I hate the wrong data in Il2 strmovik 1946
 

I hate the erroneus data....... Why oleg put the performances so balanced avoiding the reality? Why they do that, your game is good, but with such data, not worth purchase the game, that is one of the reasons, because I regret having bought, what if I had bought real data, yesterday we played with some friends, one of They were in bf109 g2 and I in a fw190-D9, fighting to 6000 meters, the bf109 g2 was clearly faster than my fw 190 d9. Why it happens?, if you wonder if it was in a server with mods this is false, as well as tested with a TA and the same thing happened. be will avalaible some patch for correct that?, My English suck I know.

Others may disagree with me but this game is not balanced. There are definitely mistakes in information here and there but its not balanced so that all planes fly the same or all sides have an even fight.

You have to realize that IL-2 is many things:
1) The most realistic WWII flight combat simulator yet
2) Has the most number of flyable WWII aircraft in one product yet (officially - not counting CFS2/3 mods)
3) Has the most realistic attempt at doing proper flight modeling as well as correct modeling of physics for things like bullet ballistics, explosions, etc.

And given all of these things IL-2 succeeds EXTREMELY well. It is extremely good. It is, however, not perfect and has many flaws.

But people have to realize that because IL-2 does things properly like modeling engine power and real flight physics that its not as simple as saying that a Bf109 at 5000 meters flies at X top speed. Somewhere in behind the flight model they are doing things like air density versus engine power and all of those smaller details. Its a much more realistic and fluid experience but it sometimes means that the data doesn't match 100% with test data.

I'm all for making things more correct but its never going to be 100%.

Also the pilot flying the plane makes a big difference in how fast one is. There may be problems but a Bf109G-2 cannot fly as fast as a FW190D-9 at maximum speed at a medium altitude. Someone was doing something wrong there. Not trimming or operating the engine properly. Remember that the pilot is one of the biggest equations in how a plane flies.

Try participating in air racing. Everyone flies the same plane yet some will fly faster than others...the game is modeled so well that proper piloting will get you better performance.

Yes, this is the MUST FIX fix in 4.09m, this must be a Oficial standart, the FM is very acurate but can find litle detail to fix, in engine performace yes, have wrong data but this is a easy work to 1C, Why they dont sell this? I am tired wait, pls 1C sell this patch, this wait is a torture.

(icefire quote)
the game is modeled so well that proper piloting will get you better performance.



No truer words have been said :!:

ok, think what you want this to be true, I've been playing this game and I realized that if the planes are balanced, the Fw190 is the best airplane and put it well below its actual performance, the best accelerated fw190 The mustang under the 6000 meters and this does not happen in the game

The difference at this altitude between the two planes is ca 30 km/h (for the D-9), different radiator flap settings, slideslip, a tiny bit of climb while the others are level or descending, having a droptank rack etc. can easily account for such difference.

In my old post i test Ta-152c at 6000.............475KM/h and FW A9 480km/h = wrong

if it is insane to think that an FW190A9 is faster than a TA 152, whether it was the replacement of Fw190 D9, Oleg data is very wrong, but the LA is a magic plane

What I think you're missing with regard to the modelling, are the aircraft relative performances. This has been modelled pretty well.

I might ask you at what difficulty settings and which map are you testing your planes. Crimea is the official test map, and I would think 100% setting would be the test reality.

Another point about 'reality' is that there is only data on paper to go by, plus a few relic aircraft. And then old veteran's comments, which invariably are biased.
So all-in-all, You now have the best combat prop-sim in your hands - period ( Most probably the the worlds best sim).

And of course you can always throw the disks in the bin - just make sure you don't empty the bin, coz you will be digging into the bin after a few weeks (of MSFSim, LockOn, other inferior products :grin:).
;)

Google TA152 and find out more details... as an example from the 1940 Bob period in comparing Spit-vs-ME109. the a/c were very similar on most respects and one outperformed the other at different altitudes and tactics....

with regard to the LA... you really must make up you mind about Oleg's data..
:cool:

IceFire +1 and thumbs up etc...

I'm not really quite sure what your saying. The FW190 or the Mustang under 6000 meters what?

