|
|
#131
02-07-2011, 10:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 Anyway I play IL2 online for some fast dogfights/bombing runs with good and realistic plane sets and missions (like UK Dedicated 1 for example has to offer) - so swapping between internal and external views happens a lot... As it is now I even fly IL2 without trackIR as it gets so annoying with the TrackIR on in external... The servers I really like are the ones with forced cockpit on but with allowed external views to negate some of the lack of peripheral vision in a game. Sure, it get's "too good" with external padlock when the target is really obscured - but it's rather fun to me at least not spending a lot of time trying to find a bunch of pixels against the pixel ground that would have been spotted and tracked a lot easier IRL... Just my opinion and I understand that many like it as hard as it can get! I also enjoy the full switch servers that adds another dimension but somehow I often end up in more relaxed servers. Getting old? Just adding an option to disable TrackIR externally would be a really appreciated feature for me at least! Games like RoF, the DCS series etc have it that way as the default option... I guess it would also take about the same time to do it as doing the texture for the knob of the joystick in one of the beautiful cockpits these talented fellows do! 
|
|
#132
02-07-2011, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If any of the people who made that FM feel insulted by my comparing what they done to the Spit FM with a sabotage, let them say so; its none of your worries unless you made the FM yourself. Then we'll see whether I got arguments or not. I put enough of them in front of your closed eyes already. You didn't seem to find any unfairness in this FM up till now. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough; a bit above in the thread is my last try. And if nothing I may say can change your opinion, I just heard the Spit FM is going to be corrected extensively in the upcoming patch. Last edited by PE_Tihi; 02-07-2011 at 11:51 PM.
|
|
#133
02-07-2011, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What you say has been the hidden reason behind many FM debates over the years. Some planes get a more accurate FM than others and this means not only advantages but disadvantages too. Well, let's talk engine management for a second. Why is it that most of the German fighters have more accurate engine models while the rest can pretty much cruise at whatever power setting all day long? Not just allied ones, but a variety of other flyables on both the red and the blue planeset. See, there was probably more data available for the German birds and they were modeled closer to life than the rest. By your own definition that's should also be unfair. Case in point, the stock 190s function better with manual pitch forcing us to not use its main advantage against the high performing allied energy fighters. Let's compare with the undisputed king of the high altitude arena, the P47. It's a well documented fact that the 190 didn't do well at high altitude, while the P47 did, no objections there whatsoever. It's also a well documented fact that the P47 had FOUR main engine controls and 2-3 secondary ones, that with the exception of throttle, prop pitch and cowl flaps none of the rest are modeled in the game, while the 190 had ONE thanks to the kommandogerat system, with a secondary manual pitch control to be used in emergencies if the automatic system failed and the radiators, which are all modeled in the sim and stay within the real manual's operating ranges (for example, 2700RPM maximum). In reality that performance came at the cost of increased workload for the P47 pilot, while a 190 pilot although under-performing could rely on his automatic engine management systems to even the tables by counting on the complexity of the P47 to work against the allied pilot. Well, what happens in the game is that a P47 can cruise at 100%+WEP all day long, as well as set the pitch and cowl flaps ONCE per sortie to a value that minimizes overheat and leave it there for ever. Not just the P47 mind you, i got nothing against it in particular and in fact i like it a lot, but most of the aircraft in the sim can take advantage of a simplified engine and overheat model to push the envelope in ways that was impossible in real life, including the Spitfire. But wait, there's more. When 95% of the flyables can use whatever power settings with impunity and the other 5% have automatic systems that actually stick to what the real life manual states, it's obvious that the 5% are fighting at a disadvantage that's not only historically inaccurate, but is totally reversing what actually happened in real life: you either fly as the real thing did at a disadvantage to everyone else who's pushing the envelope to unrealistic values, or