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

[JtD]

Guys, please keep it civil. Stay nice, show respect, you know the drill.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by 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?

Exactly, and in some selected cases, much more so than others. Give yourself permission to switch from 'Cockpit Only' to the various flavors of Wonder Woman view, and compare where the in-cockpit 'ball' is to where the vector ball in Wonder Woman is located (the vector ball is supposed to be the correct data). In several aircraft, the in cockpit ball needs to be slightly offset to actually be 'right', in others, the in-cockpit ball (or needle, in the case of the RAF birds) is a bit slow to respond or tends to over-react to minor stick or rudder inputs and takes a while to settle down...

There are other aircraft where these and other instruments, notably the climb and dive indicators, are right on the money without obvious delays (examples: Zero, Ki-43, Ki-61), and others where there is a clear delay or consistent error (example: any USN fighter), even compared to the in cockpit altitude display. There is often some offset, obscuring or ambiguity in the dial or indicator lines. The original stated intent was to depict the 'historical' behaviors and errors in the aircrafts' cockpit instruments, but it is very much a matter of interpretation and frankly, prejudice.

When all the player has to 'fly' with is the output of his cockpit instruments and a few audio and a maximum 105 degree wide field of view, it doesn't seem right to me that the instruments' outputs should be subject to a third party's 'interpretation'...

There is also the matter of some cockpit displays being made unnecessarily difficult to read in Wide or (in some cases) Normal views, even using an HD quality widescreen over 24" diagonally. There are some cockpits where the instruments are out of focus or hard to read at all but the Gunsight View setting.

Part of this is probably due to the fact that when the game was originally designed, the vast majority of us were playing with CRT monitors of 17" or less, so sharper detail would have been wasted, but it's getting a little harder to take every year, and we obviously have the means to fix it, at least in part. Several cockpits have been the subject of repaints recently, and I don't see any reason to continue tailoring instrument outputs to be more or less imprecise according to someone else's opinion (all aircraft instruments are equal, but some are more equal than others, apparently), when the true data is tracked relentlessly by the game--the instruments should be made to be accurate and depict your true state of trim, turn, climb, altitude and horizon, at least until we can get the seat of the pants and inner ear data input into our brainstem plugs (preferably via USB adapters).

cheers

horseback