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..

[Vengeanze]

Hear hear!

[skouras]

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-

Originally Posted by skouras

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.

[Redroach]

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...

Originally Posted by Redroach

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

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..

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...

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..

[MadBlaster]

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.

[Feathered_IV]

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.

[JG4_Helofly]

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

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

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.

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