder inputs.. but to no avail.

Here's an external view of Free flight over Poti (V124) where I show the control surface inputs.. and the P51 refuses to behave
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u9eveurzfkmtpxo/Model_Problem.f4v

All controls settings are Linear and 100% plus no 'fore'play

I successfully replicated the same maneuver both in DCS and IL2. Almost exactly the same behavior as in the video you linked. How far this is away from the real thing, I can not comment as I haven't flown one. :)

As for snap rolling - also nearly identical performance.

TBH, my controls are 100 in IL2, and fine tined with a slight exponential curve (Curvature = 15) in DCS on all 3 main control inputs (ailerons, elevators and rudder).

[K_Freddie]

This is what I get... I'm using buttons for rudders (0 or 100%) at the moment, but it shouldn't have any adverse effects on the idea.

1) First 2 rolls are with elevator, rudder and ailerons into the roll direction = No problem here.
2) Next 2 'rolls' are with crossing the controls = there's a problem here.
3) Last 2 'rolls are with only rudder and elevator (the snap roll) = No go to the right, I was lucky to get it to vaguely roll to the left, but no snap ?

Unless I'm very stupid (shhhh!! :grin:) this is not right. Even the stable Tomahawk flipped over when the controls were 'forced'.

Ignore the prang into the building - I forgot which button the brakes were on :grin:

[T}{OR]

After watching your track and trying to replicate the same thing I couldn't snap roll the thing again lol. Only after you keep the stick back and rudder hard left/right it will snap roll in my experience.

[K_Freddie]

Yup.. that's what it supposed to do...
The modelling not to great with DCS in this regard.
IL2 does lack the cross control effect modelling to a certain degree..(cross the controls a little and pull elevator to just under the stall, then whack the aileron full over) but it seems completely lacking in DCS.

But of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.. then I discovered that video.. and it's plain as daylight for all to see. Maybe that 25 yr vet is also BS-ing. :grin:

As an interest.. maybe someone who has CLOD can try this out - I'd be curious about it.

[TinyTim]

A hammer that would smash you whenever you crash and a gun that would shoot you whenever you're hit. People would fly a lot differently then.

[Sailboat]

A hammer that would smash you whenever you crash and a gun that would shoot you whenever you're hit. People would fly a lot differently then.

I don't think I would be getting involved in any combat situations then :-D

[Jumoschwanz]

Has anyone mentioned shitting?

We need a warning on the HUD that the pilot needs to take a crap, similar to the overheat warning. It could start out blue and proceed through a spectrum to red when crapping is inevitable.

This will affect pilot performance, especially if he shits himself during combat.

[MaxGunz]

The first holes through the canopy would take care of that.

[K_Freddie]

Has anyone mentioned shitting?

We need a warning on the HUD that the pilot needs to take a crap, similar to the overheat warning. It could start out blue and proceed through a spectrum to red when crapping is inevitable.

This will affect pilot performance, especially if he shits himself during combat.
You laugh...
Many moons ago we had at least 15 guys on our local server (this is a lot) and it was tense all around, as all the guys were competent pilots.
I had my mic on voice activation, and at one stage started heavy regular breathing (usually do this during focused sport/exercise) that activated the mic. They all laughed like mad.. it was embarrassing!!!

It think their laughter enabled me to nail a few... :grin:

[T}{OR]

Yup.. that's what it supposed to do...
The modelling not to great with DCS in this regard.
IL2 does lack the cross control effect modelling to a certain degree..(cross the controls a little and pull elevator to just under the stall, then whack the aileron full over) but it seems completely lacking in DCS.

But of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.. then I discovered that video.. and it's plain as daylight for all to see. Maybe that 25 yr vet is also BS-ing. :grin:

As an interest.. maybe someone who has CLOD can try this out - I'd be curious about it.

