Just curious about the P-51 FM

[KG26_Alpha]

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.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Russian forums all our planes are porked
German forums all our planes are porked
Eng/US forums all our planes are porked

All wrong. The truth is:
The Italian planes are porked.

[MaxGunz]

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?

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

All wrong. The truth is:
The Italian planes are porked.

You mean there's Italian fanboi's out there ??

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

You mean there's Italian fanboi's out there ??

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.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

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.

OH YES! They were/are a strong community. They did a lot of research and even made all the models by themself. I helped them a bit back then. Oleg was impressed of them.

BTW, we have some italian fellows in DT too.

[sniperton]

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 ).

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

OH YES! They were/are a strong community. They did a lot of research and even made all the models by themself. I helped them a bit back then. Oleg was impressed of them.

BTW, we have some italian fellows in DT too.

Let me say thanks to those guys. These Macchi planes are really something, I like them a lot, you can do quite some nasty things to allied aviation in them.

Originally Posted by sniperton

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 ).

I bet I could not takeoff in even a trainer plane of that time. And don't forget a really accurate sim would have to introduce checklists to follow - which I personally can do without, its a COMBAT flight sim and a game. And to me the early to mid war period offers the most, too.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

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.

Ermm I was doing sarcasm

They were pretty pissed off at the weapons and performance ...... sound familiar...... as with my other post add them to the list.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Let me say thanks to those guys. These Macchi planes are really something, I like them a lot, you can do quite some nasty things to allied aviation in them.

Hurri MkI v SM79 is interesting to a novice Hurri pilot

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I bet I could not takeoff in even a trainer plane of that time. And don't forget a really accurate sim would have to introduce checklists to follow - which I personally can do without, its a COMBAT flight sim and a game. And to me the early to mid war period offers the most, too.

Early to 43 late is most interesting for me.




.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Ermm I was doing sarcasm

They were pretty pissed off at the weapons and performance ...... sound familiar...... as with my other post add them to the list.




Hurri MkI v SM79 is interesting to a novice Hurri pilot



Early to 43 late is most interesting for me.




.

edit: Yeah well if you don't expect passion from Italians then you don't know Italians very well, or you put pills in their drinks.

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.....