View Single Post
  #33  
Old 04-25-2013, 07:57 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

P-51 had superior high speed lines but inferior turning and low speed climb. Spitfire moved in that same direction from start to finish.

Many people see patterns that may or may not be there. They make their arguments and back them with picked data. You have to look for the personal angles as well as 'facts'.

Would Oleg have deliberately marred his work with petty sleights against selected planes? That's what some views would have and then some.

It was made clear from the start that IL-2 was to be based primarily from tests and factual data and not from 'pilots recalls'.

Try the P-51 as it first came out and 1 patch later. Not a teeter-totter. It was the low stick force boys that forced that, CoG closer to CoL results in lower stick forces without having to make model changes that amount to 'magic'. Demands were met and Oleg was clear that he did not like them nor would we. The intention-assigners decided it was petty revenge and made it clear that lower stick forces should only be achieved through numbers (modeling magic based on decree, not physics) to make the P-51 fit their own notions gained more from subjective accounts than actual tests and really a step or half-step short of full-on Gastonology.

I don't know the DCSW P-51, I can't run that sim on my PC! My favorite P-51 was the one in Rowan's 1999 Mig Alley Ace.

I look at IL-2 as a physics-based combat flight sim that uses a system superior in its time to the others. It still had to run on the hardware of the time and did that well. It had to be stretched, bent and twisted to meet an increasing number of additions and features all of which were met well through huge amounts of extra work on the part of the development team even as they were roundly abused on forums mainly by over-aged spoiled brats.

It is what it is and instead of assigning evil intentions to the makers there should be marveling at how few cracks there are given the amount of changes put to it. Those who focus on the bits they don't like should realize that everyone has bits they don't like so why are YOU more important and why do the good bits count for so little? My feeling is that much of the time the answer to that is found in emptied bottles.
Reply With Quote