FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

FM of P51

<<

Trooper117

User avatar

Posts: 2400

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:24 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: FM of P51

Ace,Jesus mate.. you are doing it again.. just drop it.
This is a UP forum.. if you hate UP stay out of it.
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:54 pm

Re: FM of P51

Trooper117 wrote:Ace,Jesus mate.. you are doing it again.. just drop it.
This is a UP forum.. if you hate UP stay out of it.

Doing what again?

By the way what you and phill precise as pathological hatred is in error

It is simply my dedication to realism and my thorniness as an engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for 15+ years
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: FM of P51

tater718 wrote:Go tell it to an engineer then.

Go tell what?

can any of you formulate a sentence to specify just what it is you think I am doing wrong here?

As DM noted I have not broken any rules here

You all keep stating your opinions wrt the topic at hand

Why do you feel it should end there?

Am I not allowed to post my opinion on the topic at hand?

You guys really need to step back, count to 10 and take a 2nd look here

Just because you don't have an answer to the question put to you or nothing to support you claims here does not give you the right to systematically attack me and my opinions
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: FM of P51

tater718 wrote:Here is a complete sentence for you.
I don't want this topic locked because of you. That's what's going to happen.

And here is one for you

Your the one posting silly little replys back to me and other trying to vent the flames

Read posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand

For example care to explain to me how any of the following comments were on topic

tater718
My comments express my views. If there are opposing viewpoints, I like to hear them. But let's keep this civil, OK?


tater718
A dedicated FLAME section? Hmmmm.........verrrry interestink!


tater718
Go tell it to an engineer then.


Because all I see is you egging people on with such comments

Thus IMHO if it gets locked you got no one to blaim but yourself

SAVVY?
<<

Trooper117

User avatar

Posts: 2400

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:24 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: FM of P51

ACE-OF-ACES wrote:
Trooper117 wrote:Ace,Jesus mate.. you are doing it again.. just drop it.
This is a UP forum.. if you hate UP stay out of it.

Doing what again?

By the way what you and phill precise as pathological hatred is in error

It is simply my dedication to realism and my thorniness as an engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for 15+ years


Dedication to realism is one thing, however, this is not realism, this is just a game mate..
I'll tell you what realism is. Take a powerful prop driven aircraft and actualy throw it around the sky and 'really' carry out some WWII air combat manouvres, take some sustained 7 G's and fight the effects whilst doing it.. then return to IL2 'the game' and tell me its anywhere near reality..
This is a game, pure and simple, and no matter how you dress it up it will never be anything like the real thing.
What is supposed to be fun and light relief for the masses is 'apparently' supposed to be real??? It isn't believe me, and its not worth getting all bitter and twisted about.
All the fighting between the different modding sites is getting comical and ultimately sad, simply because its all about suspending reality to 'pretend' that the gamer is flying WWII combat missions, not actualy con them that it is actualy real.
I honestly believe that there are people out there that play this 'game', that really think they are capable of flying a real life combat mission, because they are good at 'gaming'.. it's laughable. I hate to burst some peoples bubble here, but this is absolutely nowhere near like the real thing..
<<

Murph

Posts: 780

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:33 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:40 pm

Re: FM of P51

The following is my opinion, which I claim the right to and you need not agree.
Yes, hard data on tests may not reflect how an individual example of a plane may have flown. On the other hand, the game does not allow for random variations of FM from one plane to another of the same type.
So, we are left with two approaches, or more often a combination of the two;
1. Get as close as possible to test data, which almost always confined itself two things; tests of speed at various altitudes, and climb rate(s). The great strength of this approach is that it deals in quantifiable, testable data.
2. Take into account test pilot and/or combat pilot reports concerning things like compressibility, turn rate at different speeds, stall characteristics, etc. This can actually matter in that planes behavior in field conditions could be affected by field upgrading/downgrading of engines, wear and tear, etc. Almost all of this is anecdotal however, and may put us on a slippery slope intellectually.

I think this topic warrants it's own section or at least thread. Trooper, I beg to differ. I think this ought to be an ongoing discussion, even if it can never be finally settled. Everything else about the game is cosmetic compared to this. And yes, I do understand and agree that it its just a game.
I think Aces flight tests are a good starting point for such a discussion, since they are transparent in methodology and testable.

Discussion of FM is important in that many people now have to choose which FM they would like to use for both on and offline play. Why not at least have the chance to make an informed choice?

