Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2011, 05:22 PM
DrJet DrJet is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Default Game play vs. Accuracy

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-21-2011, 05:32 PM
Bricks Bricks is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJet View Post
Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet
If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.

Last edited by Bricks; 01-21-2011 at 05:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2011, 04:22 AM
DrJet DrJet is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricks View Post
If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.
Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2011, 11:58 AM
Bricks Bricks is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 51
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJet View Post
Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.
Yes, it was less realistic before. That has nothing to do with my attitude. An airframe is not a solid construction. Its designed to move and bent under pressure. Thats what makes the noise. Thats realistic. Unrealistic was the behaviour before 4.10: the aircraft under pressure just suddenly broke up or exploded.

Imho you misunderstood the sound. The sound does not mean you aircraft was destroyed. It means that the aircraft is under a lot of pressure and in danger to ne damaged or destroyed, if you stay in this maneuver or increase stress.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-23-2011, 12:57 PM
Rainmaker Rainmaker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJet View Post
Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.
DrJet there is no point in disscusing with that guy, he is just ignorant, probably watching history channel every day

Quote:
Originally Posted by mazex View Post
They sure where capable fighters, but they where harder to get out of a fast dive than a P-47 which is what we are discusding here? The fact that they where nasty to land for an 18 year old pilot with 100 flight hours doesn't mean anything regarding their fighting capability either - it was just a boring anecdote
I am laughing my ass out on this one. LOL
Giant piece of metal P-47 can get out of a fast dive better then the Bf-109 ahhahaha.

Last edited by Rainmaker; 01-23-2011 at 01:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-23-2011, 11:24 PM
mazex's Avatar
mazex mazex is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
DrJet there is no point in disscusing with that guy, he is just ignorant, probably watching history channel every day



I am laughing my ass out on this one. LOL
Giant piece of metal P-47 can get out of a fast dive better then the Bf-109 ahhahaha.
Well the signs says no feeding so...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-21-2011, 05:43 PM
Arrow Arrow is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJet View Post
Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet
Even in F-16 when you hang bombs on it you are limitted to 5.5G. If you have a 500kg bomb on a bombrack and you are pulling 3Gs the weight of the bomb is 1.5 tons that the bombrack and the airframe has to hold.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.