I consider the FW190 to be amongst the best of the planes in the game. Certainly in the online world the FW190 is the top scorer on many servers...especially in the Kills to Deaths range. If it were very badly modeled obviously it wouldn't be doing so well. It is not an easy plane to fly effectively...its actually quite easy to fly technically but in combat only the experienced will do well.

If you want help on FW190 tactics I suggest asking as many will be willing to help. If the FW190 is your favourite and want to talk to other enthusiasts of the plane I also suggest going here: The Focke Wulf Consortium: http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com...=viewforum&f=8

They gather data, flight performance, and other items related and not related to IL-2. I think you'll find after staring at the data that it is not nearly as badly modeled as it sounds like you think.

FW190-D9 is faster than BF109-G2 at 6000m in level flight in game. The difference is about 75km/h of TAS.

What happened? Maybe you didn't turn WEP on or didn't keep the ball centered; or maybe they had more potential energy and just converted it to kinetic while diving on you. Also, don't think that faster planes climbs or turns better ;-)

IL2 1946 has quite good engine to make FM of existing planed quite accurate to IRL contempares. Unfortuanately Oleg Maddox Team made many seroius bug in data of many planes. I dont know if 1C used only russian books to model planes or so. Oleg Maddox many times said that something is not possible to make in these engine or is very hard to make or it needed a lot of time. Its simple untrue. I can repeat for sure actual engine of these game IL2 1946 allow to make quite very accurate perfomance of planes. But it needs to get correct data and put it into engine. See that there are many planes that represents very well RL perfomance. But also there are many which are bugged and have incorect data. I surly know that many thing could be done but they hasn't done. Of course that its hard to find good data for many WW2 warbirds. But community really had many information, datas etc. about these planes. The point is to get these data and use it correctly into engine of these game. These is the point.

test yourslef

that is true

Bf 109 G-2 reach in game at 6km - 650 km/h

Fw 190 D-9 (44) reach in game at 6 km - 725 km /h

How G-2 could be faster ??

If you see D-9 (44) is overspeed with 25 km/h then RL D-9.

I don't state what I don't know. I have flown G2 and D9 more than enough over period of 3 years to know which is faster and by what magnitude. ;-)

Since your making the claim that they are not...please provide the screen shots with TAS speed indication or provide a NTRK file with the relevant speeds of both types in level flight at 6000 meters.

I prefer a chart to screenshot ;)

Life way too short to hate and in this stage of the IL2 life cycle there is very little chance (Bucklies to none!) of any official updates of the flight models.

As Freddie says there's plenty of other sims out there to try.

Cheers!


Elwood: We certainly hope you all enjoy the show and remember people that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive and survive, there's still some things that make us all the same. You, me, them everybody, everybody.

i have been reading what has been said and if you are going to say that the 109 g2 is fast than the Fw 190 or the TC152 that great but it would help to know thing like the fuel loads as this play a big part on how fast the aircraft flys. And like some of the post that i have read it how you are flying the aircraft and part of this is how the aircraft is setup.

109 G2 range 545 km
190 D9 range 837 km
TA 152 range 1200 km

Not directly. Mass effects acceleration, but not top speed. Top speed is effected by drag and available power to overcome it. However, in case of low speed maneuvering, aircraft with larger power to weight ratio may look faster, because of its greater acceleration. As speed increases, effects of power to weight ratio melt in front of increased drag. In fact, larger mass is desirable in high speed applications as it increases diving performance and helps to conserve kinetic energy.

This is not a question which is faster: D9 or G2. D9 is surely faster (regarding top speed) at all altitudes in level flight. The question is: what mistakes has SturmKreator done?

More weight equals more angle of attack to stay level, and more alpha means more drag. In fighters this is less evident than in bombers (think of B17 speed with load...), unless there is a significant fuel load, as is for long-range planes.
I don’t know how much this is modeled in game. Surely, trim, mixture, prop pitch, supercharger speed and radiator shutters position all have a BIG effect.

