I hate the wrong data in Il2 strmovik 1946

[flyingbullseye]

Guys you're getting no where with this dude, he's been hitting the koolaid hard. Appearently it really is the plane not the pilot. Which then beckens the question. Since the Germans really had the wonder weapon (FW190) how did the allied fighters not only manage to shoot any down but gain air superiority? It shouldn't have mattered that there was a lack of training, the Germans had the 190, its super ubber.

In regard to my point about the Zero and the 190. If you were to take on an A6M2 in your FW flying the angles fight he'd be on you so fast the only way to save your skin is to run. If you were to stay and try to continue the that type of fight your FW would suddenly get religious (full of holes ->holy) and you'd become another notch on the side of his fighter. You'd have to fight your fight, energy tactics, thus taking away many of his advantages over you and dictating the terms of engagement in order to win.

I'm sorry but I have a real hard time believing that you have been flying this sim for years and know the tactics yet continue to argue generalilities, ie victory in air combat goes to the one with the fastest a/c or most manuverable, best firepower, best climb ect with no regard to any advantage the opposing a/c or pilot skill has over you or your ride.

All your arguments are proving IceFire, Former_Older and others correct that you have a skewed take on history and probably getting pasted in your favorite ride and that's clashing with what you believe to be true. The FW 190 and many other German fighters were a great fighters but like ALL the others they're not the all around best. Against any opponent they had advantages over them and vise versa.

BTW, what the he!! is the gringory channel? Is this another history channel? Never heard of it. Might want to call my cable company friday I think I'm getting screwed. lol

Flyingbullseye

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

I think the easiest way of explaining this to Sturm, is Hypothetically.Ok put near sighted grandma who has no race experience, in say a 2008 Subaru WRX and a rally champion veteran in say a Volkswagen beatle 1966 model.Put them both on a 2km hard rally track, Who will win? Grandma or the rally champ? Well i know where my money is going,how about you?

[Brain32]

Wow you guys are very reasonable...too bad you are never reasonable when it comes to other planes people complain about LOOOOOOOL

I think the easiest way of explaining this to Sturm, is Hypothetically.Ok put near sighted grandma in say a 2008 Subaru WRX and a rally champion veteran in say a Volkswagen beatle 1966 model.Put them both on a 2km hard rally track, Who will win? Grandma or the rally champ? Well i know where my money is going,how about you?

Was that Grandma ever a qualified rally driver? If she was my money goes on her, if she wasn't your comparision is lacking...

[Feuerfalke]

So true, Brain32!


On the other side: Who said that IL2 is realistic in every regard and detail? It's not. It's still a game, a pc-simulation-game, one of the most realistic there is, but still a game.

And this claiming of data is irrelevant, honestly. IL2 does not modell all aspects of physics and the engine is over 10 years old. Many planes just work with a load of work-arounds and scripting, others are missing important plane-parts, like coolers and stuff, because of engine limitations.

And you ask for realistic data?

Sorry, but this discussion reminds me to pre-schoolers discussing if Superman or Captain America would win a duel in real life.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

So true, Brain32!


On the other side: Who said that IL2 is realistic in every regard and detail? It's not. It's still a game, a pc-simulation-game, one of the most realistic there is, but still a game.

And this claiming of data is irrelevant, honestly. IL2 does not modell all aspects of physics and the engine is over 10 years old. Many planes just work with a load of work-arounds and scripting, others are missing important plane-parts, like coolers and stuff, because of engine limitations.

And you ask for realistic data?

Sorry, but this discussion reminds me to pre-schoolers discussing if Superman or Captain America would win a duel in real life.

+1

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

So true, Brain32!


On the other side: Who said that IL2 is realistic in every regard and detail? It's not. It's still a game, a pc-simulation-game, one of the most realistic there is, but still a game.

And this claiming of data is irrelevant, honestly. IL2 does not modell all aspects of physics and the engine is over 10 years old. Many planes just work with a load of work-arounds and scripting, others are missing important plane-parts, like coolers and stuff, because of engine limitations.

And you ask for realistic data?

Sorry, but this discussion reminds me to pre-schoolers discussing if Superman or Captain America would win a duel in real life.

If you would see FM code for different planes in these game and check their data you would be very dissapoinment -and not because of weak engine. Engine of these game is still quite good and allow to create accurate pefromance like maximum speed at different alts, climb rate, turn rate etc without big problem. But many planes in these game have 10% data in their code for FM so thats why these planes have such questionable preformance or data for these planes are from space not reliable books, monograhps etc. So in game Bf 109 G-2 has lower weight then F-2 for example, some planes have only 2 critical points with maximum speed ( could have much more), there are many mistakes in type of engines performance, even such stupid bugs like wrong writed 10X bigger aerlione area in one type bf 109 then others, wrong - opossite effect of rudder in some planes bacuse simple mistake with direction. Bugs are many and were never corrected even if community was speaking about it in Oleg Ready Room and others forums. I know that these bugs, wrong datas and many things could be easly corrected and these game would be much better then now.

[ZaltysZ]

Some strange numbers can be just a very dirty workaround for curve fitting problems or just expression of Effect = coefficient * real world value.

For example: suppose you have made a parametric FM; have blueprints, engine data and charts; need to apply your FM (by choosing parameters) to this specific aircraft model. After choosing parameters (wing span, weight, power ant etc.) you notice that you get performance way to different from the one in charts. Probably your FM lacks something minor which gives major influence to this difference. You can rework all FM (and remodel all previous aircrafts) or to choose parameters in such way that performance will comply with charts while minimizing side effects. Such workaround is very attractive solution for consumer level product, especially when there are lots of problems for determining model accuracy.

By fixing those numbers in IL2 you may get something which you were not expecting (UFO, brick and etc).

P.S: there is nice saying in scientific community: No one, except the author, believes in new theory, however everyone, except the experimenter, believes in results of experiment. This should be also applied to test result of aircrafts.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

Some strange numbers can be just a very dirty workaround for curve fitting problems or just expression of Effect = coefficient * real world value.

For example: suppose you have made a parametric FM; have blueprints, engine data and charts; need to apply your FM (by choosing parameters) to this specific aircraft model. After choosing parameters (wing span, weight, power ant etc.) you notice that you get performance way to different from the one in charts. Probably your FM lacks something minor which gives major influence to this difference. You can rework all FM (and remodel all previous aircrafts) or to choose parameters in such way that performance will comply with charts while minimizing side effects. Such workaround is very attractive solution for consumer level product, especially when there are lots of problems for determining model accuracy.

By fixing those numbers in IL2 you may get something which you were not expecting (UFO, brick and etc).

P.S: there is nice saying in scientific community: No one, except the author, believes in new theory, however everyone, except the experimenter, believes in results of experiment. This should be also applied to test result of aircrafts.

Unfortunately and suprisly many of these bugs if were fixed to correct value, data etc casue more accuarate FM and peformance of some plane. Just they are simple mistakes, wrong writed numbers etc. It is possible that some of them was done to create a willing effect of performance some planes but many of them are just simple mistakes which hasn'nt corrected. Imagine that when you correct these values the plane start to fly like should

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Brain32

Wow you guys are very reasonable...too bad you are never reasonable when it comes to other planes people complain about LOOOOOOOL

I'm curious. Such as?

I'm interested in all planes pretty much and have a soft spot for allot of types... FW190 (which seems to be dominating this discussion) included.

[BadAim]

Superman is Uber, Captain America is just a poser, and would therefore get his a$$ kicked.