Some considerations about the FM purists...

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Maye it would help if there would be a performance difference of about + or - 3% for every plane every time you fly. So even if the enemy flys a slightly faster plane, you don't know if he has a good production model or not. You might even be equally fast with a very well build slower plane. In fact, that's what happened in RL.
At the moment, you can't run away from a slightly faster plane, because after a 10 min chase at sea level, he will catch you. Even if he is only 2 km/h faster. Same goes for climb and turn. This wouldn't happen in RL since they had to worry about other things then chasing someone for hours.
And that's why pure performance is more important in the game than in RL IMO.

That is one simply brilliant idea. Hope some of the devs are around to pick up on such solutions!

[Sven]

I agree with Helofly, that would solve the problem really well, if the basis for those slight performance drops/gains is correct, then it would be a very good and correct way to model the FM.

[Sauf]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Maye it would help if there would be a performance difference of about + or - 3% for every plane every time you fly. So even if the enemy flys a slightly faster plane, you don't know if he has a good production model or not. You might even be equally fast with a very well build slower plane. In fact, that's what happened in RL.
At the moment, you can't run away from a slightly faster plane, because after a 10 min chase at sea level, he will catch you. Even if he is only 2 km/h faster. Same goes for climb and turn. This wouldn't happen in RL since they had to worry about other things then chasing someone for hours.
And that's why pure performance is more important in the game than in RL IMO.

+1, this is actually a very good idea and completely realistic, also takes away a lot of the "spit/109 is porked" threads.

[Grand_Armee]

Excellent idea. Hope somebody picks up with it and runs with it.

[Seeker]

It's a hard discussion to take seriously when the controls are working backwards.

That type of thing worries more.

[addman]

It's all a pissing contest as far as I'm concerned. "I've got the most accurate book/charts/pilot accounts therefore I win" or "I've flown a Cessna for a few hundred hours, it's basically the same as a 1500 HP warbird". I could never tell if a FM was "porked" or not, how could I? how could anyone? Only the combined knowledge of the real aircraft's engineer, ground crew and pilot could tell such a thing. Every time someone calls out a "porked" FM I'm totally stunned, how could they know?

FM are important in a sim yes and should be somewhat accurate (not that I would tell if they weren't) but not that it consumes half of the production budget of a game. I would think it's easier to tweak FM's than to try to fix a whole game-engine.

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

I was playing an IL-2 1946 mission last night:
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..

The Spit example is way too funny. I don`t really know the FM of CoD so I don`t know what to complain about. One thing I know, some things should be in the game, period. Going back to IL21946 there are many examples : Russian fighters could get past 700km/h without falling apart - that`s a big mistake. If the Me109G6 1943 has MK103 in the nose, that`s a big mistake. If a P51 can outturn a Me109 under 400km/h under 5000m, that`s a big mistake.
What do I mean? I mean that some of the biggest flaws of the real planes must be pronounced as they were in real life. Another example - the sheer fact that the Russian fighters had manual CEM and German had automatic, meant FAR better situation for the LW, but the IL2 game didn`t underline it.

I don`t see how complaining about 5mph is good, but I can see the other problems which should be resolved. The main aspects of flying a certain aeroplane must be in the game, because without them, we have no simulation.

At a certain point in the IL2 life, there was a time when the Bf109 was a really twitchy plane, easy to stall and unstable. You can`t say that wasn`t something to complain about.

[Widow17]

5 kph make a hughe difference i think, and yes the goal should be as realistic as possible, where do you draw the border if not? and I dont like fantasy planes

[Buchon]

Agree, I dont want fantasy planes in a simulator either.

I dont mind in Battlefield 3, but a Simulator is supposed to have simulation inside.

[ZaltysZ]

Small errors are such little nasty things, whose like to accumulate. If you allow few kph off here, few m/s off there and so on, in the end you may get something very off.