Realism, whats missing?

[BadAim]

Ok, I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I think you guys are answering the wrong question. The question that I see (although not articulated) is this: "If I'm in a Cessna with my buddy and he has a heart attack or he passes out from some medical condition, will my experience with IL2 help me not die?"

My answer is yes, of course it will! If you have someone on the other end of the radio that can give you approach speeds and flap settings and the like, I bet you'll be just fine. I mean you know what an altimeter is and you know what flaps are, and you know which way to push the stick to make the nose go down (and up). You might very well still splat yourself all over the runway, but you'll have a hell of a lot better chance than the average schmuck (which is to say, any chance at all).

That said, keep studying Sailboat, you never know when you might need your skills..........

[Treetop64]

Put that way, absolutely. I agree.

The knowledge gained will certainly give you a better chance than the schmuck who's likely to confuse the pedals for the gas and brake.

[MaxGunz]

IL-2 simulates flight and does not have _all_ the real factors and motions but does cover the major aspects down to a number of minor effects.

But when near the ground the differences between the sim and reality get a bit farther apart. What ground-effect simulating there is only occurs over landing strips and covers what happens less well than could be desired.

Some of the planes seem to have too much lift at low speeds though it was worse in release versions of FB and Aces. At very high speeds the differences between the simulation and reality spread out more and more with increase in speed, effects of compression on props and airframe is not detailed giving a noticeable difference in results that many players have shown.

Even if you can find charts for a particular IL-2 model, matching down to the prop/engine/etc, the performance of IL-2 will have places that do not match.
You get in the real plane and expect to change speed or alt in a certain way then you could possibly get in trouble especially near to ground where IL-2 less fully covers effects and differences can lead to unwanted contact with the ground then what would your last words be?

Have a chance? Certainly. Maybe a good one. You might even learn something about wind socks IRL but you won't in IL-2.

[K_Freddie]

IL2 doesn't have this, but neither does DCS, strangely enough for a 'study sim'.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4m8fc52j0k...Turn_Smart.flv

But IL2 does model yaw stalling sooo much better than DCS - they were very upset when I told them so. DCS does seem lack a few FMs, but generally the feel is smoother than IL2 and does feel more like a real plane.

The engine startup procedures are nice in DCS and one has to be carefull with certain items as you could blow them (Engine starter).
IF TD can implement these things into IL2, DCS would take a backseat as it still lacks a lot wrt gameplay.

[Alexovercozumel]

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago. I do think this sim would help non pilots in an emergency with such a plane.

About warbirds, I came across this while reading reviews on IL2 1946:

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik...owViewpoints=1

"I've been a pilot for over 40 years and have flown everything from '20s biplanes to Navy carrier jets...and this sim is awesome.

Note: it is on DVD not CD as stated here. And it is NOT a game. There is a significant learning curve involved to successfully fly these aircraft in full-on realistic mode. It does have 'simple' modes that make it possible for anyone to fly, but don't think of this as an arcade game in any sense.

Trust me, if you can fly these birds in full realism mode, with a little time flying under the supervision of an instructor you can fly the real thing. Here there are fewer cues (just sight and sound), but in real aircraft you also have so-called proprioceptive sensations too (the seat of your pants, for one), among others.

Buy it, you'll like it! The graphics are gorgeous, the scenarios are amazing. You won't find modern airliners, but you'll find most of the WW2 machines (Russian, German, Japanese, British and American).

A flight over the cliffs of dover at sunset in a Spitfire may bring tears to your eyes...it did me."

What do you think?

Watch your six, Alex

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Alexovercozumel

Hi, new here.

I used to fly Piper Tomahawks a long time ago.

Closest I've ever come to losing my lunch in an aircraft was when a buddy and I took a Tomahawk up over Williams, CA for some stalls and falls years ago during my Coast Guard days. Fun airplane!

[Buster_Dee]

An old friend was a student in of one of the accelerated P-51 courses. He told me these small schools were closed when the main ones proved adequate for number of pilots needed. He lost several classmates from the engine torque effects: not a few departed the runway and caught fire. The Army reassigned him as a combat engineer. He told me he felt safer in the second-wave of the Normandy landings.

Hats off to those who master combat aircraft.

[Ventura]

Depends on what you mean by 'fly'. If he/she was in the cockpit, and had the controls carefully handed off, ...maybe..

Since CLoD and DCS have been brought up in this thread, and I would never had thought to hear myself say it, I actually enjoy taking off, flying around, and landing in "Cliffs of Dover/TF" (Yes, I have DCS/P-51)

[Jumoschwanz]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

I'm just curious to know, could someone fly a real plane from that era based only on what they know in IL-2 1946? Or are there any vital components missing from the flight model?

I have flown IL2 with a lot of real pilots and they have said that IL2 is damn good and if you can control it well then you could fly a real aircraft.

Every aircraft is going to have a different starting procedure and even experienced pilots have to learn specifics of each new aircraft unless they are experts on aeronautics and internal combustion engineering. Even then if they get into an aircraft that had it's panels marked in a different language they may be in trouble, so bringing up starting procedures is a poor argument.

My old friend and neighbor Pete, who flew both fighters and bombers in WWII of all types because he was on a task force directly under Hap Arnold said that the main thing to remember with a WWII fighter is that it's take-off and landing is fast compared to a small civilian aircraft, and it's engine torque is very strong and at low speeds will control the aircraft. When taking off in a P-51 Mustang full rudder is required to keep it straight at low speed until about 80mph. IL2 models this pretty well, where a lot of the big fighters need full rudder and careful throttle modulation until the speed is up on takeoff, also during slow maneuvers in dogfights the pilot who knows what to do with the throttle is going to have a big advantage in a fight.


The biggest thing missing in IL2 Sturmovik as far as realism is concerned is the lack of virtual pilots willing to fly it on "realistic" settings.