Induced drag tends to be greater at lower speeds because a high angle of attack is required to maintain lift, creating more drag. However, as speed increases the induced drag becomes much less, but parasitic drag increases because the air is flowing faster around protruding objects increasing friction.

Most bombers are victims of large induced drag, because they are designed to be "heavy" and often fly at relatively low speed which makes requirement for greater angle of attack to get enough lift. Fast fighters have more problems with parasite drag than with induced one as at high speeds induced drag makes only small part of total drag. The other thing is climbing: larger mass isn't good for it.

I've been watching these discussions for years now, they are for the most part pointless, especially considering the aged nature of IL2. As for IL2 not being worth $20, that's just plain foolishness. I know IL2 is not perfect, but the amount of bitching people do is just insane. And as for even bothering to convince people who obviously know EVERYTHING, that they just need to accept that they don't: that is a waste of time too. Drafting this post was a waste of time too, but as I've already lost that few minutes of my life I might as well hit send.

ABSOLUTELY... I've always maintained.. that charts are more accurate than RL (and SIM) flying. :cool:







:mrgreen:

Yezzzir Ur english sucks and so does ur manners - the latter being the worst! Ur english being bad is ok and well accepted in here and which U don't have to apologize for - most of us doesn't master the english language.
But Ur anger and lack of selfcontrol that shines through this thread is an interely another matter.
Behave, be disciplined and use some selfcontrol when arguing and pointing out a reasonable problem, otherwise Ur thread will be ignored and fade away unnoticed - tackled like an outbreak of childish anger/wrath...


DK-nme

Ur?

try:

1) your

2) you're (you are)

Well YES I know that, and geez, I was just tring to use normal on-line language!!!
U, Ur and U're - YOU get the point!


DK-nme

Sturm's english is better than my anything else!

When I went to France all I had to do was try to speak in french and the locals were so horrified at what I was doing to their language that they replied in english and asked me not to speak french again!

This is in no way an attack on you but exactly how long have you been playing this sim? You sound as if you just started, again not an attack but many people that just start have similar complaints.

I hope I am reading this correct but even if everything that you are saying is true its still a pretty general statement. Under what conditions, alt, speed, tactics used ect ect? As IceFire as said in his first post this sim is not perfect and no one will acknowledge that but by and large it's still pretty accuacte give or take.

Flyingbullseye

I think the English in this thread isn't accurately modelled. I think properly used it's better than many other European languages but it does depend on the circumstances and the pilot. It's a perfect language with absolutely no flaws so it only can ever be wrong if not flown correctly.

I don't know what my English Mistress would have thought of the English in this thread. I mean the woman who taught me english not the english woman who was my mistress. Hmmm... better adjust the trim.....

God I must be bored........ waiting for SOW............

:|

Im flying this game for 3 years, and i know all about that sim, tactics, in especial at mi focke wulf 190, the advantage on this plane are not considerated in the game like aceleration, climbing (the FW190 A6 climbs like a spitfire IX, Fw190 A8 climbs better tha mustang and thuntherbolt, FW190d9 1945 climbs like a spitfire XIV, this is a historical factor), in the game this is not represented

And the charts and information proving that for instance the FW190D-9 climbs with a Spitfire XIV are where?

I'm fairly certain that in the game the P51 and the P47 have their historical rather mediocre initial rates of climb modeled pretty accurately.

Seems to me you are making the basic mistake of equating your getting owned online by these types to incorrect modeling of whatever you are flying, rather than being honest about the fact that you are a poor judge of your opponent's energy state.

But I've only been playing the sim for seven years, what do I know?

:rolleyes:

Yet another useless thread from a Luftwhinner... :rolleyes:

(sorry for my "diplomacy", but he doesn´t deserve more than that)

Make it useful for HIM then. ;)

well I love the germans planes becouse this conutry bougth tho most letal fighters

Couple of observations:

6000m. Are you sure that the modeling of high altitude, not the aircraft, is the issue?

