Il2 sturmovik original fight model was different?

[JtD]

The tracks won't work any more, but attached two screenshots of v1.2.

[Derda508]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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.

Thank you for this one!
It can get really tiring to read the posts of people who are convinced that their personal way of doing things is the one and only correct way.
There are a multitude of ways to play Il2 and the right one is just the one you have most fun with. And this might just be the reason why Il2 is still alive and as fascinating as ever.

[Blackjack]

I did fly 1.2 sometimes just for fun, and depending on the patch level of the old il2, they are quite difderent, not the individual models.

The energy bleeding in 1.2 feels excessive if not exaggerated, flying an il2 does not feel like flying an aircraft with an powerful engine, but like a brick with extended airbrakes.

This all changed with the release of forgotten battles, and resulted in some general flight model between il2 1.0 and 1.2, as there is no il2 compare data , this is how it 'feels' having flown those versions on- and offline.

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by Bolelas

I was told that the original sturmovik game was much more difficult (regarding the flight model) and that the folowing versions were "softened" to make the game more arcade style in order to atract more begginers. Is it true? The guy that said that to me also said the game had more realistic stalls and spins, trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again?

Your friend needs to take off his foil hat.

From personal experience with the Il-2 Demo and Il-2 FB, the old FM systems are pretty lack-luster in comparison to the current one. Everything flies on rails, and I don't think the spin and torque behavior was great either. Still, it was the best at the time (Microsoft CFS:1 FM's are joke, and everything looks like the 1/2x slow-motion guncam footage you see everywhere).

The introduction of Pacific Fighters brought a new FM system which improved the feeling of flight. There will always be issues with individual aircraft performance, and some aspects of the flight envelope are simplified to run on PC's at decent FPS, but overall, it's quite good, and only superseded by the latest flight sim systems like CloD and DCS.

So, although the FM isn't perfect, it's satisfactory to me, and I do have real-world flight experience, though not in WWII aircraft.

Originally Posted by jermin

blah, blah, blah...

Well, that was an entertaining read. I have to ask though, why are you still here?

[jermin]

Don't want to start a fight, but this is not your territory either. Stop being sounding like a host. Actually I was here 4 years before you came. Just sit and watch, mate.

[JtD]

The flight models never were more realistic than they are now. In Il-2 early days, AI occasionally swapped the plane around and continued chasing you tail first. Quite a sight. Unfortunately I can't find a youtube video.

[Luno13]

You mean, like, flying backwards? Whoa man, I'm trippin' out.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Luno13

You mean, like, flying backwards? Whoa man, I'm trippin' out.

Yes, exactly. It was a rare thing to happen, but happened.

Generally it was easier flying backwards, pulling up vertical and then start a tailslide. I managed to go under a bridge, turn the plane around and continue flying that way, as well as several backwards landings.

Good old days, was a lot of fun. But certainly not realistic.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by Bolelas

... trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again?

That alone couldn't be further away from the truth.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Bolelas

I was told that the original sturmovik game was much more difficult (regarding the flight model) and that the folowing versions were "softened" to make the game more arcade style in order to atract more begginers. Is it true? The guy that said that to me also said the game had more realistic stalls and spins, trim behavior (reacted more to spedd changes) torque etc. Was it more realistic or just more difficult? If it was more realistic, why dont we get it back again?

LOL!

The original FM was able to run on the average gaming PC in 2001. Later on elements were added or refined as computing power increased.

As to how hard -- In 2001/2002 it was harder for those of us (practically all of us) used to what came before. Reading was harder in 1st grade too.

Some time around 3.2 there was a thread at UBI where many RL pilots, aerobatics pilots and instructors weighed in on the inability to fly a stall and speculations as to why.. some kind of auto-rudder. Following that was announcement that the FM from the upcoming new game (much upgraded IL-2 FM with weight distribution modeled) would be transferred over and then it was.
4.01 knocked a lot of people over. Rudder control was required to fly right, and not just token efforts. But it took until the handling changes of 4.07 where stick data was interpreted a bit differently before it became comfortable, and still those who didn't learn about rudder or slip/skid did not do so well and of course blamed the game as unreal for it.

Sometimes one feature has been dropped to allow others but the only one I feel ambivalent about is when engine destruction went from a drawn-out path to quicker in general. The game is a total system, we gained more with every release than we ever lost and then there were patches and patch fever as adjustments were made to what should have been given more time. Back in those days it was easy enough to understand the public beta test approach -- all you had to do was visit the screaming UBI ZOO to see why.

It is now the best it's ever been. Harder does not define better especially when 'harder' is just 'screwier' misspelled.