I realize that the P-51 CoG was moved but,

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Given that there are a lot of Mustangs still flying, maybe rather than quoting books at each other, maybe we ought to ask an actual Mustang driver what trim control is like?

While I'm hugely enjoying the debate between two long-time flight simmers who have a lot of knowledge to back them up, it seems like we ought to defer to the actual experts who fly the things. (With some leeway for the fact that most modern 'stangs no longer fly with guns, armor plate, overflow tanks and all the other stuff that 1944-era planes carried.)

Furthermore, having a few actual warbird pilots confirm or deny our suspicions that the Mustang is nerfed would carry a lot more weight with TD than more "chart wars."

Not the first time this thought has come up but keep in mind that warbirds won't always represent their wartime equivalents perfectly. Generally being lighter and their pilots often flying them with less power and in less adverse conditions.

There's also a fair bit of love for the Mustang so even if it had bad trim they would still love it to death and tell you the trim was godly. You'd need to get a hold of a real warbird pilot expert with more of a test pilot like attitude.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

There's also a fair bit of love for the Mustang so even if it had bad trim they would still love it to death and tell you the trim was godly. You'd need to get a hold of a real warbird pilot expert with more of a test pilot like attitude.

What does Capt. Eric Brown have to say about the P-51's trim and handling? He seems to be most knowledgeable about the different warbird types and fairly even-handed in his assessment of them.

I recall him praising the Mustang's range effusively, but being a bit more reserved about its maneuverability.

Also, it seems a bit strange that instruments in each plane in IL2 are modeled individually. Most countries standardized around one or two models of a particular instrument, so a particular model should be the same regardless of what plane it's installed in.

[MaxGunz]

A bit more reasonably, the different countries/manufacturers used different fluid and balls in the slip gauges and where they were different the IL2 gauge takes that into account.
Obviously not every little tidbit on every model got complete full treatment even with the upgrades that some models did get. They may have stopped short of counting rivets as well as not having oleos in the struts of all planes or gotten every compass right for that matter but they did get a whole lot in and done without saying about all of it.
There have been more than a few cries of bug where no, it was deliberate simulation of actual history.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

A bit more reasonably, the different countries/manufacturers used different fluid and balls in the slip gauges and where they were different the IL2 gauge takes that into account.
Obviously not every little tidbit on every model got complete full treatment even with the upgrades that some models did get. They may have stopped short of counting rivets as well as not having oleos in the struts of all planes or gotten every compass right for that matter but they did get a whole lot in and done without saying about all of it.
There have been more than a few cries of bug where no, it was deliberate simulation of actual history.

While the motive might be considered admirable, where no data is available, it becomes a matter of the programmers' best guess and uneven treatment. Hence Japanese instruments that seemed to me to react near-instantly and much more accurately than their counterparts in aircraft from the country that supplied most of the licensed original designs.

In a flight sim where there is a one-eyed tunnel vision view instead of a full range field of view and an absolute dependence upon the instrument displays instead of a seat of the pants 'feel', accurate instrument displays in a full-real cockpit seem to me to be both fairer and more realistic than the current method.

I would assume that the 'correct' data would be available via Devicelink, which would confer an unfair advantage on those who were able to take the trouble and expense of setting up an accurate and/or (at least) legible cockpit display on a second screen. Isn't that the same class of exploit that the thrice cursed trim delay was supposed to defeat and make the game fairer?

cheers

horseback

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by horseback

While the motive might be considered admirable, where no data is available, it becomes a matter of the programmers' best guess and uneven treatment. Hence Japanese instruments that seemed to me to react near-instantly and much more accurately than their counterparts in aircraft from the country that supplied most of the licensed original designs.

In a flight sim where there is a one-eyed tunnel vision view instead of a full range field of view and an absolute dependence upon the instrument displays instead of a seat of the pants 'feel', accurate instrument displays in a full-real cockpit seem to me to be both fairer and more realistic than the current method.

I would assume that the 'correct' data would be available via Devicelink, which would confer an unfair advantage on those who were able to take the trouble and expense of setting up an accurate and/or (at least) legible cockpit display on a second screen. Isn't that the same class of exploit that the thrice cursed trim delay was supposed to defeat and make the game fairer?

cheers

horseback

Devicelink was set up to allow people to make and use their own instrument panels. It should reflect what you see in cockpit.

Do you have any difficulty making charges against Maddox Games and DT for not checking when you don't check what they have done? Just wondering.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Devicelink was set up to allow people to make and use their own instrument panels. It should reflect what you see in cockpit.

Do you have any difficulty making charges against Maddox Games and DT for not checking when you don't check what they have done? Just wondering.

