Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Realism, whats missing?

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Realism, whats missing? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=40136)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marabekm (Post 710301)

Aircraft weights. Specifically Max take-off weight. This is the maximum weight at which the aircraft is allowed to takeoff.
Lets take a look at the SBD-3. (I am referencing the pilots handbook)
The maximum takeoff weight fro an SBD is 9,519 pounds. A combat loaded SBD-3 with a 1000 pound bomb and 100 Gallons of fuel is 9031 pounds. Max fuel for a combat loaded SBD is 260 Gallons.
So technically with a 1000 pound bomb you should only be able to take about 40 percent fuel. Maybe 50 percent. Anymore than this and you shouldn't be able to takeoff.
Its like this with all planes. If you add weight(bombs and rockets) you have to make a trade off(less fuel) to prevent exceeding max weight of whatever aircraft.
Currently the game will let you take a max fuel load and fully loaded down with ordinance. (Watch all the new guys attempt carrier takeoffs with fully loaded corsairs)
So is there perhaps a way for the game to limit you fuel depending on what loadout you take?

For an aircraft to have an overloaded takeoff capability is not uncommon. It's always been apart of aircraft design. Placarded margins are primarily a standard for safety, though structurally the aircraft - depending on what it is - can handle much more in urgent situations when given enough runway.

I wonder if the engine torque is too strong in IL-2 compared to reality.

Especially at high speeds, it would seem like the engine torque would become less important factor.

The airplane ought to have a tendency to keep forward momentum especially at high speed dives.(?)

Bf-109 in particular did not have violent engine torque at higher speeds. According to some pilot notes. Where as during takeoffs when at low speed, it was more of a factor.

I wonder whether the same was true for FW-190 at high speed flight. Was the engine torque significant?

Or was kurt tank's decision the correct one, i.e. the lack of trim controls. Was the lack of trim controls the correct one, especially comparing to the effect of the engine torque?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurwin (Post 710532)

It is actually on the lower side.
On late WWII, tiny planes were equiped with huge engines, and they sometimes learned the hard way to accelerate them progressively on take off.
Torque is compensated sometimes by trim, or sometimes by airframe build.
109's compensated by giving it's tail a wing like shape, giving the plane a perfect trimming at a cruise speed of around 300Km/h

For realism, the ultimate thing that's missing is the game uninstalling itself and preventing you from reinstalling it the first time that you get killed or shot down over enemy territory in the game. :twisted:

The second most important thing that's missing is an interface that causes the player to experience mild to moderate pain when you pull extreme g's, or causes you moderate to severe pain when your pilot, or any member of your crew, is wounded.

More seriously, the main problems with IL2 are:

1) lack of dynamic center of gravity
2) lack of realistic fuel/oil management
3) limited human performance factors (e.g., detailed pilot/crew skill levels, crew/pilot morale, fatigue & group tactics, oxygen management at high altitudes).
4) Unrealistically aggressive AI.
5) Lack of dynamic weather.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 710634)

More seriously, the main problems with IL2 are:

1) lack of dynamic center of gravity
2) lack of realistic fuel/oil management
3) limited human performance factors (e.g., detailed pilot/crew skill levels, crew/pilot morale, fatigue & group tactics, oxygen management at high altitudes).
4) Unrealistically aggressive AI.
5) Lack of dynamic weather.

1) Not so important. If it is made an assumption on the term "combat" over "flight simulator", we could accept general behavior at it's best as an accepted plane behavior in particular.
2) Same as above, it will be enough to have a reasonable overheat behavior.
3) Oxigen management it's a must!
4) didn't seem so on latest patches.
5) For sure! At least to introduce some element of surprise during missions. Anyway, on real life, they do cared a lot about missions on bad weather.

So this would be a very brave departure from all aircraft games/sims ever made, but adding transparency to narrow metal frames of glass cockpits would simulate the pilot having two eyes allowing him to see "around" a small obstacle near his face.

for me (an armchair pilot) mabe its the a-little-slummy touchdown behaviour and more importantly, the landing AI that one can never keep formation with, kills the fun for a formation-flying enthusiast in FSX...