4.101 RC - List of fixes

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Fighter planes are no airliners to be designed with a stone steady stability. More stable the design, less maneuverable it gets. Moreover, ever bigger engines brought the planes more destabilizing area in front of the CG, as well as more engine torgue to burden their stabillity.
The answer to that, on the example of the yaw stability was an increase of the vertical tail area. Compare the vertical tails of the early and later variants of the WWII fighters. Now if you think this has been unknown to the Supermerine engineers, please compare the tails of the variants beginning with I, then V, VIII and IX, XIV, etc.

It is rather obvious the Spitfire couldn't have been in a quite a different world in matters of stabillity compared to its contemporaries, isn't it?
But in the 4.10 the Spitfire has a third league stabillity compared to all the rest of game planes.

In all probability the game planes behave rather more benign in this sense then their RL counterparts. Until 4.10 that went for all the planes, including the Spitfire. Even the I16. which really has been rather unstable in the RL behaves stone-steady as a gun platform in the game.
Now the 4.10 makes the Spifire the only exception to this general oscillation amnesty, giving it the dubious honor of being the only plane to wallow around in a manner the DT considers a realistic one.

Can it really be the unfairness of such a move never even crosses your mind?

It seems not to, cause you repeat like a gramophone about the Spit FM RL comparison. (apart from repeatedly telling me I whine and express the skepsis at my abilities to control the game planes)

I feel the oscillations on the Spit being overdone in 4.10; the guys who made the FM are probbably going to say it s reallistic, but even if it is so, it is completely beside the point.

It is totally unfair to give only this one single plane the allegedly and possibly more reallistic but certainly much more difficult type of FM.

Or is the fairness a concept you simply do not care care for?

BTW, you are right about the NACA report discussing the dynamical stability of the plane; I only swept over it with my eyes the first time.
Your insulting tone is certainly not right, on the other hand, and having tolerated it on several occasions - don't bother continuing in that manner if you expect an answer.

Since you bring up the fairness of accurately simulating something for one aircraft only, i can't pass this up. I haven't installed 4.10 and i don't know how bad the Spit is, but i'm not going to argue about how well or badly modeled its new FM is. I'm only going to discuss what you described as fairness in modeling each aircraft's relative advantages and drawbacks and to be absolutely fair, let's do it on the basis of 4.09 only. I don't want to comment on things i have no experience on, so let's talk about what happened before 4.10 that we all know about.

What you say has been the hidden reason behind many FM debates over the years. Some planes get a more accurate FM than others and this means not only advantages but disadvantages too.

Well, let's talk engine management for a second. Why is it that most of the German fighters have more accurate engine models while the rest can pretty much cruise at whatever power setting all day long? Not just allied ones, but a variety of other flyables on both the red and the blue planeset. See, there was probably more data available for the German birds and they were modeled closer to life than the rest. By your own definition that's should also be unfair.

Case in point, the stock 190s function better with manual pitch forcing us to not use its main advantage against the high performing allied energy fighters. Let's compare with the undisputed king of the high altitude arena, the P47. It's a well documented fact that the 190 didn't do well at high altitude, while the P47 did, no objections there whatsoever.

It's also a well documented fact that the P47 had FOUR main engine controls and 2-3 secondary ones, that with the exception of throttle, prop pitch and cowl flaps none of the rest are modeled in the game, while the 190 had ONE thanks to the kommandogerat system, with a secondary manual pitch control to be used in emergencies if the automatic system failed and the radiators, which are all modeled in the sim and stay within the real manual's operating ranges (for example, 2700RPM maximum).

In reality that performance came at the cost of increased workload for the P47 pilot, while a 190 pilot although under-performing could rely on his automatic engine management systems to even the tables by counting on the complexity of the P47 to work against the allied pilot.

Well, what happens in the game is that a P47 can cruise at 100%+WEP all day long, as well as set the pitch and cowl flaps ONCE per sortie to a value that minimizes overheat and leave it there for ever.
Not just the P47 mind you, i got nothing against it in particular and in fact i like it a lot, but most of the aircraft in the sim can take advantage of a simplified engine and overheat model to push the envelope in ways that was impossible in real life, including the Spitfire.

But wait, there's more. When 95% of the flyables can use whatever power settings with impunity and the other 5% have automatic systems that actually stick to what the real life manual states, it's obvious that the 5% are fighting at a disadvantage that's not only historically inaccurate, but is totally reversing what actually happened in real life: you either fly as the real thing did at a disadvantage to everyone else who's pushing the envelope to unrealistic values, or you exchange your main historical advantage (automation and ease of use) for the ability to go manual yourself and push the envelope as well.