I know I am resurrecting this thread after more than a year ago. But now after spending enough time with DCS, while definitely not perfect, I will say that they got many more things right than IL21946 due to complex FM. P-factor being the biggest difference between IL2 and DCS. Stuff in DCS isn't scripted, so you will not get exactly the same response every time. ;)

[Buster_Dee]

An old friend was a student in of one of the accelerated P-51 courses. He told me these small schools were closed when the main ones proved adequate for number of pilots needed. He lost several classmates from the engine torque effects: not a few departed the runway and caught fire. The Army reassigned him as a combat engineer. He told me he felt safer in the second-wave of the Normandy landings.

Hats off to those who master combat aircraft.

[Ventura]

Depends on what you mean by 'fly'. If he/she was in the cockpit, and had the controls carefully handed off, ...maybe..

Since CLoD and DCS have been brought up in this thread, and I would never had thought to hear myself say it, I actually enjoy taking off, flying around, and landing in "Cliffs of Dover/TF" (Yes, I have DCS/P-51)

[Jumoschwanz]

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?


I have flown IL2 with a lot of real pilots and they have said that IL2 is damn good and if you can control it well then you could fly a real aircraft.

Every aircraft is going to have a different starting procedure and even experienced pilots have to learn specifics of each new aircraft unless they are experts on aeronautics and internal combustion engineering. Even then if they get into an aircraft that had it's panels marked in a different language they may be in trouble, so bringing up starting procedures is a poor argument.

My old friend and neighbor Pete, who flew both fighters and bombers in WWII of all types because he was on a task force directly under Hap Arnold said that the main thing to remember with a WWII fighter is that it's take-off and landing is fast compared to a small civilian aircraft, and it's engine torque is very strong and at low speeds will control the aircraft. When taking off in a P-51 Mustang full rudder is required to keep it straight at low speed until about 80mph. IL2 models this pretty well, where a lot of the big fighters need full rudder and careful throttle modulation until the speed is up on takeoff, also during slow maneuvers in dogfights the pilot who knows what to do with the throttle is going to have a big advantage in a fight.


The biggest thing missing in IL2 Sturmovik as far as realism is concerned is the lack of virtual pilots willing to fly it on "realistic" settings.

[Gaston]

I'd be interested in seeing the MoI numbers, as well as all the other parameters.

At any rate, from the flight modelling point of view, I think the very point of "realism" in IL-2 isn't so much about getting the absolute correct results for a particular aircraft, as much as it is about getting the relative performance between all the aircraft in the game within an acceptable bracket.

I think Il-2 is a long, long way from "relative aircraft performance" accuracy, like all simulation games, and should instead just be content to offer some realism on "general aircraft behaviour", which I'm sure it does a fair job of...

If you want a closer approximation of how the different aircraft models actually compared in combat (if any combat pilot account is to be believed -as opposed to test pilot account-, you should substitute aircraft names to get a closer approximation of how they ranked in actual horizontal (and sometimes vertical) combat maneuvers... Unfortunately, this would still leave you with mostly inaccurate vertical performance, which are usually closer as is, so I tried to get them as close as possible taking that into account...:

Spitfire Mk V-: Fly as if a P-47D Razorback

FW-190A-4: Fly as if a Spitfire Mk V

Spitfire L.F. Mk IX: Fly as if a P-47M

FW-190A-5: Fly as if a Spitfire F. Mk IX

Spitfire Mk XIV: Fly as if a P-47M

FW-190A-8: Fly as if Spitfire F. Mk IX, or maybe a Ki-100.

P-47D Razorback: Fly as if an early Spitfire F. M IX

P-47D Bubbletop: Fly as if a Me-109G-2 with Gondolas

Me-109G-6: Fly as if a FW-190D-9

P-51D Mustang: Fly as is maybe...

FW-190D-D9: Fly as if a P-47D Bubbletop

Ki-84 Frank: Fly as if a FW-190D

Ki-100: Fly as if an A6M5, or A6M8 if possible...

The wonderful thing is most Spitfire virtual modelling does seem to overstate wildly the Spitfire's roll rate, so these virtual Spitfires are a fairly good impression of what a FW-190A was actually like in real-life, minus the Spitfire's better climb rate: The Mk V is probably the closest on that account...