My understanding was that in order to use Devicelink, one needed a second computer, like an old laptop to process the data and provide the second display area. Since I couldn’t use my company-supplied laptop for this purpose, I pretty much put it out of my mind as an option for myself, but occasionally looked at what other people were saying about it out of curiosity. The old Ubi forum had a long running thread dedicated to it, and occasionally Devicelink devotees would start new threads showing and sometimes offering use of their custom-built instrument displays. Most of these displays were fairly complete, and I figured that they would be used to display the same ‘accurate’ data shown in the Wonder Woman view, only in more convenient and legible format(s). In addition, during some of the trim debates on these boards, some people cited the outputs of Devicelink about tracking trim inputs, which would indicate to me that all of the game’s data about the Player’s aircraft would be available (in some form) via Devicelink.

Since the various Devicelink posts that I have read never specifically addressed the issue of delays or accuracy and since the ‘correct’ information is clearly also generated (and scrupulously tracked by the game), it made sense—and continues to make sense—to me that the Devicelink data would be the full accurate Magilla, including stuff like a climb and dive indicator, a turn and bank display, an altimeter, critical engine instruments and fuel states—even for aircraft whose cockpit displays don’t include these things or in the case of fuel tanks, don’t work in the cockpit display.

I am surprised and disappointed to hear that it might not, but since you clearly didn’t check your own assumptions and claims about the Mustang video I linked, you might want to back off on the righteous indignation. You say that Devicelink “should reflect what you see in the cockpit”; have you checked to confirm that this claim is correct or are you playing the “I (assume I) know and you don’t” card—again?

cheers

horseback

[sniperton]

Max, I, too, am sceptical about horseback's issue regarding P-51 trimming (I think P-51 trimming is just normal compared to other planes), but I completely agree with this point by him:

Originally Posted by horseback

In a flight sim where there is a one-eyed tunnel vision view instead of a full range field of view and an absolute dependence upon the instrument displays instead of a seat of the pants 'feel', accurate instrument displays in a full-real cockpit seem to me to be both fairer and more realistic than the current method.

It might sound paradoxical, but as we lack a lot of visual and non-visual flight info (what a RL pilot had), the kind of 'realism' we have is only partial and therefore a bit unfair. And those who have a 2nd display with the instruments have an advantage over those who don't have one -- just as a shortsighted person with his glasses on has an advantage over shortsighted persons without glasses. It's a fact, not a charge against anyone. The question is how we handicapped could get some similar aid.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Max, I, too, am sceptical about horseback's issue regarding P-51 trimming (I think P-51 trimming is just normal compared to other planes), but I completely agree with this point by him:



It might sound paradoxical, but as we lack a lot of visual and non-visual flight info (what a RL pilot had), the kind of 'realism' we have is only partial and therefore a bit unfair. And those who have a 2nd display with the instruments have an advantage over those who don't have one -- just as a shortsighted person with his glasses on has an advantage over shortsighted persons without glasses. It's a fact, not a charge against anyone. The question is how we handicapped could get some similar aid.

Old story, those with better PC's, bigger monitors or better controls also have an advantage.

You can run IL2 in a window and put a bank of virtual instruments run through devicelink below, above or to the sides of the IL2 window. They don't have to be physical gauges.

I believe that Maddox Games did the best job they could given hardware, time and money. I keep seeing people who know little of making such games work pulling "it needs" critiques out of their imaginations. Sure, it needs to be real planes for all the good that will do!

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Old story, those with better PC's, bigger monitors or better controls also have an advantage.

My point is not advantage/disadvantage in the sense of competitiveness. I rarely fly online, and I don't complain about others having what I don't have (but could have if I wished to convert our flat to a hanger). My point is more theoretical. What we call 'full realism' (e.g. in Il2 settings) is basically the faithful representation of one fraction of the sensual input a RL pilot has. It's faithful, but I wouldn't call it 'realistic', for it very much limited in its scope. This is the truth, but not the full truth, so to say. Wonder Woman View, on the other hand, represents a different approach as it transforms the widest range of RL sensual inputs into one single artificial image which is unrealistic as to details, but more faithful to the 'big picture' (a sort of substitute for the inner ear, peripheral vision, etc). Between these two extremes there are very few possibilities ingame, speedbar on/off, but what else? When horseback requires the ball to be less 'realistic' and more accurate, or the actual trim setting be displayed somehow, then it's a legitimate wish IMHO.

[pandacat]

Am I reading that some of the cockpit instruments are inaccurate? Meaning even if you see your turn and bank ball centered, your plane is actually skidding?