Realism, whats missing?

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?

Applying takeoff power before oil temp is at least 40 degrees Celsius, and - for air cooled engines - CHT is 100 degrees Cesius, is a big no-no.

Having to turn the prop before startup.

The pre-flight.

I'll say it again: the pre-flight.

The actual visceral experience and significant physical and mental demands of managing and operating an aircraft and relevant systems.

Working the radios, which depending on where you're flying, can be the hardest part of flying.



Detail things I'm not sure of:

Drag coefficients per airframe type.

Dynamic pressure on control surfaces at higher speeds.

Typical control surface effectiveness being reduced once deflected beyond ~.23 rads.

How propeller efficiency is modeled.


In short, the truth is that desktop flying is simplified in the extreme. It is never smart to assume someone can fly a plane in real life, just because they flew one in a video game, no matter how "authentic" they convince themselves it is. There is an awful lot more to flying than just flying the aircraft...

[BadAim]

Ok, I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I think you guys are answering the wrong question. The question that I see (although not articulated) is this: "If I'm in a Cessna with my buddy and he has a heart attack or he passes out from some medical condition, will my experience with IL2 help me not die?"

My answer is yes, of course it will! If you have someone on the other end of the radio that can give you approach speeds and flap settings and the like, I bet you'll be just fine. I mean you know what an altimeter is and you know what flaps are, and you know which way to push the stick to make the nose go down (and up). You might very well still splat yourself all over the runway, but you'll have a hell of a lot better chance than the average schmuck (which is to say, any chance at all).

That said, keep studying Sailboat, you never know when you might need your skills..........

[Treetop64]

Put that way, absolutely. I agree.

The knowledge gained will certainly give you a better chance than the schmuck who's likely to confuse the pedals for the gas and brake.

[MaxGunz]

IL-2 simulates flight and does not have _all_ the real factors and motions but does cover the major aspects down to a number of minor effects.

But when near the ground the differences between the sim and reality get a bit farther apart. What ground-effect simulating there is only occurs over landing strips and covers what happens less well than could be desired.

Some of the planes seem to have too much lift at low speeds though it was worse in release versions of FB and Aces. At very high speeds the differences between the simulation and reality spread out more and more with increase in speed, effects of compression on props and airframe is not detailed giving a noticeable difference in results that many players have shown.

Even if you can find charts for a particular IL-2 model, matching down to the prop/engine/etc, the performance of IL-2 will have places that do not match.
You get in the real plane and expect to change speed or alt in a certain way then you could possibly get in trouble especially near to ground where IL-2 less fully covers effects and differences can lead to unwanted contact with the ground then what would your last words be?

Have a chance? Certainly. Maybe a good one. You might even learn something about wind socks IRL but you won't in IL-2.

[K_Freddie]

IL2 doesn't have this, but neither does DCS, strangely enough for a 'study sim'.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4m8fc52j0k...Turn_Smart.flv

But IL2 does model yaw stalling sooo much better than DCS - they were very upset when I told them so. DCS does seem lack a few FMs, but generally the feel is smoother than IL2 and does feel more like a real plane.

The engine startup procedures are nice in DCS and one has to be carefull with certain items as you could blow them (Engine starter).
IF TD can implement these things into IL2, DCS would take a backseat as it still lacks a lot wrt gameplay.

[T}{OR]

Interesting. I was told that IL2 over exaggerates certain effects and FM/DM, in general DCS is more difficult to fly (P-51). In my short flying experience, DCS, CloD and RoF feel much closer to what I experienced when flying a Cessna.

Never yaw stalled in my virtual sim life, guess I'll have to try it some time.

[K_Freddie]

Sorry.. meant with a bit of elevator input + full yaw.

Using a P51 in IL2 and DCS.. I tried to snap roll it using full elevator and rudder with no aerolons. Engine was on idle to minimize torque and propwash.

1) The IL2 replied with immediate wing stall and roll
2) The DCS P51 made an attempt to yaw and nose up.. and refused to do anything. It hung there wobbling, as if in a software loop that was going nowhere. They went off their rockers when I pointed this out....

Having found that great instructional video that I've posted, I set up both aircraft turning with full yaw and slight cross controls, so as to keep it just on the stall zone. I then applied full aerolon which should have induced a stall.

DCS again did nothing and rolled in the direction of application, still refusing to stall when I applied complete cross controls.
IL2 also did not respond fully but did wobble a bit... and was much slower to roll over - but effectively showed that this FM wasn't modeled that much.

[Alexovercozumel]

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago. I do think this sim would help non pilots in an emergency with such a plane.

About warbirds, I came across this while reading reviews on IL2 1946:

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik...owViewpoints=1

"I've been a pilot for over 40 years and have flown everything from '20s biplanes to Navy carrier jets...and this sim is awesome.

Note: it is on DVD not CD as stated here. And it is NOT a game. There is a significant learning curve involved to successfully fly these aircraft in full-on realistic mode. It does have 'simple' modes that make it possible for anyone to fly, but don't think of this as an arcade game in any sense.

Trust me, if you can fly these birds in full realism mode, with a little time flying under the supervision of an instructor you can fly the real thing. Here there are fewer cues (just sight and sound), but in real aircraft you also have so-called proprioceptive sensations too (the seat of your pants, for one), among others.

Buy it, you'll like it! The graphics are gorgeous, the scenarios are amazing. You won't find modern airliners, but you'll find most of the WW2 machines (Russian, German, Japanese, British and American).

A flight over the cliffs of dover at sunset in a Spitfire may bring tears to your eyes...it did me."

What do you think?

Watch your six, Alex

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Alexovercozumel

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago.

Closest I've ever come to losing my lunch in an aircraft was when a buddy and I took a Tomahawk up over Williams, CA for some stalls and falls years ago during my Coast Guard days. Fun airplane!

[Buster_Dee]

An old friend was a student in of one of the accelerated P-51 courses. He told me these small schools were closed when the main ones proved adequate for number of pilots needed. He lost several classmates from the engine torque effects: not a few departed the runway and caught fire. The Army reassigned him as a combat engineer. He told me he felt safer in the second-wave of the Normandy landings.

Hats off to those who master combat aircraft.