I agree that it ought to be discussed somewhere other than in this thread, since this is meant to be only about UP. Let's try and keep this as objective and polite as we can.
<<

Trooper117

User avatar

Posts: 2400

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:24 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: FM of P51

Ace's tests have been methodical and I agree with what he has found.. I have even pm'd him in the past to tell him that.. but we have had dedicated threads on his findings and this is not the place to drag it all up again, and you know as well as I do that it will just go for a ball of chalk, it always does..
and why?.. 'realism'!
This game is not 'real'.. its for people to simply play at being a WWII pilot.
If you think this is like the real thing it isn't, it isn't even anywhere close to being like a real aircraft simulator.
People should take a step back and get a grip on reality and stop conning themselves that having perfect fm's make this 'real'.. it is just supposed to be fun for us enthusiasts, thats it!
<<

George Formby

User avatar

Posts: 202

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:38 pm

Location: Nashville, TN.......the Burbs

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: FM of P51

I can see where the wear and tear/just out of the crate would indeed effect the handling of a plane, same thing as when we went from old Bradley s to newer ones, the engines were falling apart and the new ones were so tight that you had to nurse em along until enough run hours were on them, so the argument for new craft or old worn craft handling tricky is legit in my opinion. As for Ace there, he does have a problem, and if you do what he does with FMs, compare his posts, you'll see he likes to argue for sake of arguing. Trooper your speaking the gospel mate, it's a sim game where most of us want to play the part of a WW2 pilot, and could really care less about all the charts and statistics to examine FM's. Getting into finger pointing about FMs and such is just trying to make it a drag, and ruining it for others, so Ace, for the sake of peace, stop being a smart @ss, it's more childish than noble.
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:36 pm

Re: FM of P51

Trooper117 wrote:Dedication to realism is one thing, however, this is not realism, this is just a game mate..

Granted IL-2 has options in it

Such that everyone can enjoy it

At one end of the scale you have the Quake high score wonder woman view types and at the other end you have the full switch no icon read the gauges types

Most of us fall somewhere in between those two extremes

Clearly from your statement you do not care about the performance realism

And of you want to turn off all the FM options and have your WWII planes fly like F16 that is fine

No one should begrudge you of definition of fun!

At the same time no one should begrudge me for wanting the flight model to be as accurate as it can be

In that it is fun to me to know I shot down the other guy due to my sim flying skills and not some over modled UFO of a plane

Your mileage may and clearly does vary

Trooper117 wrote:I'll tell you what realism is.

Correction

You will tell me what your definition of realism it

Which should not be confused with actual realism

Now lets proceed

Trooper117 wrote:Take a powerful prop driven aircraft and actually throw it around the sky and 'really' carry out some WWII air combat manouvres, take some sustained 7 G's and fight the effects whilst doing it.. then return to IL2 'the game' and tell me its anywhere near reality.. This is a game, pure and simple, and no matter how you dress it up it will never be anything like the real thing.

You seem to be under the impression that some of us here don't realize this is not reality?

Just so you know you could not be farther from the truth

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times over the past 20+ years of flying flight sims

That being

No flight sim ever was.. is.. or ever will be perfect

Hence the name simulation

But that does not mean we should not strive to make it as real as we can

For those that enjoy the realism aspect

Granted I understand that you Quake high score types don't care about how accurate a flight model is (i.e. realism)

But take a moment and put yourself in my shoes

As someone who does care about it

Trooper117 wrote:What is supposed to be fun and light relief for the masses is 'apparently' supposed to be real???

As noted above

A quick shoot-em-up Quake like game may be how you find light relief when playing IL-2

But keep in mind there is another end of the scale

Where folks like me appreciate the accuracy of the flight modeling

Trooper117 wrote:It isn't believe me, and its not worth getting all bitter and twisted about.

Again

I don't see anyone posting in this thread or any other for that mater that appears to be under the impression that the bullets in this game are real.

But just because it is not real does not mean we can not try to make it as real as possible

Especially with regards to the planes performance

Trooper117 wrote:All the fighting between the different modeling sites is getting comical and ultimately sad, simply because its all about suspending reality to 'pretend' that the gamer is flying WWII combat missions, not actually con them that it is actually real.

Again

Not sure what sites you going to but I have yet to see anyone post anything at any site that is under the impression that the bullets in this game are real

If you do come across such a person

Please go easy on them in that they clearly have issues that would require special care IMHO and kid gloves

Trooper117 wrote:I honestly believe that there are people out there that play this 'game', that really think they are capable of flying a real life combat mission, because they are good at 'gaming'.. it's laughable. I hate to burst some peoples bubble here, but this is absolutely nowhere near like the real thing..

