Some considerations about the FM purists...
 

I was playing an IL-2 1946 mission last night: an escort to some dive bombers over Crimea with enemy fighters coming up to intercept, and then it came to my mind: why do we need so much FM accuracy to the mph/rpm/roc, and what can actually be considered a reliable info source?

The whole gaming experience is more than outturning, outclimbing, outspeeding our opponents, there's tactical decisions, there's improvisation, there's teamwork.. I don't get why some of us are so anal about the performance charts of our planes, especially now that the game is still not completely finalised. Besides, unless there's some gross mistakes, I think I can well live with a Spit that does 350mph where he should do 355 according to some pilot's notes.. considering all the variables of real life, what's 5mph? Play with your numbers, learn how the plane behaves in the sim and get the best out of it. I remember the good ol' debates on the russian UFO fighters in IL-2, which were made of kryptonite and powered by turbofans, but despite all that I still managed to shoot them down with my 109, and not because I'm a good shot, it's because I learned their quirks, the limits, but above all learning when sometimes it's better avoiding a dogfight, simply because you are in a disadvantageous situation..

I would like to hear you guys' opinion on this, sometimes we get so sidetracked by secondary aspects that we seem to forget we're supposed to have fun playing our sim..

Hear hear!

i like to see the real perfomance of the 109
why....
because is a simulation:-)
the 109E in il2 is not even close compare to this new experience
and is not finished yet
i fly online everyday and i like that i have to look my instruments and not just fly around to kill someone:-)
-S-

Skouras, I would love it too, but there are too many limitations for it to be the real performance, what we have is a good approximation, but there still are too many important variables that we can't simulate nowadays, one of which is pilot's fatigue.

I am sure that things will get better, but 100% real is far, far away.

realism is the very thing that makes or breaks Maddox's products. They're not, nor have they been, particularly attractive in other aspects.

Regarding the 350 vs 355 mph issue: That's the other side of the medal. Everybody just feels to be genuinely entitled to be the test pilot and tends to stir up major trouble just because something doesnt 'feel' right. I think this needs to settle down a bit. As Il-2 grew older, such unqualified comments became rarer. Though there's still the occasional 'spit super plane' rant...

well I think the mission editor was quite a good tool when it came out and was updated, don't you think? Realism was important, yet they never quite managed to nail it the way it's supposed to be: the planes feel stiff, rigid; the bullet ricochet was inserted only by modders; important things like wake turbulence were left out for the sake of playability..

hehehe the "feel" thing always makes me chuckle, like people who say what's the right and wrong looking tracer without having seen one in real life.

Truth is that only a handful of us ever flew in a small plane, and of this handful even less flew on planes from the era, so to give a correct statement of what feels "wrong" or "right" should be just a certain number of us (or external contributors), but as usual there seems to be little or no interest in the forum members experience.. A collaboration to improve results is feasible, but there needs to be the will for it from the devs, which doesn't seem to be there..

Totally agree with OP. As long as the flight model is in the ballpark, I'm happy. I always thought one of the great things about IL-2 is learning the crap planes, being at a disadvantage, and then winning the fight. The excepetion would be the HS-129. In that case, just land it and bail when they start shooting, or get them to crash into you for the EAD. You die, he dies...it's a wash. ;)

I agree that some people fixate on FM far too much. Yes it is a simulation, but wouldn't you like to switch your gun off of saftey or go to oxygen too? Well worth 2 seconds in the turn or 5km off the top, I reckon.

IMO performance is very important in the game because we don't have some other important variables like fear, fatigue, performance drop due to wear etc. So it makes a huge difference if a plane is 5km/h to fast because the other player will push his plane to the limit and not let you go away until he catches you. No worry about fuel limitations or possible death or physical body limitations.

That's why 5 km/h can make the difference

umm... yes, actually, I'd like that :D

Totally disagree with the OP.

If you want historical inaccuracy there's those thousands of other games for you to play, this specific genre of flight sims is aiming to make you able to get as close as possible to a state that you can relive what actually happened in WWII. Technology is however limiting us, but whatever we can get correct, must be correct. There are very reliable sources all over the web, actual prints from factories, numerous flight reports, with that material you can make Flight Models. However sometimes mistakes are made ( Like back in school, no matter how hard you studied you never got all test 100 %, at least I didn't. ) and regular forum folk is trying to make an effort to correct it, or shed some light on issues. They often get addressed as whiners, or waffles or whatnot, usually by folks who do not know all to much about the subject or simply do not care, which highly annoyes me and makes the progress of such efforts very tiresome.