You seem to assume that both aircraft were being flown correctly

Also, have you ever considered that any simulation has limitations? Buying "real data" seems to be your solution. Where is this "real data" warehouse? It is very easy to point out failings in anything, the challenge is to find the faults and the ways to correct them, or different approaches to solve the problems. You do neither. You complain, proclaim things as wrong as if you know everything and can decide what's right and wrong, and then offer nothing but a request for a fix

To create a 'perfect' simulation of anything, first a "perfect" simulation of the real world needs to be modeled. Only then can a proper simulation of anything be produced. This simulation, despite it's improvements, is eight years old. The developer cannot be expected to provide support and improvements to the product forever. Do you understand that? The developer has ceased support of this simulation because they are developing a better one. The intention is to provide a more perfect simulation- but not by improving this one. You cannot just 'buy better data', plug it into the sim, and make the sim better.

Your complaints may be very valid, but you are literally years late in voicing them

Merry Christmas, Terry!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...Older/a1st.jpg

And a Merry Christmas to you sir!

Tha's a relative observation don't you think? Most lethal in what aspect? Firepower? For the most part sure, except the 109 but still. It really comes down to the pilot, heck an A6M2 Zero can whip a FW190 D9 if flown correctly.

Flyingbullseye

But you think the new simulation SOW could be more perfect than Il2 sturmovik 1946?. I think with the new simulation this situation happend again.

Hey this in the real life no the game, with a zero you can`t down at fw1900 d9, this is a madness, the german have a better planes of history, american pilots have afraid when they see a fw190 and that is true

Yes, I do think this could be more perfect than Il2. The lessons learned from the last eight years will be put to use in Storm of War. By definition, given the additional computer power available now, SoW will be "better" than Il2 as more calculations and more complex calculations are possible. However, I strongly feel that for some people, "better" will never be enough. I feel that some people will always find some way to find fault. If they look hard enough, they will find some failing or innaccuracy to complain about

That's as may be and you are perfectly able to have this opinion

However, since you have made this statement, I feel it is within reason to ask you what evidence you have of this, since you have never flown even a single plane from SoW yet. Please provide some basis for your standpoint

If you mean than there will be complaints, I think you are right.

But Zeros downed P51 and P47, which, in turn, downed FW190, wich downed La7, and so on...

Don't tell all the 190 pilots that were shot down by afraid Americans that.

Son, we all have our favorite aircraft, and that is all well and good. But if you are going to make all kinds of claims about your favorite, you need to back them up with factual information, not lines from a propaganda film. No one will take you seriously otherwise.

OK. I had not read this reply before I posted last.

Absolutely you can down a Focke-Wulf of any make with an A6M. As you say, "hey, this is in real life"

To argue otherwise is flatly wrong. There is nothing inherently superior that makes a FW 190-D9 invulnerable to an A6M. You are talking as if this were Fantasyland. The FW 190-D9 was not invincible, this is not a trading card game in which one card defeats another, and neither was historical air combat. You must b joking with this statement. Or do you perhaps disagree with von Richtofen's idea of "it's the man, not the machine"?

Germans made fine aircraft but to make a blanket statement that disallows any other nation to have made fine aircraft as well is a false reality that blindly ignores anything but one's own personal opinion and jingoistic bias

In addition to many fine and advanced aircraft, the Germans also made a lot of planes that were simply bad or were not thought out completely, or just plain of poor construction, unless you consider planes shedding bits in flight to be an acceptable standard. In addition, in the first world war, the Germans made some planes that were so un-suitable they looked to another country for combat planes in many cases...just like the Americans did!

Americans were in fact afraid of German planes. Why should they not be? Only an idiot would not be afraid of guns pointing at them. Germans were afraid of American planes as well, and this is documentably true as evidenced by oral and written histories recorded of and by Luftwaffe pilots.

You are boldly wrong, plainly incorrect, and arrogantly ignorant.

You have not come here to talk about the simulation my friend. You have come here to troll

Merry Christmas and have a nice day, Storm Maker. Or should I say Pot Stirrer! :mrgreen:

I don´t waste pouder on little birds...you go ahead and do it. ;)

Right on the money. To claim that a FW190D-9 is invulnerable to a Zero shows an obvious lack of understanding of the subject and sounds more like reading the watered down version of history rather than truly understanding air combat.