In other words? In a world with simplified overheat and little else in the way of engine limitations, if you fly with a system that reduces your available power to prevent negative conditions that don't exist in the game then you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot. Either that, or you give up your historical advantage and go manual to exploit the limitations (or lack thereof) of the game engine like everyone else.

This is just one example and the reason i'm bringing it up is neither that i fly 190s a lot, which i do, nor that i expect to kill every 47 i find at 30000ft. Realistically and historically speaking i should have trouble and i do, so i only kill one in ten. The reason i'm bringing it up is just that i have enough experience with this scenario/match-up to make an informed argument and nothing more.

See, this can go both ways, but the reason we're not making a fuss about it is that it was beyond the capabilities of this 10 year old game engine and the PCs we had back then to model accurate engine operating limits. Also, with CoD around the corner we're content to see whatever improvement is possible for the older IL2 series without being too upset about how it redraws the balance.

A few people have had to live with their "by the book" aircraft for ages while everyone else could do things that would fry their engines in seconds in real life and guess what, for some it was a welcome challenge and they learned a couple of things while the rest chose a different aircraft to fly.

It's now your turn to either do the same, fly something else or fly with reduced difficulty settings if you don't want to re-learn certain things. It's not a shame to tailor the game to your taste, it's a lack of sportsmanship however to all of a sudden expect to tailor everyone else's game to what's fair because the tables are now turned on you, when they've had to content with equally unfair issues over the years.

Long story short, get creative or fly something else, it's not a big deal

[PE_Tihi]

Hello Blackdog,

It would 've certainly been better if you did try the 4.10, then we would both know what has been meant. Nonetheless, you can trust me in my summing the Spit 4.10 FM up as quite instable compared to the probably heavily over-modeled stability of all the rest of game planes.

If you allow my putting words into your mouth, and please correct if am wrong, I have a feeling you would like to say someting like this:
'Tihi, you are steaming here about your Spit being treated unjustly; whoever cared for the FW being treated so unfairly as it has been? Now grit your teeth and take it like we did; if we could, so can you, too; the Spit has been treated a lot more friendly from the developers then the LW types, anyway.'

You cannot know how well I understand your feelings in this post. I cannot find much I do not agree with, either. Can't say a lot about the P47 power-plant behavior, but the in-game Spit's ability to use the WEP indefinitely can be hardly called realistic. In some periods of the war the 5 minute limit has been enforced to the point of completely dismantling the engine for an inspection if pilot reported overstepping it. I wrote about it just a day or two before on another thread here (Spit sabotaged, Goering relieved)

The power-plant behavior of the FW may have been correctly modeled, as you say. You may not know, though, the FW has been seriously under-modeled on a very important point, namely, on the wing's ability to produce lift. The Coefficient of the Maximum Lift value for the whole FW190 series (A to D) has been 1.58. In the game, Anton has been given 1.38 making it even more ponderous in a turn than it really was.
The speed and climb of the plane are ok-it would be too easy to notice if they were not. Turn rate inaccuracies are much more difficult to notice or prove. I suppose you understand now why in the stories about the FM's here the word sabotage comes so naturally to my mind.

The Dora got 1.65, being a rare example of the over-modeling a LW plane in the game - someones goodwill present to the LW public, I suppose-or rather a digestive for their stomachs burdened with the heavily over-modeled La7 and the rest

There are many such examples, but instead of continuing, let me only say that I have been writing about such FM issues for years. It got me heaps of abuse on Ubi forum; among other (rather nastier) things, some called me a Luftie-whiner, too. (I have been flying red, still am) Now someone here names me RAF-whiner. Well... All I can conclude out of this experience, if you tell them the truth, many online fliers ll compare you to a squealing dog. Why, it beats me. The life is strange.
So you can see, I hope, I do not demand fairness only when someone slights my favorite plane. I fly a lot of planes, but 190A really seldom; it is anything but my favorite. When I saw the plane has been unfairly modeled, I said so, loud and clear, earning a heap of names for that, as ever. I almost got used to it.

I think that gives me the right to speak in the same manner about the unfairness to the Spitfire, irrespective of it being one of my favorites, and irrespective of whether you or anyone else concedes me this.
On the other hand, if the question is what did that bring, that loud and clear speaking-by no means mine only-about the FMs; the answer is almost nothing. It has been clear for years that the FM's with heavy differences to the RL values simply represent the developers constant policy.
That means that your teeth-gritting proposal cannot be that far wrong. Anyone suggesting not playing the game at all, as an option gentler to the teeth, would be quite right here, too.

BTW, my other pets are the in the climb heavily overmodeled I16, and almost the only plane in the game to have a heavily underclocked top speed, the Tempest.

If you think i cannot cope with this 410 spit, you are wrong, you know I ve been flying this 9 years -can fly anything. .
But I do not want to fly just anything- anything that can come to someone's mind.