So in short, the never ending discussion about the FM/DM has in fact use, and developpers do listen, I've seen it many times and it's up to them what they do with the presented information.

I somewhat agree with OP. Anal numbercrunching and comparing to WW2 performance envelopes is one thing, but when this game can't give me the same impression of flight and characteristics as IL-2 1946 does, I'm outta here. It's not about how and why, it's about what you can do and so far this game can not.

Just curious??

do you put the people who have also had the experience I.E. seen tracers and flown war birds of the time E.T.C. in the same category as those that have not? Or is it just your experience that you consider to be the valid experience?

just wondering
Cheers:)

P.S. I completely agree with your OP :) just fyi

Well, my reading of this "FM mania" is simple:

Many players are out for competition, they want to test their skills vs other players. But at the same time human ego is seeking ways to lay the blame at something else than one's own lacking skills. Here the FM comes into play. It's the easiest to blame since it cannot be really accurately proven that it is indeed right or wrong. It can also be seen from different POVs, depending on the data and therefor the underlying intention one presents. You can seek neutral data and try to gain a realistic picture of a type, you can try to present advantageous data because you want a type to shine or you can list disadvantages, faults and vices because you want to see a type taken down a notch or two. We've all seen such attempts ad nauseum, haven't we? ;)

Bottom line is: People like to misuse the FM as smokescreen when they got their backside handed to them in a fight or they strive for a perceived "accuracy" based on reading books on certain types (while ignoring that real life combat performance and achievements are based on a lot more factors than simple performance information). IMO it's always an attempt at self-delusion ... Sorta. ;)

Same feelings here!

First of all let me say that you guys all have valid points, now, to answer in detail:

I can agree to a certain extent, first of all because it's not all about speed or turn rate, second thing because it's hard to find a reliable source of information. We have seen before how even pilot reports can be biased or having gross mistakes inside, often to please the readers of the upsaid reports.. in the meantime we cant use the data from today's warbirds because the setups, operation modes and weights are not the same (not to mention the lack of many planes from the era in flyable conditions).

I haven't said I don't want accuracy, my point is that it's hard to find the threshold of what's accurate and what's inaccurate. A little example: Macchi pilots had most of their radios removed cos they never worked properly, and a radio + battery would be in excess of 100kg, now that wasn't mentioned in the original manuals, but it would surely, even if almost marginally, affect performance.

I enter in the first category, and I believe that it can be put to the service of the community.

completely agree man.

Interesting thread:grin:

+1 to the OP, this

and this


I too want accurate FMs, but not only for the sake of FMs. They are important because i enjoy flying the aircraft just as much as i like fighting in them (especially in the new sim with all their control quirks and different systems).

On the other hand, during a combat scenario the FM is not the prime goal but a tool to achieve what's important in a bigger picture sense: accurate tactical considerations, constraints and consequences being forced on the player.

That's why i strongly advocated more complex CEM and systems management during the sim's development, it's just a part of those things that make up the whole picture that we want to achieve.

What kind of plane i'm flying, what kind of ride the enemy is in, what's my mission profile, what's my fuel and loadout (big thumbs up for the 1:1 map, no more loading 25% fuel and enjoying top performance while in gliding distance of home base), what's my objective, is my aircraft the better performer in the match-up, the one that handles easier or the one that is easier to operate (CEM and subsystems) and how do i use that to my advantage?===> a fusion of all that, some decision making and you get an idea of what it might have felt like being in their shoes back then.

The FM is a super important tool in that equation, but it's not the only worthy cause ;)


In summary yes, let's have accurate FMs, it's a must. That doesn't mean we have to leave everything else to the wayside until they are 100% accurate, 98% will do. The rest is in the environment: if we have life-size instead of down-scaled maps to fly over and the damage model is "smart" enough to cause a sequence of failures (which it can, i've seen it in CoD and it's awesome), the rest of the puzzle pieces will fall together nicely.