And yes the Ki-84 was much faster, but a complete anvil compared to the Ki-100 (and an anvil even compared to the P-47N)...: The Japanese did extensive comparisons with both types, and found one lone Ki-100 could take on 3 Ki-84s and win, then switch pilots and do the same again...

Yes, there is a "kink" in the flight physics somewhere... And we never bothered to find out what it was... You have to remember these specific types of low-wing stressed-skin single-engine aircrafts were truly "active" for under two decades, "football wars" notwithstanding...

Gaston

[Janosch]

inaccurate

No! I have good news! what Il-2 does well is in fact the relative strengths and weaknesses. You can't compare Spitfairy with a 190. They're two different things. While the AI Spitfairy can roll like crazy, in human hands the 190 roll rate is vastly superior.

As for the "combat pilot" anecdotes, they can be flushed down the proverbial (and literal) toilet. Oh well... what is waste to some, is fertilizer to others. The only thing that is missing in Il-2 realism is the controls locking up at high speeds.

[Marabekm]

Aircraft weights. Specifically Max take-off weight. This is the maximum weight at which the aircraft is allowed to takeoff.
Lets take a look at the SBD-3. (I am referencing the pilots handbook)
The maximum takeoff weight fro an SBD is 9,519 pounds. A combat loaded SBD-3 with a 1000 pound bomb and 100 Gallons of fuel is 9031 pounds. Max fuel for a combat loaded SBD is 260 Gallons.
So technically with a 1000 pound bomb you should only be able to take about 40 percent fuel. Maybe 50 percent. Anymore than this and you shouldn't be able to takeoff.
Its like this with all planes. If you add weight(bombs and rockets) you have to make a trade off(less fuel) to prevent exceeding max weight of whatever aircraft.
Currently the game will let you take a max fuel load and fully loaded down with ordinance. (Watch all the new guys attempt carrier takeoffs with fully loaded corsairs)
So is there perhaps a way for the game to limit you fuel depending on what loadout you take?

[majorfailure]

Aircraft weights. Specifically Max take-off weight. This is the maximum weight at which the aircraft is allowed to takeoff.
Lets take a look at the SBD-3. (I am referencing the pilots handbook)
The maximum takeoff weight fro an SBD is 9,519 pounds. A combat loaded SBD-3 with a 1000 pound bomb and 100 Gallons of fuel is 9031 pounds. Max fuel for a combat loaded SBD is 260 Gallons.
So technically with a 1000 pound bomb you should only be able to take about 40 percent fuel. Maybe 50 percent. Anymore than this and you shouldn't be able to takeoff.
Its like this with all planes. If you add weight(bombs and rockets) you have to make a trade off(less fuel) to prevent exceeding max weight of whatever aircraft.
Currently the game will let you take a max fuel load and fully loaded down with ordinance. (Watch all the new guys attempt carrier takeoffs with fully loaded corsairs)
So is there perhaps a way for the game to limit you fuel depending on what loadout you take?

Have a look at the current Ju88 bombers - just what you suggest has been done. Maybe that is only the beginning

[Pursuivant]

Have a look at the current Ju88 bombers - just what you suggest has been done. Maybe that is only the beginning

On the other hand, it was often possible for aircraft to take off overloaded if they had a long enough runway. B-24's were occasionally overloaded for missions, and it was probably true for other aircraft types.

As long as the game engine can handle the overload calculations, you should be able to max out on fuel and historical ordinance loads and take your chances.

[Treetop64]

Aircraft weights. Specifically Max take-off weight. This is the maximum weight at which the aircraft is allowed to takeoff.
Lets take a look at the SBD-3. (I am referencing the pilots handbook)
The maximum takeoff weight fro an SBD is 9,519 pounds. A combat loaded SBD-3 with a 1000 pound bomb and 100 Gallons of fuel is 9031 pounds. Max fuel for a combat loaded SBD is 260 Gallons.
So technically with a 1000 pound bomb you should only be able to take about 40 percent fuel. Maybe 50 percent. Anymore than this and you shouldn't be able to takeoff.
Its like this with all planes. If you add weight(bombs and rockets) you have to make a trade off(less fuel) to prevent exceeding max weight of whatever aircraft.
Currently the game will let you take a max fuel load and fully loaded down with ordinance. (Watch all the new guys attempt carrier takeoffs with fully loaded corsairs)
So is there perhaps a way for the game to limit you fuel depending on what loadout you take?