As for flying

You statement tells me that you clearly put pilots on a pedestal

Keep in mind that they taught 20 year old kids to fly these birds in WWII

20 year old kids who for some they only experience with a machine was driving a tractor on their farm

So it does not require god like ability to fly a plane

As for combat itself

That is a whole other story

I was in the regular army for 4 years, the army reserve for another 6 and the air national guard for another 4

I never saw combat

And I thank god I never had to

And I thank the men and women who had to

In summary all I ask of you and yours who like to Quake it up with IL-2

And don't care if their Bf109 climbs 30% better than a real Bf109

Just remember that is your definition of fun

There are others like me at the other end of the scale that define fun in other ways and appreciate the realism of the flight modeling

Than I think we will all get along much better in the here and now an in the future

S!
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:44 pm

Re: FM of P51

Murph wrote:I think this topic warrants it's own section or at least thread. Trooper, I beg to differ. I think this ought to be an ongoing discussion, even if it can never be finally settled. Everything else about the game is cosmetic compared to this.

Agreed 100%
<<

ACE-OF-ACES

User avatar

Posts: 732

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:27 pm

Post Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: FM of P51

George Formby wrote:As for Ace there, he does have a problem,


And

George Formby wrote:so Ace, for the sake of peace, stop being a smart @ss, it's more childish than noble

George

You should take some time and read the forum rules before posting

Here is a link for you

viewtopic.php?f=141&t=28618

I would hate to see you get another vacation and or get this thread locked

Thanks in advance
<<

WhoDatNotSayin

Posts: 117

Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:22 am

Post Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:13 am

Re: FM of P51

And if there was ever a clearer demonstration of what was wrong with the old AAA forum, I've not seen it....

Don't present verifiable evidence. Don't even offer constructive debate. Cherry-pick from the last posting to score points in an endless argument about something that nobody can prove one way or another.

All of which has damn-all to do with the flying characteristics of the P-51.
<<

George Formby

User avatar

Posts: 202

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:38 pm

Location: Nashville, TN.......the Burbs

Post Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:14 am

Re: FM of P51

ACE-OF-ACES wrote:
George Formby wrote:As for Ace there, he does have a problem,


And

George Formby wrote:so Ace, for the sake of peace, stop being a smart @ss, it's more childish than noble

George

You should take some time and read the forum rules before posting

Here is a link for you

viewtopic.php?f=141&t=28618

I would hate to see you get another vacation and or get this thread locked

Thanks in advance


Why don't you get your facts straight before you go trying to be all yoda here ,Mr know-it-all, I have never had a "Vacation" from here or any other forum, and what I said has just as much validity as any of your trouble starting ramblings, as for me getting it locked, that would fall in your lap. As far as the same plane handling different whether it be new or out of the box, I have direct experience with the matter, since most of my adult life has been in the US Army, I can personally give input on how much maintenance a plane, Bradley, M-1, M-2 50 cal etc can loosen up parts to make em handle or fire differently. You are becoming a pro at tearing up credibility of others posts, and I think most will agree, you ARE getting carried away with an argument, when this post started as a simple question, there is no need to try and tear down others opinions by posting quotes from the same thread, its childish and a waste of space.
p.s. I know the forum rules, and if you can show me where I broke em then apologies all around, but I think I have been on topic, and even on topic to what you are saying, even though its off topic, I have been for the most part fair, friendly and clean, if your speaking of the word @ss I edited it as to not spell the word, if that offends you after ALL the military time you claim, then you must've been in one soft unit, there is a lot worse that can be said. For the last time, I personally have nothing against you, other than your people skills and how you like to try and belittle others by using $2.00 words and $3.00 phrases. I am quite sure ALL your chart making and FM comparing is truly a help to modders, but just like before, you tend to try and stir up some kind of stink by constantly posting quotes and analyzing them too. You can't play to be right ALL the time, I hope were all friends here, so there is really no use in getting offended when someone else holds a valid point, and then try and make em look stupid by throwing their own words against them.
Sorry to be so long winded community, I just hate to see all these , I am sure, good guys at each other over a question that could've been answered 15 posts ago and has been clouded by an engineer digressing all over the post.
G'night all
<<

philip.ed

User avatar

Posts: 2787

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:48 pm

Location: Shhh! Sleeping ;)

Post Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:29 am

Re: FM of P51

Aces. DO NOT make posts without getting your facts straight first. We do not allow publically mocking of any forum members here, and that included reminding them of/or lieing about possible 'vacations'.

Continue your discussion...
<<

RedChico

Posts: 374

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:56 pm

Location: Portugal

Post Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:36 am

Re: FM of P51

Tater.
NO offense intended, i just want to know what are you talking about.

By all accounts the Mustang was a sweetheart and very easy to fight and fly


Did you take in account the fact that in RL pilots don't have external views, that there's a decline of pilot quality in the loosing party (axis), that in RL you don't have zoom, that there's always team work (up to the point when they get separeted), that all (up until they get desperated and put kids in planes) pilots have professional trainning.

So what part of the p51 isn't right?
PreviousNext

Return to IL2 FM Comparing Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.