After all, having accurate FMs still leads to completely inaccurate encounters if we change the environmental setting where they take place: a bunch of fighters with a range of a few hundred miles duking it out at tree top level and bingo fuel on a map which is 150x150km is hardly accurate. ;)

Maye it would help if there would be a performance difference of about + or - 3% for every plane every time you fly. So even if the enemy flys a slightly faster plane, you don't know if he has a good production model or not. You might even be equally fast with a very well build slower plane. In fact, that's what happened in RL.
At the moment, you can't run away from a slightly faster plane, because after a 10 min chase at sea level, he will catch you. Even if he is only 2 km/h faster. Same goes for climb and turn. This wouldn't happen in RL since they had to worry about other things then chasing someone for hours.
And that's why pure performance is more important in the game than in RL IMO.

I assume when the developers modeled each aircraft in the sim that they used the most accurate specifications for the type aircraft as published by the manufacturer. Each original aircraft was test flown back in the '30s and '40s and the performance results have been published. I think the only way to develop a state of the Art WW2 combat sim is to flight test each aircraft in the sim and work with the weighting variables until the aircraft accurately duplicates the original aircraft test performance. It's impossible over the gulf of time to match perfectly, but I think the developers can get pretty damn close-- enough to meet the original aim of the sim.

That is one simply brilliant idea. Hope some of the devs are around to pick up on such solutions!

I agree with Helofly, that would solve the problem really well, if the basis for those slight performance drops/gains is correct, then it would be a very good and correct way to model the FM.

+1, this is actually a very good idea and completely realistic, also takes away a lot of the "spit/109 is porked" threads.

Excellent idea. Hope somebody picks up with it and runs with it.

It's a hard discussion to take seriously when the controls are working backwards.

That type of thing worries more.

It's all a pissing contest as far as I'm concerned. "I've got the most accurate book/charts/pilot accounts therefore I win" or "I've flown a Cessna for a few hundred hours, it's basically the same as a 1500 HP warbird". I could never tell if a FM was "porked" or not, how could I? how could anyone? Only the combined knowledge of the real aircraft's engineer, ground crew and pilot could tell such a thing. Every time someone calls out a "porked" FM I'm totally stunned, how could they know?

FM are important in a sim yes and should be somewhat accurate (not that I would tell if they weren't) but not that it consumes half of the production budget of a game. I would think it's easier to tweak FM's than to try to fix a whole game-engine.;)

The Spit example is way too funny. I don`t really know the FM of CoD so I don`t know what to complain about. One thing I know, some things should be in the game, period. Going back to IL21946 there are many examples : Russian fighters could get past 700km/h without falling apart - that`s a big mistake. If the Me109G6 1943 has MK103 in the nose, that`s a big mistake. If a P51 can outturn a Me109 under 400km/h under 5000m, that`s a big mistake.
What do I mean? I mean that some of the biggest flaws of the real planes must be pronounced as they were in real life. Another example - the sheer fact that the Russian fighters had manual CEM and German had automatic, meant FAR better situation for the LW, but the IL2 game didn`t underline it.

I don`t see how complaining about 5mph is good, but I can see the other problems which should be resolved. The main aspects of flying a certain aeroplane must be in the game, because without them, we have no simulation.

At a certain point in the IL2 life, there was a time when the Bf109 was a really twitchy plane, easy to stall and unstable. You can`t say that wasn`t something to complain about.

5 kph make a hughe difference i think, and yes the goal should be as realistic as possible, where do you draw the border if not? and I dont like fantasy planes :)

Agree, I dont want fantasy planes in a simulator either.

I dont mind in Battlefield 3, but a Simulator is supposed to have simulation inside.

Small errors are such little nasty things, whose like to accumulate. If you allow few kph off here, few m/s off there and so on, in the end you may get something very off.

I really like the idea of the % modifier based on 'production run' or whatever you want to call it. That's a neat idea that, while perhaps not making hard-core simulation people happy, would certainly make the game more FUN. At the end of the day, if I'm not having fun with the title, I don't want to run it.

What would be cool to add to that idea is persistance. Say you do get one of these great production run planes to fly. As long as you don't get shot down, you continue to have that 3% advantage. Then, when you're shot down, you roll the dice again and see what you get.

Yeah you may end up in a Tiger tank. Let's just hope they haven't implemented Mustangs and .50cal then.

If a job is worth doing, IMO it's worth doing properly.

Personally I take the view that flight test report's by the operator's flight test organisation (ie A&AEE in the case of RAF aeroplanes) constitute a reliable source.

I'm less convinced by test reports concerning captured enemy aeroplanes because they tend not to be operated in a representative way due to lack of detailed intelligence, spare parts & consumables, as well as battle damage, and the need to anticipate future developments (which could lead to deliberate over-boosting of captured engines for example).