There are so many factors in air combat...the machine is definitely a crucial part and the Germans made excellent air combat machines but the difference between a FW190D-9 and a A6M Zero is not so great that given the right situation and the right pilot the Zero could not be the victor through proper employment of the various air combat techniques.

Air combat is often not a fair fight. What if the Zero in this hypothetical battles knows the FW190 is there but the FW190 does not. Surprise attack and the FW190 is down. Or the FW190 pilot miscalculates a turn and the Zero cuts the corner and again has guns and shoots him down. These are of course hypothetical since a Zero never fought a FW190 in an actual battle...but no plane is immune to any other.

look my friend, read more and dont follow all that you see, like a "the history channel" (or the gringory channel how I call), think better before writte, read in special books of editorial OSPREY, and you can know about the true, i have test germans about fw190 A8, look this chart:

this documents are translate to english, you can see the real velocity indicated

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7305/asdasdasdhe0.jpg

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7...ealdatazq1.jpg

Many people complain about performance figures whether they fly for BLUE or RED.
Someone once said that since everyone complains just about equally, Oleg must have gotten it right.

And what is that telling us and how are you comparing it to the game? That particular chart is the average cruise speed/fuel consumption/flight endurance chart...

Guys you're getting no where with this dude, he's been hitting the koolaid hard. Appearently it really is the plane not the pilot. Which then beckens the question. Since the Germans really had the wonder weapon (FW190) how did the allied fighters not only manage to shoot any down but gain air superiority? It shouldn't have mattered that there was a lack of training, the Germans had the 190, its super ubber.

In regard to my point about the Zero and the 190. If you were to take on an A6M2 in your FW flying the angles fight he'd be on you so fast the only way to save your skin is to run. If you were to stay and try to continue the that type of fight your FW would suddenly get religious (full of holes ->holy:razz:) and you'd become another notch on the side of his fighter. You'd have to fight your fight, energy tactics, thus taking away many of his advantages over you and dictating the terms of engagement in order to win.

I'm sorry but I have a real hard time believing that you have been flying this sim for years and know the tactics yet continue to argue generalilities, ie victory in air combat goes to the one with the fastest a/c or most manuverable, best firepower, best climb ect with no regard to any advantage the opposing a/c or pilot skill has over you or your ride.

All your arguments are proving IceFire, Former_Older and others correct that you have a skewed take on history and probably getting pasted in your favorite ride and that's clashing with what you believe to be true. The FW 190 and many other German fighters were a great fighters but like ALL the others they're not the all around best. Against any opponent they had advantages over them and vise versa.

BTW, what the he!! is the gringory channel? Is this another history channel? Never heard of it. Might want to call my cable company friday I think I'm getting screwed. lol

Flyingbullseye

I think the easiest way of explaining this to Sturm, is Hypothetically.Ok put near sighted grandma who has no race experience, in say a 2008 Subaru WRX and a rally champion veteran in say a Volkswagen beatle 1966 model.Put them both on a 2km hard rally track, Who will win? Grandma or the rally champ? Well i know where my money is going,how about you?

Wow you guys are very reasonable...too bad you are never reasonable when it comes to other planes people complain about LOOOOOOOL

Was that Grandma ever a qualified rally driver? If she was my money goes on her, if she wasn't your comparision is lacking...

So true, Brain32!


On the other side: Who said that IL2 is realistic in every regard and detail? It's not. It's still a game, a pc-simulation-game, one of the most realistic there is, but still a game.

And this claiming of data is irrelevant, honestly. IL2 does not modell all aspects of physics and the engine is over 10 years old. Many planes just work with a load of work-arounds and scripting, others are missing important plane-parts, like coolers and stuff, because of engine limitations.

And you ask for realistic data?

Sorry, but this discussion reminds me to pre-schoolers discussing if Superman or Captain America would win a duel in real life.

I'm curious. Such as?

I'm interested in all planes pretty much and have a soft spot for allot of types... FW190 (which seems to be dominating this discussion) included.

Superman is Uber, Captain America is just a poser, and would therefore get his a$$ kicked.