Your suggestion of reducing the difficulty settings just brought an enormous smile to my face- feels good, thank you I fly online exclusively, server sets the settings there, anyway.

This Spit is not that difficult to fly, but it more than halves your hits. If other planes were to receive the stability model of the same realism (or over-realism) you would see more rotten eggs and tomatoes flying around than virtual planes.

And I think you understood by now, this vengeful sentence of yours at the end, about after enjoying unfair advantages for years, the tables now being turned on me - has been addressed to the wrong man. At least, I hope so.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Hello Blackdog,

It would 've certainly been better if you did try the 4.10, then we would both know what has been meant. Nonetheless, you can trust me in my summing the Spit 4.10 FM up as quite instable compared to the probably heavily over-modeled stability of all the rest of game planes.

If you allow my putting words into your mouth, and please correct if am wrong, I have a feeling you would like to say someting like this:
'Tihi, you are steaming here about your Spit being treated unjustly; whoever cared for the FW being treated so unfairly as it has been? Now grit your teeth and take it like we did; if we could, so can you, too; the Spit has been treated a lot more friendly from the developers then the LW types, anyway.'

You cannot know how well I understand your feelings in this post. I cannot find much I do not agree with, either. Can't say a lot about the P47 power-plant behavior, but the in-game Spit's ability to use the WEP indefinitely can be hardly called realistic. In some periods of the war the 5 minute limit has been enforced to the point of completely dismantling the engine for an inspection if pilot reported overstepping it. I wrote about it just a day or two before on another thread here (Spit sabotaged, Goering relieved)

The power-plant behavior of the FW may have been correctly modeled, as you say. You may not know, though, the FW has been seriously under-modeled on a very important point, namely, on the wing's ability to produce lift. The Coefficient of the Maximum Lift value for the whole FW190 series (A to D) has been 1.58. In the game, Anton has been given 1.38 making it even more ponderous in a turn than it really was.
The speed and climb of the plane are ok-it would be too easy to notice if they were not. Turn rate inaccuracies are much more difficult to notice or prove. I suppose you understand now why in the stories about the FM's here the word sabotage comes so naturally to my mind.

The Dora got 1.65, being a rare example of the over-modeling a LW plane in the game - someones goodwill present to the LW public, I suppose-or rather a digestive for their stomachs burdened with the heavily over-modeled La7 and the rest

There are many such examples, but instead of continuing, let me only say that I have been writing about such FM issues for years. It got me heaps of abuse on Ubi forum; among other (rather nastier) things, some called me a Luftie-whiner, too. (I have been flying red, still am) Now someone here names me RAF-whiner. Well... All I can conclude out of this experience, if you tell them the truth, many online fliers ll compare you to a squealing dog. Why, it beats me. The life is strange.
So you can see, I hope, I do not demand fairness only when someone slights my favorite plane. I fly a lot of planes, but 190A really seldom; it is anything but my favorite. When I saw the plane has been unfairly modeled, I said so, loud and clear, earning a heap of names for that, as ever. I almost got used to it.

I think that gives me the right to speak in the same manner about the unfairness to the Spitfire, irrespective of it being one of my favorites, and irrespective of whether you or anyone else concedes me this.
On the other hand, if the question is what did that bring, that loud and clear speaking-by no means mine only-about the FMs; the answer is almost nothing. It has been clear for years that the FM's with heavy differences to the RL values simply represent the developers constant policy.
That means that your teeth-gritting proposal cannot be that far wrong. Anyone suggesting not playing the game at all, as an option gentler to the teeth, would be quite right here, too.

BTW, my other pets are the in the climb heavily overmodeled I16, and almost the only plane in the game to have a heavily underclocked top speed, the Tempest.

If you think i cannot cope with this 410 spit, you are wrong, you know I ve been flying this 9 years -can fly anything. .
But I do not want to fly just anything- anything that can come to someone's mind.

Your suggestion of reducing the difficulty settings just brought an enormous smile to my face- feels good, thank you I fly online exclusively, server sets the settings there, anyway.

This Spit is not that difficult to fly, but it more than halves your hits. If other planes were to receive the stability model of the same realism (or over-realism) you would see more rotten eggs and tomatoes flying around than virtual planes.

And I think you understood by now, this vengeful sentence of yours at the end, about after enjoying unfair advantages for years, the tables now being turned on me - has been addressed to the wrong man. At least, I hope so.

I'm not accusing you of bias. I'm just saying that

a) FM changes swing both ways and they've done so for years

b) it's still a game on a PC and compromises have to be made

c) there are ways you can still enjoy it, plus the problem could be fixed by adjusting the opposition's FM in a future patch instead of making the Spit as it was in 4.09 (maybe they want to make more realistic FMs for other aircraft as well) and finally

d) we'll have a new simulator pretty soon where most of these things will be reworked from the ground up and the board will be completely redrawn due to the new engine management, so everything we knew about how easy or hard it is to fly a certain match-up will have to be reevaluted to take into account the ease or difficulty of managing the aircraft's systems while flying it.

