All-Aircraft-Simulations
Flawed Flying Models - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: Flawed Flying Models (/showthread.php?tid=52217)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

- JoeA - 12.08.2008

Exactly what I thought. Cry

- Jaws2002 - 12.08.2008

I'd say don't touch the FM's and DM's of existing planes pls. There are plenty new tings to play with and if you can't find a plane you like in 300+ aircraft in the game you'll never be happy.

Thx.

- AIRdomination - 12.08.2008

If its FM's we're talking about, I'd say the bug in the P.11 fm is really pathetic. :? Where you yaw in one direction and it rolls in the opposite.

- Lt.Wolf - 13.08.2008

A lot of the FMs in the game are not accurate limitations as well. Also i wont name any of the ones that appear to be deliberately over done or you may all wish for them to be deleted.

But must say, the P-51D and Mustang III all perform excellent and how the books say they should, at least what i can gather. yeah there is the stall spin out but i hardly get that, then there is the fuel tanks not draining in propper order etc. The wings ripping off? that happens at 400mph and above, a turn in a P-51D is super tight at 400Mph compaired to others, if the other AC in the game had the same amount G force applied to the wings at those speed then they would snap like tooth picks at lower speed. So i think the wings are tough and can do high speed maneuvers and go into the 550-560IAS MPH range and turn with out ripping. Also, yes it can out turn BF-109s and FW-190s like history states. History books miss out the part of what alt what speed an under what conditions. Its not a plane for beginners, takes time.

The P-38 and P-47s are quite maneuverable also.

- reflected - 13.08.2008

I don't think it would be a good idea to mess around with FMs. almost every FM is f*cked up in il2, but more or less equally f***. You should modify every single FM without changing the difference between them. But come on, imagine a FM modding thread: Mustang FM v1.4 released - nooo, it's still not fast enough - I want tighter turns - nooo, I want tighter turns for 109s, Mustangs s*ck! - put a sock in it guys, we should increase the climb rate of the lightning instead....etc..
And so the FM fixing would end up in a vote, which would give very unrealistic FMs.

We should use these efforts to fix the AI instead...

- walshy - 13.08.2008

ROSOBORONEXPORTCORP Wrote:
15/JG52_Riddler Wrote:FM debates really are painful since most people aren't qualified or unbiased to make a civilized discussion possible.

I think maddox did a good job regarding FM parameters which are easy to measure and for which data exists. For instance, level speeds are VERY close to test data.

Climb rate comparative difference between aircraft are mostly OK, but there are many which are significantly wrong (most planes climb too well, some are way above even the most optimistic tests - VVS stuff , especially early)

But how do you model acceleration? Turn rate (the single most important characteristic in Il-2)? Damage modeling (should a zero really fall apart from 5 .50 cal hits?)? General handling? For these we have only descriptive or anecdotal evidence without much scientific data.

Here the devs went for "the feeling" more then anything else.
For example:
* In Soviet version of history, FW-190 was overweight, underpowered monstrosity with acceleration of an overloaded flying boat whose only quality was superior level speed to earlier soviet design.
* Someone in the dev team read something about P-38 early compressibility problems and they modelled it for the sake of the game, however not at the speed range or alt where it was supposed to happen. Also the dive recovery flaps were not a bat turn on a push button device.
* Someone wrote that P-51 was superior to Bf-109 in high speed maneuvers, so they created an aircraft in which can pull 15G in a 750km/h dive with two fingers. Hence the disintegrating 51 in the game.
* Il-2 was renowned as a very tough aircraft so they made it ridiculously strong. Il-10 must have been better so they made it almost invulnerable (although Il-10s were massacred by US fighters armed mostly with .50 MG in Korea)
* Based on the British observations of a single 109, someone came to the conclusion that 109 had no controls authority over ~470km/h and that it had a seriously limited maneuverability
* Someone thought that if an aircraft has elliptical wings, it should turn like a Spitfire and thats how we got our Tempfire.
* P-47 was supposedly a good diver, so they made it supersonic (actually it had a pretty low critical Mach and P-51 was notably superior). P-47 actually had lower critical Mach number then Bf-109 Smile

I'm sure I could find more examples, but you get the point, much of the aircraft performance in the game is based on devs perception or "feeling" as well as historical performance data. Also, one must remember that PCs do not have and will not have sufficient "horsepower" to run real aerodynamic simulations for quite a while.