For an aircraft to have an overloaded takeoff capability is not uncommon. It's always been apart of aircraft design. Placarded margins are primarily a standard for safety, though structurally the aircraft - depending on what it is - can handle much more in urgent situations when given enough runway.

[Laurwin]

I wonder if the engine torque is too strong in IL-2 compared to reality.

Especially at high speeds, it would seem like the engine torque would become less important factor.

The airplane ought to have a tendency to keep forward momentum especially at high speed dives.(?)

Bf-109 in particular did not have violent engine torque at higher speeds. According to some pilot notes. Where as during takeoffs when at low speed, it was more of a factor.

I wonder whether the same was true for FW-190 at high speed flight. Was the engine torque significant?

Or was kurt tank's decision the correct one, i.e. the lack of trim controls. Was the lack of trim controls the correct one, especially comparing to the effect of the engine torque?

[RPS69]

I wonder if the engine torque is too strong in IL-2 compared to reality.

Especially at high speeds, it would seem like the engine torque would become less important factor.

The airplane ought to have a tendency to keep forward momentum especially at high speed dives.(?)

Bf-109 in particular did not have violent engine torque at higher speeds. According to some pilot notes. Where as during takeoffs when at low speed, it was more of a factor.

I wonder whether the same was true for FW-190 at high speed flight. Was the engine torque significant?

Or was kurt tank's decision the correct one, i.e. the lack of trim controls. Was the lack of trim controls the correct one, especially comparing to the effect of the engine torque?

It is actually on the lower side.
On late WWII, tiny planes were equiped with huge engines, and they sometimes learned the hard way to accelerate them progressively on take off.
Torque is compensated sometimes by trim, or sometimes by airframe build.
109's compensated by giving it's tail a wing like shape, giving the plane a perfect trimming at a cruise speed of around 300Km/h

[Pursuivant]

For realism, the ultimate thing that's missing is the game uninstalling itself and preventing you from reinstalling it the first time that you get killed or shot down over enemy territory in the game. :twisted:

The second most important thing that's missing is an interface that causes the player to experience mild to moderate pain when you pull extreme g's, or causes you moderate to severe pain when your pilot, or any member of your crew, is wounded.

More seriously, the main problems with IL2 are:

1) lack of dynamic center of gravity
2) lack of realistic fuel/oil management
3) limited human performance factors (e.g., detailed pilot/crew skill levels, crew/pilot morale, fatigue & group tactics, oxygen management at high altitudes).
4) Unrealistically aggressive AI.
5) Lack of dynamic weather.

[RPS69]

More seriously, the main problems with IL2 are:

1) lack of dynamic center of gravity
2) lack of realistic fuel/oil management
3) limited human performance factors (e.g., detailed pilot/crew skill levels, crew/pilot morale, fatigue & group tactics, oxygen management at high altitudes).
4) Unrealistically aggressive AI.
5) Lack of dynamic weather.

1) Not so important. If it is made an assumption on the term "combat" over "flight simulator", we could accept general behavior at it's best as an accepted plane behavior in particular.
2) Same as above, it will be enough to have a reasonable overheat behavior.
3) Oxigen management it's a must!
4) didn't seem so on latest patches.
5) For sure! At least to introduce some element of surprise during missions. Anyway, on real life, they do cared a lot about missions on bad weather.

[Woke Up Dead]

So this would be a very brave departure from all aircraft games/sims ever made, but adding transparency to narrow metal frames of glass cockpits would simulate the pilot having two eyes allowing him to see "around" a small obstacle near his face.

[fallout3]

for me (an armchair pilot) mabe its the a-little-slummy touchdown behaviour and more importantly, the landing AI that one can never keep formation with, kills the fun for a formation-flying enthusiast in FSX...