+1

Pardon me, Pot Stirrer. Did I ever indicate what the real performance was of any aircraft in this simulation was is or should be? No. I never said that the FW 190 or any other plane here was perfectly modeled.

If your little "history lesson" is intended to educate anyone, I don't see where you compare this to anything. Do you perhaps have the comparable chart for the performance in the sim? No. You show what is supposed to be an impressive chart. It doesn't thrill me much; this is loose data. You don't indicate what's wrong and where it's wrong. So you have raw data. Congratulations! You can cut an paste a photo. That's all you have proved!

And what is this "gringory" nonsense? You can call the History Channel a Ham Sandwich if you like, I don't give a rat ass. Whatever insult that was supposed to be was completely wasted.

What have I written that is in error? Quote it please. You have made several references to things I have not said or indicated, but you act as if I have told you that this simulation perfectly models your precious FW 190. False argument, sophistry, and just plan silly

I have done no such thing. I invite you to show us all where I have done this

You're on very shaky ground here. In order for your statements here to have weight, you will have to show me your own tests and where they deviate from your precious charts. Please post those test results for all to see :) Or at least try to make me believe you tested in the sim at all

Oh, you say you didn't test? You just flew around a few minutes and got shot down? How sad...That's a damn shame! So the plane must be modeled wrong, because you're Pritzl Bar incarnate. Hey wait a minute, didn't he screw up in a civilian plane after the war and kill himself? But you're at least that good, yes?

You're amusing. Please respond with more bullshit

"You guys"? You quoted one person.

If you would see FM code for different planes in these game and check their data you would be very dissapoinment -and not because of weak engine. Engine of these game is still quite good and allow to create accurate pefromance like maximum speed at different alts, climb rate, turn rate etc without big problem. But many planes in these game have 10% data in their code for FM so thats why these planes have such questionable preformance or data for these planes are from space not reliable books, monograhps etc. So in game Bf 109 G-2 has lower weight then F-2 for example, some planes have only 2 critical points with maximum speed ( could have much more), there are many mistakes in type of engines performance, even such stupid bugs like wrong writed 10X bigger aerlione area in one type bf 109 then others, wrong - opossite effect of rudder in some planes bacuse simple mistake with direction. Bugs are many and were never corrected even if community was speaking about it in Oleg Ready Room and others forums. I know that these bugs, wrong datas and many things could be easly corrected and these game would be much better then now.

Some strange numbers can be just a very dirty workaround for curve fitting problems or just expression of Effect = coefficient * real world value.

For example: suppose you have made a parametric FM; have blueprints, engine data and charts; need to apply your FM (by choosing parameters) to this specific aircraft model. After choosing parameters (wing span, weight, power ant etc.) you notice that you get performance way to different from the one in charts. Probably your FM lacks something minor which gives major influence to this difference. You can rework all FM (and remodel all previous aircrafts) or to choose parameters in such way that performance will comply with charts while minimizing side effects. :rolleyes: Such workaround is very attractive solution for consumer level product, especially when there are lots of problems for determining model accuracy.

By fixing those numbers in IL2 you may get something which you were not expecting (UFO, brick and etc).

P.S: there is nice saying in scientific community: No one, except the author, believes in new theory, however everyone, except the experimenter, believes in results of experiment. This should be also applied to test result of aircrafts.

Unfortunately and suprisly many of these bugs if were fixed to correct value, data etc casue more accuarate FM and peformance of some plane. Just they are simple mistakes, wrong writed numbers etc. It is possible that some of them was done to create a willing effect of performance some planes but many of them are just simple mistakes which hasn'nt corrected. Imagine that when you correct these values the plane start to fly like should :)

Wait a doggone minute here.

The Bf109G2 is actually lighter than it should be? Is this true?

By how much?

Is it on the same order that the Lagg 3 was underweight?

This has profound implications for mission makers.

Wooalla :

G-2 - 2830 kg(game) - ~3100 (IRL)

F-2 - 2880 kg ( game) - ~2728 kg (IRL)

F-4 - 2900 kg ( game) - ~2890 kg (IRL)

Thanks!