![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It made a couple of the middle 109's quite, quite good. That's for sure. It also made the separation of some of the FW models (like the A5-vs-A6) much wider. While their performance figures are almost identical the A6's armament makes it a much more formiddable opponent. Not saying that's a bad thing, just a fact. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
For me personally it´s not about domination of one side(excellent comment Avimus, I learned a lot from it). It´s more or less about historical correctnes and this is not happening in the game.
You have a Polikarpov I-185, that never existed, with the best flying abilitys ever and great guns, where nobody knows how that thing was flying in the first place(2 prototypes that fell out of the sky). Fortunately not many servers have it. And on the other side you have castrated planes or characteristics like the Browning 50 cal.(I´m not talking about blue planes now as many red pilots feel aparently offended if I do). This simulator is said to be a WW2 simulation, so it claims to be a historical simulation and the community says it´s one of the best. I love this sim too for this very reason, but seeing the arguments above, I must say, it has some aspects of a fantasy game. Now why am I writing this? Not to provoke anyone or to put anyone off(especially not Oleg Maddox, as he has done more than anyone else for the sim-world) This is meant as a constructive input. I would like things to be historically corrected for the future either for IL2 or SoW, in order to really be able to enjoy a historical simulation. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Truly historical accuracy in a simulation would make it unflyable for at least half the community population. Either because it would simply be too hard to put in the effort necessary to learn it (consider the fact people said exactly that about this sim 8 years ago) or it would simply be too hard for some to learn. Add to that the ridiculously complex physics and graphics computations and it's likely most pc's wouldn't be able to run it. If realistic torque were modeled, people would bitch so loud you'd think Oleg was a lunatic, but the fact is, in this sim (and likely in subsequent sims) we will really only get a glimpse of truly accurate FM modeling. If you had the accuracy you claim to desire, it's unlikely you, or many others, would enjoy it. Understand I'm not advocationg for dumbing down FM's. I'm just saying that in reality the market for a sim as accurate as you describe is likely not large enough to support it economically...unless of course the military were to subsidize it as well. Last edited by Thunderbolt56; 02-19-2009 at 08:09 PM. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The things you point out might be too complex to program them correctly but some of the things that are implemented aren´t implemented correctly. Some are overpowered and others underpowered. And actually these should be corrected. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And here we come to another factor. IL-2 is IMO so far the game with best scaling I ever saw and this goes to both, graphics and more importantly for this topic difficulty. There are so many difficulty options that one can scale il2 from high fidelity simulation to sunday afternoon shootout arcade. But what happened? The thing commonly reffered to as "elitism", some people coudn't handle more realistic settings but also couldn't accept it and simply turn off the options that were in the way of their fun. And then, on the 7th day - the whined at O.M. Pffft one of the worst things for IL-2 was so many "inputs" on ubi... I would even go THAT far and say that the best thing that could possibly happen for SoW is O.M.'s absence from us Quote:
I remember there was a small DF server ran by a female in the past, she simply turned off the torque, that's one of the reasons I love females so much - they usually throw much less BS around... Quote:
This is also one of the reasons simulation genre is barely living...too many people want instant gratification. The would all like to be uber aces with no effort, well they can play Ace Combat on "Realistic" settings thinking they would be awsome pilots IRL - LOL |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
MOD is LIFE! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
90% auor comunity like and want absolutely the max realism in FM, guns, velocity, aceleration, trying follow the tecnical data, fisicals and aerodinamics caracteristic.
I dont care about realism to start the engine. Realism is not soo hard, this comunity is ready.
__________________
MOD is LIFE! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now a year or two ago a number of people took the average number of bullets the average fighter in WWII would sustain from weapons like a 20mm cannon and a .50cal machine gun. I can't find the thread on the Ubi forums anymore but basically it came down to the fact that the "average" number of bullets required in IL-2 and in data we could find from World War II and after was fairly close. I apologise for only being able to mention and not cite the exact information but I took away from it that what we have is close. Very close all things considered. Its not perfect and in some ways we're at a disadvantage due to the inadequacies of the damage modeling system...but given the limitations of the technology and the limitations of time working on such a project I think what we have is so close to reality that anyone who is talking seriously...I mean seriously...is going to be splitting hairs over a couple of percentage points plus or minus. The .50cal is a weapon that keeps coming up and I think that the biggest problem is the interpretation from years of watching The History Channel. It was not a perfect weapon but...in real life and in the game if you use it correctly then it will shred the enemy. Its biggest disadvantage is that its a weapon that breaks stuff inside the plane...and the damage model could stand to have a few more objects inside each plane that can be hit. But the average number of hits its still quite close to history if the numbers and testing are to be believed. The I-185 did fly and presumably was tested so no doubt there is information to base the flight model on. Its probably optimistic and its fun to have...but its not likely to show up in a serious historical mission. Thats ok. It was a FUN bonus project (I believe it was third party)....and I think the real goal there was to show off what texture baking could do for the quality of cockpit. Its ok to have fun with history too.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
MOD is LIFE! |
![]() |
|
|