Il2 sturmovik original fight model was different?

[lorenzoj]

I wasn't able to run my original IL-2 Sturmovik to compare but it seems to me that at the very least, the flight models in the HsFx mega mods installation of 1946 are very varied and challenging. Also, depending on the aircraft, "more difficult" is not necessarily more realistic.

[jermin]

The most realistic and challenging FM is the one before 4.0, namely 3.04. In that version, you have to carefully manage your energy. Even a duel with the same planes could be much fun, because each pilot's energy management skill varies. Energy fighters like Bf-109 could be a deadly weapon in the hands of a veteran. Nobody used flaps to help turning at that time, since it did no good for keeping energy. But with the FM in later versions, you don't have to worry about energy management any more. Planes are much less prone to stall. You can even lower flaps to landing position to shorten your turning radius, which is of course ridiculous.

I didn't know whether this was a decision of Oleg (We were given the impression that the emphasis of the development had shifted to BoB around the time when PF was released. So Oleg might have already given up IL-2 before starting BoB development.) or the management of 1C. But what is certain is that arcade players has been gradually dominating the online community ever since the 4.0x FM came out. There were hardly any wonder-woman-view servers before the 4.0 series. Even playing in servers allowing external views were considered dishonourable.

It is funny to see those wonder-woman-view addicts gloating over their easy kills in their I-185s.

But they are not even the worst things. The worst thing is that most members of the current developer (TD) are these greeners who don't have a deep understanding of air combat.

Sadly Oleg's BoB dream came to nothing.

Oleg shouldn't have put all his promised features on the new game. He put IL-2 at a position that is way too low while put BoB at a position that is way to high. When people asked for improvements of IL2. Oleg's most frequent answer was "We will impletemen that in BoB". Actually BoB and Il-2 woud run abreast for a long time even all the promised features of BoB were enbodied.

One evidence supporting this assumption is that he didn't try to make an enhanced patch for IL-2 when they found 800m USD was still not enough for the development of BoB. I'm sure many players would empty their wallets for it if he did. Lock On is also an old title with more or less the same age of Fogotten Battles. But their developers are still polishing it and use it to make money to support their new projects. There will be a brand-new Su-27 cockpit in the incoming Flaming Cliffs 3. IL-2 is such a great game that it is really really sad for me to see it end up like this.

Anyway, I still want to thank Oleg for the fun IL-2 has broght me and my squad mates during the 9 years of online play.

Since 1C still keeps IL-2 in an abandoned status. It is more likely that the original decision was from 1C.

[Bolelas]

Thanks for your answers.
@jermin: well, at least TD is improving lots of things, i think they are making a wonderfull job (as far as my opinion goes, but i am not expert in some more delicade matters, like the FM`s), and it would be good if they decided to change the flight model, the way you mentioned. I myself dont fly with servers on external views, and i like realism, but, the majority of players are arcade and there is nothing i can do about it...

[Treetop64]

Of course flight model is going to be "different" when you consider the lengthy development of the game, more than ten years now. The idea of having the same flight model algorithms today as was used back then is ludicrous.

The FM in the latest version of the game feels far more refined and, depending on the aircraft, appropriately progressive than in the original v1.10 of IL-2, especially considering the variability of FMs between differing types of aircraft. Stall behavior in the original game feels generally "scripted" by comparison. Also, as lorenzoj pointed out, you should consider that because "some guy" perceives something as being more difficult for him in another version doesn't meant that it was more realistic.

Having said that, when Pacific Fighters was originally released, it was criticized for having a simplified low-speed flight model to help virtual pilots deal with the rigors of landing aircraft on carriers. This was rectified in later versions of the game.

So, in short, the fight model we have now is much more preferable to the comparatively crude (but very good for it's day) FMs used in IL-2 ten years ago.

[Bearcat]

The whole sim was different... The FMs were no exception. I think that the FMs that we have now are better .. but even then IL2 was the best thing smoking.

[IceFire]

I think whoever that was had no idea what they were talking about. Version 4.0 of IL-2 introduced a new FM system that was much more advanced. Stalls, spins and others are more dynamic and more natural. There was some regression from 3.0 largely because 3.0 was very finely tuned from what the original IL-2 flight model was capable of... but 4.0 and onwards is definitely more sophisticated. Feels more like flying a real plane (with my limited RL stick experience anyways).

There are problems, bugs, inconsistencies, and the like... but there has been for the entire run. Bottom line... the most difficult and sophisticated flight model in the IL-2 series is right now with the latest version. It's not dumbed down or arcade in any way.

[Bolelas]

Ok, tank you for your ansewers, Treetop, Bearcat, and Icefire. I am more relaxed now.
I am sure that 4.12 will bring us even a better sim.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by jermin

But they are not even the worst things. The worst thing is that most members of the current developer (TD) are these greeners who don't have a deep understanding of air combat.

Pls leave you offensive statements for yourself. Up to now, almost everyone in this forum knows, what your personal oppinion toward our team is.
You should think more about your own signature:

Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?

Who of the DT do you really know? (rather a rhetoric question)



So regarding the FMs... I frankly don't know about the first IL-2, I just cannot remember and my Win7 just won't run it. But I remember, that I had a worse impact in my flying abilities with 4.0, when the 'whobbling' FM was introduced. Its still the base of what we have now and back then, it was a major step forward. Thats my oppinion. And regarding FMs, I'm not 'the one in the know' in our team. I'm then just a player here.

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by jermin

But with the FM in later versions, you don't have to worry about energy management any more.

Yes you do.

arcade

Now that is a good point. Servers with padlock + externals combined (I think it's that particular combination that sucks), or enemy views, full icons, open cockpit etc allowed, are toy servers. I cannot understand why people pay for a simulator to play it as an arcade game. Then again, maybe they didn't pay.
And if some server truly allows I-185 with no limitations, then it's not worth playing on.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Janosch

Now that is a good point. Servers with padlock + externals combined (I think it's that particular combination that sucks), or enemy views, full icons, open cockpit etc allowed, are toy servers. I cannot understand why people pay for a simulator to play it as an arcade game. Then again, maybe they didn't pay.
And if some server truly allows I-185 with no limitations, then it's not worth playing on.

Ahh but that's the beauty of it. Not everyone has to play the same way. Some want the full authentic experience... some want a lighter experience. Both are enthusiasts of WWII air combat but their wants and desires are quite different. I don't think it's too hard to understand why people might want one, the other, or both.