In that sense, i view the further updates of IL2 in this way: if they have references to make things more realistic let them do it, even if they do it in parts instead of all at once and that means disadvantages for certain aircraft from one patch to the next.

You are free to have your own opinion obviously, but i wouldn't expect miracles (maybe a tweak of the FM if there are obvious mistakes to be corrected but not going back to the 4.09 FM), since for most people CoD is around the corner and that's all that currently matters until we see what it can do.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I'm not accusing you of bias. I'm just saying that

a) FM changes swing both ways and they've done so for years

b) it's still a game on a PC and compromises have to be made

c) there are ways you can still enjoy it, plus the problem could be fixed by adjusting the opposition's FM in a future patch instead of making the Spit as it was in 4.09 (maybe they want to make more realistic FMs for other aircraft as well) and finally

d) we'll have a new simulator pretty soon where most of these things will be reworked from the ground up and the board will be completely redrawn due to the new engine management, so everything we knew about how easy or hard it is to fly a certain match-up will have to be reevaluted to take into account the ease or difficulty of managing the aircraft's systems while flying it.

In that sense, i view the further updates of IL2 in this way: if they have references to make things more realistic let them do it, even if they do it in parts instead of all at once and that means disadvantages for certain aircraft from one patch to the next.

You are free to have your own opinion obviously, but i wouldn't expect miracles (maybe a tweak of the FM if there are obvious mistakes to be corrected but not going back to the 4.09 FM), since for most people CoD is around the corner and that's all that currently matters until we see what it can do.

There has certainly been a real lot of changes in FM's in all these years, and in both directions too- but they almost never crossed the neutral line, to go to the other side
What I mean- La7 climbed at some 33m/s, then 30, and at the end it has been 27. The RL value - this neutral line-is 22-23 m/s. has never been touched, not to speak of crossing it. No one ever seen a La7 with 19 m/s max climb, for example.

Similarily, there has once been a german bomber in the game, the Bf 109E4, needing 25 seconds to complete a turn at 1000m height. After receieving belatedly the info the 109 was actually a fighter, the Russians at once enabled the thing do a circle in 23 seconds Real life value has been about 20s. Once again, no Emil turning a second faster than 20s has ever been seen

With all the swinging, the tendencies in the FM's have been stone steady. The german fighters stayed undermodelled in turn; Soviet and Lend-Lease fighters overmodeled in climb and turn, and the Japanese always kept their boosted climb. What did change was the extent only, aberrations mostly getting more moderate in time.

Compromises are always necessary; there are always things difficult or impossible to simulate. A fair aproach where all such compromises do not (by some chance always favorize certain groups-is nonetheless neccessary. The fairness is easy to recognize, and it 's appreciated. When there is one.

I understand the people in the DT too, in a part; this was the last chance to release something that would actually be used. Anything they would release in, say, april would've been a private release, more or less. I do not think anybody ll ever do much more on the game, let alone radicaly rework 250 plane FM's in the game. And even if he does - who ll fly it.

I would be the last one to oppose more realism in the sim. But the 4.10 creates a situation which never existed in life, where the Spit compares very badly with its contemporaries regarding stabillity. This dosesnt bring more realism into the game, on the contrary. Looking at the spit alone, only then you can say: This is, possibly, more realistic. But who flies the Spit alone?

Totaly drunken manner the plane does a Hammerhead makes me think the DT may have overdone things, but can't say for sure, of course. A pilot with experience in flying high-power single engine prop planes would be in a good position to say what feels real there, and what not.

Il2 has a couple of months only before it departs. It makes me a bit nostalgic, I confess. The game stayed with me, or rather I did stay with it, for some 9 years.. a nice chunk of life. Having said this, it would be impossible not to admit the game has been (and still is, what's more)a great one; a brilliant Flight-sim, with all the due respect and thanks to all it's creators headed by Oleg Maddox. I better don't say here what I think about the honesty of his FM's- said enough about that in all these years.
Ten years makes the game a part of one's life experience for it's the players, not to speak about it's creators. It is nice to see the last chapter of this book leading into the new one, too. Let me hope we all learned something from the book still in our hands, to let us write and read the coming one with more ease and less of the bad old mistakes.
The long version history of the game has had more than enough contested novelties, and more than enough things that may well have been felt as unfair. I would think it nice if the game version representing our farewell to Stormovik stays unburdened with such feelings. After all, to many of us it has been a part of life for a decade, and more than just a game.