you exchange your main historical advantage (automation and ease of use) for the ability to go manual yourself and push the envelope as well. In other words? In a world with simplified overheat and little else in the way of engine limitations, if you fly with a system that reduces your available power to prevent negative conditions that don't exist in the game then you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot. Either that, or you give up your historical advantage and go manual to exploit the limitations (or lack thereof) of the game engine like everyone else. This is just one example and the reason i'm bringing it up is neither that i fly 190s a lot, which i do, nor that i expect to kill every 47 i find at 30000ft. Realistically and historically speaking i should have trouble and i do, so i only kill one in ten. The reason i'm bringing it up is just that i have enough experience with this scenario/match-up to make an informed argument and nothing more. See, this can go both ways, but the reason we're not making a fuss about it is that it was beyond the capabilities of this 10 year old game engine and the PCs we had back then to model accurate engine operating limits. Also, with CoD around the corner we're content to see whatever improvement is possible for the older IL2 series without being too upset about how it redraws the balance. A few people have had to live with their "by the book" aircraft for ages while everyone else could do things that would fry their engines in seconds in real life and guess what, for some it was a welcome challenge and they learned a couple of things while the rest chose a different aircraft to fly. It's now your turn to either do the same, fly something else or fly with reduced difficulty settings if you don't want to re-learn certain things. It's not a shame to tailor the game to your taste, it's a lack of sportsmanship however to all of a sudden expect to tailor everyone else's game to what's fair because the tables are now turned on you, when they've had to content with equally unfair issues over the years. Long story short, get creative or fly something else, it's not a big deal
|
|
#134
02-07-2011, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now, i fly the Bf's a lot, you know  Do you know a plane in the game being a bad gun platform? Whiner? Rafwhiner? You know, I have already been called Luftwhiner, too, some years ago; while flying for the reds. Seems these among us who cannot speak very well, like using this dog's language. It s simpler. That could explain why many cannot write a post without saying 'Whine'.
Last edited by PE_Tihi; 02-07-2011 at 11:48 PM.
|
|
#135
02-08-2011, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you have something like an X52 you could program this to one of your view controls which would give you one button selection of external view with TR/IR off and one button selection to return to normal cockpit with TR/IR "On" I think that something like this will be your only option at present. Nicholaiovitch
|
|
#136
02-08-2011, 02:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Second, thats not "my Bf", i haven't mentioned a BF at all. Third, my experience what happened often in duels Bf109F4 vs Spit Vb is that, that when the 109 climbs away after a diving attack, the 109 gets snipered by that spit hanging on its prop from 300 to 500 m away; impossible if not a very stable gun-platform. Forth, i point to the post of Blackdog_kt
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects 
|
|
#137
02-08-2011, 03:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#138
02-08-2011, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You got a picture of a Bf, some 500 pixels long in your forum logo, together with a Luftie unit badge- and you say you didn't even mention a Bf The Bf is capable of hanging on its prop at even lower speeds that the Spit, or almost any other plane in the game. Its excellent stall qualities are due to the automatic slats on it's wings. You have been using them in the situation you describe, too - climbing steeply and at a low speed from the Spit. Slow climb is an extremely risky thing - most kills in the game are on the planes climbing steeply, because they are such an easy a target. So be sure the opponent hasn't got enough energy to point the nose at you. If he can, with the speed sitill a bit above its stall, flaps down, and if you being closer than 500 m - any cannon armed plane ll cook you, and the MG-armed ones have a good chance of smoking your engine. I shot heaps of F4 's down in exactly the situation you describe, at ranges up to and sometimes over 500m... in an I16. Even if you cannot hit anything at 500 m yourself, don't make a very common mistake thinking nobody can. A friend could hit me persistently at 700 m at almost any angle. Last edited by PE_Tihi; 02-08-2011 at 06:46 PM.
