![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Since the beginning of IL2 series its all ways the same with fanboi's and their favorite planes and conspiracy or Oleg using the wrong data
1C Have had to deal with Russian forums all our planes are porked German forums all our planes are porked Eng/US forums all our planes are porked Most of the time no actual manufacturing flight data was supported in the accusations, only some vets story or a book written by someone using accounts of a pilots recollection and testing ac that are worn/damaged/wrong fuel etc etc This still happens even today in this forum............apparently. ![]() Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 04-25-2013 at 07:28 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The Italian planes are porked. ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It would be nice to have an IL-2 P-51 with empty rear tank and CoG to match.
That high pitch noise on the forums would change to a new note singing the stick-force-is-porked song instead of the too-much-trim song. But that's what the choice is about same as not being able to have both the climb performance of a wide prop and the speed of a thin prop on the same plane either. The latter was about a FW chart-monkey association agenda, IIRC. Oleg let the answer to that one be known, chart-mixing is a no-no. Stick forces for one condition don't go with performance in other conditions. All from the same and how many differences can IL-2 support? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You mean there's Italian fanboi's out there ??
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are. Years ago I exchanged PM's with one who was part of a group.
I think they are why we have Macchi's and SM-79. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
BTW, we have some italian fellows in DT too.
__________________
---------------------------------------------- For bugreports, help and support contact: daidalos.team@googlemail.com For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications: IL-Modeling Bible |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmm, WWII was a six year long conflict here in Europe, but all this hassle is about Überplanes and porked Überplanes of the 44/45 period. The controversial ones are exactly those which were already modelled in early sims like Aces over Europe. The novelty of Il2 back in 2002 was that it featured earlier planes and battles 'forgotten' in earlier sims (made mostly for the American market).
Now that we have access to the best equipment available in WWII, the everyday 'traffic' with normal cars has transformed into a Sunday Formula 1 race where each pilot wants his preferred mount to be even further finetuned. Only in the best plane can you become/feel the best pilot, so it goes, particularly online. But after all, it's only a game, and the real fun comes from the successful adaptation of our skills, which are rather limited in view of the fact that most of us would have never qualified as a real-life war pilot, and therefore the historical reality as an argument is always a bit problematic in the context of a sim (immersion is only the illusion of reality). What really matters is that the game challenges you to learn how to fight an illusionistic Dora in an illusionistic Pony, a Hurri in a Macchi, or a Brewster in a Rata (which latter ones I personally find much more exciting ![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() They were pretty pissed off at the weapons and performance ...... sound familiar...... as with my other post add them to the list. Quote:
![]() Quote:
. Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 04-27-2013 at 06:45 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
There were "issues" that I didn't totally agree with but it's been a while and I figured it was going to change or it wasn't. I certainly did not know as much about those planes as that group yet I was able to turn the 202 much harder than some claimed. IIRC the Macchi 202 is one of the planes most affected by the need for proper rudder use brought about by 4.xx. If there had been an award for most bitterly bi... complained about with least reason it was the 202. I banged heads over the "easy spin" appellation more than 2 or 3 times since A) I had checked it out and found that when keeping The Ball centered, the 202 could pull massively hard turns as long as speed was kept 340+kph and B) the main counter argument I got was "rudder didn't matter before" based ignorance of slip and The Ball. One of the major points about 4.xx over the earlier FM is that before 4.xx you could not ride a stall, it would always fall into a spin and the reason was not canned code but what amounted to auto-rudder in the earlier FM. How well you rudder in IL-2 makes a big difference, at least as big as proper use of trim. IRL you get motion and stick force cues, in the sim you don't, it's not going to match the reality and players should just get used to it and stop their blod-clot crying. The more wing-loaded and light-stick a model is, the worse it will be but those same planes get advantages for those who can deal with them they would not otherwise have. For sure, the P-51 could be a lot more like the FW-190. I wonder how many players still use 3.xx? IMO while it is closer to arcade, it also needs less computer and joystick to play. Maybe there's some "lost tribe" out in the virtual skies..... Last edited by MaxGunz; 04-27-2013 at 07:16 PM. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|