I would edit the previous post and add to it, but i'm afraid i'd go over the character limit :lol:

Anyway...

I would agree with you if we were moving from a totally simplified model to an utterly complicated one. However, there pretty much is a lot of procedure in IL2. To top it off, a lot of it happens during combat, can be perfectly managed by most people and doesn't even need the clickable cockpits that people generally dislike.

Where it goes wrong is that a lot of these procedures or techniques are contrary to the real world operation of an aircraft or are reversed between aircraft, for example "manual" flying aircraft sometimes need less management than automated ones to perform at their best.


Case in point, boom and zoom in an FW190 that is supposed to be fully automatic. First of all, since everyone abuses the engine model by increasing throttle above the redline and keeping it there, while lowering pitch and periodically opening rads to reset the overheat timer, your first step is to do the same. It seems that overheat is primarily a function of RPM and not so much of boost/manifold pressure/ata values while i have a suspicion that it should it be a bit of both. Furthermore, while there is overheating of some sorts, there is no real effect from overcooling.

So, it goes something like this if you want to boom and zoom in an Anton and regain most of your initial altitude after the attack:

1) Disable auto prop pitch, go to 100% throttle+WEP with 80% pitch for level flight. This is how you cruise for the entire sortie, on war emergency power and closed rads.

2) As you dive towards the target and surpass 600km/h IAS, start reducing pitch by 10% for every extra 100km/h but don't go below 50% pitch. Also, open rads fully to super-cool the engine for the climb back up to altitude.

3) Attack target, make your firing pass.

4) Pulling up, go to 110%+WEP and 80-90% pitch. Don't go to 100% pitch because the prop disc acts like a brake at that setting if you're doing high speeds. Usually, the best manual setting for climbs is 90% pitch so as soon as your speed drops below 600-700kmh switch from 80% to 90% pitch. As you near the top of the climb and you need to recover or stall, go to 100% pitch. You should be overheating at this point or be very close to it.

5) Levelling off, keep your pitch to 100% until you reach 300-320kmh, reduce to 90% as you hit 350km/h and go to 80% at about 370-400km/h. At this point you should be slightly nose down and accelerating past 400km/h and to your maximum speed. Open rads fully and drop throttle to 100% to reset the overheat timer. If needed, momentarily drop throttle below 50% or even to idle to cool the engine fast. Rinse and repeat as needed.


Now this is how it works in IL2. What would go wrong in reality however?

1) You would overheat and if you kept at it your engine would seize, as the oil breaks down above a certain temp and can't provide sufficient lubrication.

2) Assuming you got past that, the combination of open radiators and greatly increased airflow due to the higher speeds in the dive would result in rapid cooling of a schorching hot engine. At best it would choke and seize before a whole lot of damage was done and with some luck you would be able to restart it. At this point you're effectively out of the fight and pretty much a sitting duck for anyone that saw what happened.
At worst, you could break anything from push rods and valves or even cause cracks or even chunks to fly off of entire cylinder heads, as the overheated metal (metal gets weaker when hot) is forced to contract rapidly through excessive cooling. In short, shock cooling.

3) Nothing, you just fire your guns at this point.

4) Assuming all the previous bad things didn't happen by some sort of divine intervention, we would have the opposite effect. The engine parts go from super-cool to super-hot in a matter of seconds with pretty much similar effects, plus the added result of overheating on the oil system as mentioned in the first point. Also, see below.

5) During the entire process of zooming back up, leveling off and attaining high speed again, the pitch settings used drive the RPM a good deal higher than the maximum tolerance of the particular engine. With all the other stuff that has happened before, if we're lucky enough to have gotten so far we could even be dealing with a runaway prop at this time. Even if that didn't happen, the sudden power reduction to cool the engine would again result in shock cooling.

So, i think that most people would be able to manage it if they fly mid to late war energy fighters. The US birds are much easier than they should be on the matter of engine tricks, but their weaker armament makes convergence and trim an absolute necessity, so the guys flying those mess less with their engines but much more with their trim during the attack. All in all, the workload is definitely not light as it is, it's just different.

Not only that, but since we already have to deal with a bunch of keypresses and don't need clickpits or fancy hardware to do it (MS sidewinder precision pro and TrackIR for me, no pedals and no HOTAS yet, plus i used to do all this with a hat-switch as well before i got a TrackIR), why not make it in a way that actually conforms to reality? ;)

I'd like to be able to go from the easiest settings that this sim has to offer... to something a bit more complex than the realistic engine mods for IL2 have in terms of possiblre damage to the engine etc if not properly warmed and torque.. I'd like to see at least twice as much complexity in the CEM as we have here.. ort at least the option.. and I think we will get that .... and then some. I have no doubt whatsoever than SoW will be way ahead of it's time.. in fact I think one reason why it is takeing so long is that 1C wants to make it as future prone as it can... heck we are still having fun with IL2... and this sim will be 9 years old in November.. and the engine is actually older than that.. You figure what... at least 2 years for developement of the sim.. so we are talking around 99 at least.. 9 years old... and it can still tax a decent rig... with specs unheard of in 2001.. even with overclocking you couldn't get close.. and yet it is still not only a viable product.. that is still selling in it's current incarnation... but still the best WWII sim on the market to date.. I have no idea where WoP will go (I know some guys who like it.. and feel tht the FMs on the fighters are better than here.. I think it is debatable.. but not having flown the sim I cant say.. and I refuse to buy it till I can get a hard copy or get it with PP at least..) .. but I guarantee you that as good as it may get.. the complexity of SoW and the flexibility of it and the sheer for lack of a better term magnificance off it will be miles ahead..... Even the graphics... as good as they look in WoP.. I think SoW's will be at least as good.. if not better.

S!