|
|
#139
02-08-2011, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello Blackdog,
It would 've certainly been better if you did try the 4.10, then we would both know what has been meant. Nonetheless, you can trust me in my summing the Spit 4.10 FM up as quite instable compared to the probably heavily over-modeled stability of all the rest of game planes. If you allow my putting words into your mouth, and please correct if am wrong, I have a feeling you would like to say someting like this: 'Tihi, you are steaming here about your Spit being treated unjustly; whoever cared for the FW being treated so unfairly as it has been? Now grit your teeth and take it like we did; if we could, so can you, too; the Spit has been treated a lot more friendly from the developers then the LW types, anyway.' You cannot know how well I understand your feelings in this post. I cannot find much I do not agree with, either. Can't say a lot about the P47 power-plant behavior, but the in-game Spit's ability to use the WEP indefinitely can be hardly called realistic. In some periods of the war the 5 minute limit has been enforced to the point of completely dismantling the engine for an inspection if pilot reported overstepping it. I wrote about it just a day or two before on another thread here (Spit sabotaged, Goering relieved) The power-plant behavior of the FW may have been correctly modeled, as you say. You may not know, though, the FW has been seriously under-modeled on a very important point, namely, on the wing's ability to produce lift. The Coefficient of the Maximum Lift value for the whole FW190 series (A to D) has been 1.58. In the game, Anton has been given 1.38 making it even more ponderous in a turn than it really was. The speed and climb of the plane are ok-it would be too easy to notice if they were not. Turn rate inaccuracies are much more difficult to notice or prove. I suppose you understand now why in the stories about the FM's here the word sabotage comes so naturally to my mind. The Dora got 1.65, being a rare example of the over-modeling a LW plane in the game - someones goodwill present to the LW public, I suppose-or rather a digestive for their stomachs burdened with the heavily over-modeled La7 and the rest There are many such examples, but instead of continuing, let me only say that I have been writing about such FM issues for years. It got me heaps of abuse on Ubi forum; among other (rather nastier) things, some called me a Luftie-whiner, too. (I have been flying red, still am) Now someone here names me RAF-whiner. Well... All I can conclude out of this experience, if you tell them the truth, many online fliers ll compare you to a squealing dog. Why, it beats me. The life is strange. So you can see, I hope, I do not demand fairness only when someone slights my favorite plane. I fly a lot of planes, but 190A really seldom; it is anything but my favorite. When I saw the plane has been unfairly modeled, I said so, loud and clear, earning a heap of names for that, as ever. I almost got used to it. I think that gives me the right to speak in the same manner about the unfairness to the Spitfire, irrespective of it being one of my favorites, and irrespective of whether you or anyone else concedes me this. On the other hand, if the question is what did that bring, that loud and clear speaking-by no means mine only-about the FMs; the answer is almost nothing. It has been clear for years that the FM's with heavy differences to the RL values simply represent the developers constant policy. That means that your teeth-gritting proposal cannot be that far wrong. Anyone suggesting not playing the game at all, as an option gentler to the teeth, would be quite right here, too. BTW, my other pets are the in the climb heavily overmodeled I16, and almost the only plane in the game to have a heavily underclocked top speed, the Tempest. If you think i cannot cope with this 410 spit, you are wrong, you know I ve been flying this 9 years -can fly anything. . But I do not want to fly just anything- anything that can come to someone's mind. Your suggestion of reducing the difficulty settings just brought an enormous smile to my face- feels good, thank you I fly online exclusively, server sets the settings there, anyway.This Spit is not that difficult to fly, but it more than halves your hits. If other planes were to receive the stability model of the same realism (or over-realism) you would see more rotten eggs and tomatoes flying around than virtual planes. And I think you understood by now, this vengeful sentence of yours at the end, about after enjoying unfair advantages for years, the tables now being turned on me - has been addressed to the wrong man. At least, I hope so. Last edited by PE_Tihi; 02-09-2011 at 12:12 AM.
|
|
#140
02-09-2011, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Since you havent have flown a real spitfire, talking about its FM stability is the last thing you should do. If you feel that the current spitfire is as unstable as a leaf, i strongly suggest you practice more. If you fly a 4.10 spitfire and compare it with the FM stability of a p40,p51,p39 etc., there is nothing to complain about. Flying any aircraft on the edge requires skill, and the spitfire isnt an exception. Last edited by ImpalerNL; 02-09-2011 at 09:22 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