I agree, except... :wink:

Some notes:
- The FW-190 has a tremendous rate of roll (they certainly got that right)
- P-38s did use combat flaps (so at least its modeled - even if not accurately)
- I can shoot down the Il-2 in a Mig-3 (and it only takes three runs! A Bf-109 takes four)
- I think the Bf-109 elevator is modeled in game and the effects are a result of calculations - not history, although I could be wrong).
- There are two claims of P-47 pilots who believe they broke the sound barrier (although I don't have the reference on hand).

No comment on the others (especially the Tempest which is a wierd bird in many ways).



"I can shoot down the Il-2 in a Mig-3 (and it only takes three runs! A Bf-109 takes four)."

I can shoot down an IL-2 in one pass with any plane. Just aim for that big radiator and the bird is as good as down. I remembered reading German pilot accounts of how to take it down and applied it in the game. Erich Hartman's technique if I remember correctly was come up low from behind on it's six and shoot at the radiator.

Most of the planes in the sim have good FM's and as far as I'm concerned Oleg did a sterling job in putting together this sim/game. If the new planes that the AAA team have added get an overhaul in the future then that's all to the good, but at the moment if I fly any of them I compensate and get on with flying. Just my two cents.

- FANATIC MODDER - 13.08.2008

when I started this topic I wanted to make the point that you do.I always thought that was IL-2 strong point and that the feel that each plane got was quite natural.They are very few cases that we can say that the FM is definitely messed up.Especially in the ones that were originally flyable.They have been complains that usually focus about the top speeds and alt. performances of various planes (Bf 109G-6,Spit V,Fw 190A-8,P-39, F6F etc.) but very few that concern the overall feeling of the planes.P.11 and Ta-152C are some examples that I think that they did something wrong, not just in the performance or torque effects (avenger,Su-2, B5N and B6N are example of excess torque effect) but also in the overall feeling of the plane.
If I have to find the champion of faulty FM, it has to be the Hawk 75 (P-36).Vastly slower that it should have been, it has a riducusly slower dive speed that the P-40 too.Or the Su-2, which has an artificial feel that should not be there for this type of plane.

- Davew - 13.08.2008

FANATIC MODDER Wrote:when I started this topic I wanted to make the point that you do.I always thought that was IL-2 strong point and that the feel that each plane got was quite natural.They are very few cases that we can say that the FM is definitely messed up.Especially in the ones that were originally flyable.They have been complains that usually focus about the top speeds and alt. performances of various planes (Bf 109G-6,Spit V,Fw 190A-8,P-39, F6F etc.) but very few that concern the overall feeling of the planes.P.11 and Ta-152C are some examples that I think that they did something wrong, not just in the performance or torque effects (avenger,Su-2, B5N and B6N are example of excess torque effect) but also in the overall feeling of the plane.
If I have to find the champion of faulty FM, it has to be the Hawk 75 (P-36).Vastly slower that it should have been, it has a riducusly slower dive speed that the P-40 too.Or the Su-2, which has an artificial feel that should not be there for this type of plane.

As an example of FM being off, how about just about every aircraft in the game having combat flaps?
Which also follows the AI cheating of using flap setting that never existed for take off. Specifically Spitfire and Hurricane which only had two position flaps, up and down, no takeoff flaps.

- Th!rdeye - 13.08.2008

Lt.Wolf Wrote:A lot of the FMs in the game are not accurate limitations as well. Also i wont name any of the ones that appear to be deliberately over done or you may all wish for them to be deleted.