Interesting that most here have concentrated on the engine management and procedures side of things; the flight model in IL2 is also simplified, and probably for good reason.

We can see this when the time comes to land the aircraft, particularly the tailwheel aircraft which constitute the majority of the flyables available to us. In IL2, all of these aircraft are very tolerant of being touched down on the main wheels first. Try that in a real taildragger; you'll bounce, and bounce high. To wheel it on nicely, one has to touch down very gently and know exactly when the mainwheels have touched, because you'll have to make a smooth but positive forward motion on the stick at that time to keep the aircraft on the ground.

To make a smooth three point landing, you have to be in exactly the three point attitude before you touch down (putting the tailwheel down first is OK too, to a point) otherwise you'll bounce halfway down the runway.

The other aspect that isn't modelled fully is the roll-out - all the aircraft I've flown in IL2 roll out as straight as a die. Some real-world aircraft are like this, but the majority are not so docile and will try to veer off centreline constantly as you slow down to taxi speed - your feet have to be quick, otherwise you'll be facing the wrong way down the runway with a scuffed wingtip or worse.

As I said before, these simplifications have been made with good reason, to whit; virtual pilots don't have the advantages of real pilots: Peripheral vision - vital for taildragger pilots, especially when one cannot see over the nose of the aircraft at touchdown, vestibular senses - this is how you know the mainwheels have touched, or that the aircraft is about to veer off heading.

The foregoing is just a sample though, there are other things too; ever tried to change the characteristics of a spin by adjusting power or elevator position? Doesn't work. The under-modelling of adverse yaw and tailplane effectiveness at low speed is a pet peeve of mine, but they probably don't worry most people.

This is not to say that these elements cannot be modelled, they can, but I think they would place the difficulty threshold beyond most humans unless Oleg can find or invent a proxy for the missing senses.

W.

I'd have to disagree. With some aircraft modelled in IL-2, you have to throttle back to get out of a spin, and judicious use of the elevator helps too. I'm sure that IL-2's modelling of aircraft in a spin is oversimplified, but it is better than in some 'flight simulators' I could name.

Modelling an aircraft accurately in such a situation, in realtime, is possibly beyond the capabilities of a typical modern PC, and certainly beyond anything that was practical when IL-2 was written. Hopefully the next generation of PC flight simulators (SoW:BoB?) will do better, but as you say, there are limits imposed by the lack of peripheral senses. Meanwhile, IL_2 still gives us a more realistic impression of what it is like to be in a flat-spinning P-39 than any of us would ever like to experience in reality.:shock:

S!

One thing I forgot to mention: Ground effect.

I get the feeling, though I can't prove it, that ground effect is either not modelled, or turned down quite a bit. Aircraft in IL2 can be landed at very high speeds and don't seem to float for as long as I would expect.

W.

I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant. I was thinking more of accelerating spins by pushing fully forward on the elevator, or flattening them by adding throttle (try flattening an inverted spin in a pitts - what a trip! The nose is waaay above the horizon).

W.

Solution to different realism settings online
 

As real and detailed as possible. With every part that can affect things being modeled accurately. If there are less aircraft to choose from because of this, that is acceptable. The reason is simple: I love the machines. I want to get to know them better. I don't want to do long winded start-up procedures, I'd rather automate them. But I still want all the systems to be there, and I'll decide which ones I want to mess with. This gives far more immersion than without, and the aircraft, and the experience, becomes more than a pretty ghost with a ghost pilot (without legs, body or arms) in it.

As the level of detail increases, and the task of flying each aircraft is more difficult due to the learning and consideration required, some care should be taken to make the different players be able to still fly together online (since this is stepping into territory that even some more realism minded simmers don't want to do). The solution is simple:

Permit automatic handling of the undesired features online. But when score is calculated, flying on lower realism settings gives a penalty to score calculation. A somewhat humorous way to display someone's realism setting is to assign their rank based on that. The most hardcore simmers have the highest rank assigned to them, while the beginners and others who are not ready or willing have lower ranks. The very beginner gets the lowest flying rank of all, which probably accurately shows his overall level as well to the rest, who can also take steps to accomodate him better.

Using the P-47 limited manifold pressure example, it could be set in the pilot's realism setting that the throttle cannot be moved past it so the engine won't blow from that, but the pilot gets a noticably felt penalty in scoring and other markers indicating the pilot's limited setting. Other from suffering some scoring and personal prestige, it doesn't affect the enjoyment the pilot gets online at all.

That's actually some very interesting points you're bringing up Winger. I guess the reason most focus on the systems is that the majority, myself included, probably hasn't flown a real aircraft and thus lacks the experience to comment on what's really missing.

In that sense we mostly go by a mix of what "makes sense" from a scientific standpoint and replicating what we read from real pilot accounts. That of course is infinitely easier for a single piece of machinery that's carefully crafted to work within certain parameters and has a small, predictable set of behaviours (like an engine), than it is for the entire combination of an aircraft within the entirety of the flight envelope. Furthermore, an engine in an abnormal range of function is also much easier to observe and understand than the whole plane is at the edge of, or even outside its envelope, as an engine out of control still feels "slower" than a plane out of control as far as human senses go.

In the latter case, this difficulty to explain and even accurately observe and notice all the possible combinations limits us to going by what "feels right" most of the time and taking the word of someone who knows more, like a real pilot or a FM modeller.

So, the reason i personally focus on engines and subsystems is that they make enough sense to me even without hands-on experience, but i've never actually been behind the yoke of a real aircraft to understand the more complex and finer points of how it should feel to pilot one. I guess that holds true for the majority of flight simmers.

Are taildraggers really that demanding on the rudders even without winds and if so, is that a result of a free-castoring tailwheel that can be mitigated by locking it in place?

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can. ;)

I don't know, they've done it before...