![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
The good thing about WWII aircraft is that they are much simpler. In a civilian/modern sim you can have all sorts of different engines, from regular pistons to turboprops to jets and they all have different principles of operation.
In IL2 and SoW all there is is the good old piston engine. It's not a mountain of knowledge, if you learn how piston engines work on one aircraft you've learned it for all aircraft. From that point on the only thing that changes is the operating limits. And if you don't want to remember them either, don't worry, they are clearly marked on the instruments with colored arcs: green=good, yellow=caution, red=bad I seriously doubt that a bunch of seasoned flight simmers will find it hard to keep a needle within a colored arc after reading the manual once It's a bit of extra stuff to do on those boring transit legs of the route, it adds an extra dimension to combat because you need to think wether your attack profile will push your engine outside its operating limits and most of all, it's not that difficult to be considered the realm of masochists, it's just as complicated as it needs to be to present a welcome and satisfying challenge when you learn how it works. In fact, it's dead simple and you don't even have to wait for SoW to see what it's all about. Have a look here if you're interested and you'll see exactly what is not only simplified, but in many cases completely opposite to how things operate betweem IL2 and the real world: http://www.a2asimulations.com/wingso...sim_Manual.pdf |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Il2 does not give to the aircraft historically easy to manage and more features for pilot help any advantage. Last edited by Ernst; 09-24-2010 at 07:16 PM. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
As for favoring the better pilot, there are a lot of different kinds of better pilots. Some shoot better, some fly better and others prepare better. The first two kinds of pilot are already able to show their skill in IL2. What will change by including realistic systems modelling is that it will enable the third kind of pilots to do the same
I don't know if SoW will include all that. However, i have a feeling it will be able to include them in the future. We didn't have perfect mode, water=3 and radio navigation in IL2 either back in 2001, but we have the first two now and we're about to get the third one thanks to team daidalos (just to gently steer the discussion back on topic ) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
S!
I see what you mean, but if you compare today's piston engines to WW2 ones there is a difference So operating these engines differs quite a bit as the margins with the "war engines" are smaller and require more attention from the pilot, tedious maintenance to dish out the HP and be somewhat reliable. With the Lycomings and similar the flying and maintenance is VERY simple, requiring less. Done some on Lycomings So that is what SoW should bring, attention to what you do and how you manage the engine. SoW will bring more high fidelity and also wear & tear, if still in the features. You need to watch those gauges, in IL-2 they are more or less just showing something and you do not have to worry much. The design philosophy also plays a role in a sim, if modelled. If you compare Hurricane/Spitfire vs Bf109E cockpits, there are more levers and stuff to operate in the RAF birds than in Bf109E, which increases the workload for the pilot. Compare today's HOTAS jets against the older jets and you see the same difference. Less work for the pilot = more of his resources are committed to fighting. Oh well..the wait is nearing it's end soonish so we will see |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Over the years, flying has become safer. There are more instruments on a modern aircraft, but they allow you to do things that were impossible in earlier eras (such as 0/0 landings). You may have to learn more instruments, but in the end, it becomes easier to accomplish the same tasks in a modern aircraft. Compare navigating with a hand-cranked hoop ADF vs. GPS. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
very good update and good news for all, i hope for thanksgiving or holidays release, thanks oleg
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Land long? No problem, just reverse the thrust and you will be going backwards in seconds. Rocks on that cloud you just flew into? No problem, just throw on some more throttle and climb over those rocks like a helicopter. I'm being silly of course because in real life I would rather have a turboprop in most bad situations. That's assuming I could afford the fuel costs. Splitter |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
The turboprop would be less expensive to operate than a Merlin, P&W, Allison, DB, etc...
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
... but have no charm at all. Turbojets, turboprops and turbofans are like flying vacuumcleaners to me. Pulsejets, ramjets and scramjets are even worse.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|