It's perfectly reasonable to say that the average fight is more about SA than aircraft kinematic performance, but it doesn't necessarily follow that kinematic performance is unimportant.

For example, given poor SA, the pilot of the faster aeroplane will tend to have a longer life expectancy, because it's much much harder to bounce a faster aeroplane than it is to bounce a slower aeroplane. So it's actually very difficult to separate performance, strategy and tactics in an objective manner - Good pilots tend to be "lucky", and "lucky" pilots are often good.

I think that people tend to pay more attention to things like maximum speed, rate of climb, turn rate etc than other parameters like stability & control simply because it's easy to test and print out a diagram that lots of people can understand and replicate.

Also, I would point out that people who are typing in the forum are by definition not having fun in the sim, because you can't do both things at once unless you have at least 4 hands and 2 keyboards...

At this point it's almost more fun to moan/whine or share opinions and debate in the forums than actually flying the simulation...:grin:

e.g.

SP

lack of content + all known bugs + lack of performance = boring/stressful

MP

all known bugs + multiplayer bugs + steam bugs + lack of performance = few players online/lack of fun/even more stressful

There's some pretty good points in this thread and i also like the idea about the +/- 3% production values tolerance. I was about to propose something similar but i thought it would infuriate too many people so i didn't :-P

In any case, i think the general consensus is that we do need accurate FMs but as in real life, the FM should not be super-consistent each and every time between a bunch of different airframes (at least when a relevant difficulty/realism setting is enabled).

If we could combine that with a dynamic campaign engine in the future (both for single and multiplayer) to track the condition of the aircraft between sorties and provide some continuity of airframe, it would be very much closer to how things used to be in reality.

i really does not bother about FM if the game if there are other issues that makes me feel out of the cockpit or like im flying a game.In example flickering shadows put me out of game.Or IA weight plane doing fast spirals until ground .
Specially with a so rubbery pilot view sistem, makes me disconnected from the plane´s behavior, it feels very scripted, i likes better pilot view i have seen better g and shakes effects in racing titles or even in 1 person shooters.
There are a great lack of options to make the game at your liking.

besides that, i prefer a game with good flight DINAMICS than exacts flight model. You can made a 109 in CFS 1 that matches the plane peformance precisely, but it would have a poor feeling o behavior due to the old flight dinamics. CLOD has excelent flight dinamics , we need a better game to enjoy it.

Brilliant post!

I know very little about the current FM accuracy, but I have a question related to the previous post. If you're flying with CEM/full-realism, how do those max speeds really affect flight? I mean, you have to optimally fly your airplane the entire time, and during combat that doesn't necessarily happen. I get the feeling that small differences in speed accuracy would get dissolved in flight due to CEM. Any more expert pilots agree with this?


Another more practical thing that has been mentioned, but that hasn't been given due attention: the assumption that given reliable a reliable source of aircraft performance, you can accurately model it in a combat simulator.

Even if you have reliable sources for aircraft performance (which is an open question), I would reckon it's still a monstrous task to actually simulate it. It should be quite easy to implement performance graphs or matrices or anything (as in FSX, for instance?), but if you do that you don't know how to deal with dynamic damage modelling. So graphs are really just a guideline. I'm guessing the current approach is to have a proper physics engine, control surfaces modelling, and control surface effect on movement depending on different conditions (e.g. weather). Then, as the airplane gets damaged, control surface and airplane properties change (i.e. more friction, less lift, etc), and the physics engine needs to be able to cope with this. Graphs are useless here, no matter how accurate they are.

And modelling an airplane in a physics engine to simulate what real-life performance is, instead of directly modelling real-life performance (according to performance graphs), is completely non-trivial.

I'm just saying that they might want to get real-life performance, but given that damage modelling needs to be in, it becomes an overly complex, heuristic, impossible to really understand process. It's probably guess-and-test, and with the absurd amount of variables..... I don't envy them!

The IL2 community agreed long ago that it is not the real life figures that need 100% attention. The trick is to simply recreate the valid differences between the planes. Who cares if the FW190A3 has 2sec slower roll rate if it is still much better than the Spitfire by a good margin? I don`t care if my Bf109 has a 10m/s slower climb rate that in real life. If I still outclimb the Hurricane in a historical manner then I don`t see the problem.