I saw a few like that aswell. Its a shame...


I can account for the 51 and 47 as their figures are just about spot on. I was surprised when i tested them a while back using a manual with power settings, and got close to all the speeds.

- XabaRus-1 - 31.01.2009

Glad I found this thread as it is something I'd like to ask a couple of questions about but was worried I'd get banned.

I can understand for the sake of online play you don't want to tweak the FMs of existing playables and even the likes of the Kate. Thing is though since the Kate and Avener are almost unflyable, at least not enjoyable why make them flyable if the fundemental FM is so screwed.

Now I say again for online play FM mods aren't done here (I'm aware of another group but hey) but since AAA mod seems to becoming the defacto standard is it not worth looking at sorting the FMs of the worst flyers and putting that in when an official AAA mod pack is made. Make yourself the standard encourage the use of the AAA mod pack on servers and set the standard.

- Brophmeister - 31.01.2009

I believe that 15/JG52_Riddler is spot on. I need say no more.

- Billfish - 31.01.2009

Well, have to say that though there are flaws, (an example being after the 4.04 FM change Ki-43 which should be some of the most stable aircraft in the game are simply stall rediculous), for the most part people are expecting to see massive differences between aircraft when we're really talking very tiny incraments in most cases between aircraft. 10Km/H though seeming like a lot is nothing when speaking of 450+Km/H speeds. Yet it is everything when having MAINTAINED your position and then suddenly needing to run.

Roll rates seem to be evenly porked for all so still on par, and we know dive based on gravity and friction can't be improved though engine power still has effect. Truth of the matter is ALL of the aircraft here fly much easier then the real thing, olegs response to get people staying in the sim as most would quit otherwise......That coming from a pilot in our group that had flown a BF109 as well as other vintage aircraft.

In the end as there are a thousand points it boils down to change them all or change none....

What I think few would be adverse to is making the AI made flyable aircraft more human friendly....The B5N as mentained above a great example, others seem to have no issues, still some are rediculously difficult to fly (which it amazes me as the big screams for modding were to get the very torpedo planes that fly so bad now.....Funny how it's barely mentioned anymore). In kind recognizing those compatibility errors few could argue an FM change for just them..........The rest?....

Well that's a whole nother war to be fought....

K2

- Radoye - 31.01.2009

One possible solution - i believe all former AI-only planes that people are complaining about now because of a flawed FM since they've been made flyable should be switched back to AI-only once again. If the policy is that no stock FM's shall be touched then let's not touch them, and if they are unflyable as-is then let's not fly them. Instead a flyable new slot copy should be made which would contain the fixes demanded by the community and this should become standard - the "old" planes would still be there for compatability sake but the new will be also there for us to fly and to create new missions and campaigns around. Note, this should only be done with seriously flawed FM's that make them uncontrollable by human player and not as a way to make other planes more "uber".

- NathanielGreene - 08.02.2009

The TBFs, B5N, and B6N are pretty messed up. The left pull makes pretty much anything but torpedo bombing near impossible. And they seem wayyy more sensitive on the stick than they should be.

- ex_RAAF_Elecfitter - 08.02.2009

Davew Wrote:Which also follows the AI cheating of using flap setting that never existed for take off. Specifically Spitfire and Hurricane which only had two position flaps, up and down, no takeoff flaps.

The RAF overcame this shortcoming with an ingeniously simple device, a wooden block that was inserted that set the flaps at a takeoff position and fell out when the flaps were raised.

My biggest complaint is the ridiculous knobbling of the mossie, can anyone get it to its claimed maximum speed in level flight? it doesnt come anywhere near the specs. And try turning it, it slips worse than anything else in the game. mossies were supposed to be able outrun anything (until the 262 showed up) except for fw190s diving from above, yet in the game it cant outrun an me109. flying it it feels like speed brakes are deployed and flaps are stuck in fully down position, its a pig in the game