Realism, whats missing?

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

Has anyone mentioned shitting?

We need a warning on the HUD that the pilot needs to take a crap, similar to the overheat warning. It could start out blue and proceed through a spectrum to red when crapping is inevitable.

This will affect pilot performance, especially if he shits himself during combat.

You laugh...
Many moons ago we had at least 15 guys on our local server (this is a lot) and it was tense all around, as all the guys were competent pilots.
I had my mic on voice activation, and at one stage started heavy regular breathing (usually do this during focused sport/exercise) that activated the mic. They all laughed like mad.. it was embarrassing!!!

It think their laughter enabled me to nail a few...

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Yup.. that's what it supposed to do...
The modelling not to great with DCS in this regard.
IL2 does lack the cross control effect modelling to a certain degree..(cross the controls a little and pull elevator to just under the stall, then whack the aileron full over) but it seems completely lacking in DCS.

But of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.. then I discovered that video.. and it's plain as daylight for all to see. Maybe that 25 yr vet is also BS-ing.

As an interest.. maybe someone who has CLOD can try this out - I'd be curious about it.

I know I am resurrecting this thread after more than a year ago. But now after spending enough time with DCS, while definitely not perfect, I will say that they got many more things right than IL21946 due to complex FM. P-factor being the biggest difference between IL2 and DCS. Stuff in DCS isn't scripted, so you will not get exactly the same response every time.

[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.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

I'd be interested in seeing the MoI numbers, as well as all the other parameters.

At any rate, from the flight modelling point of view, I think the very point of "realism" in IL-2 isn't so much about getting the absolute correct results for a particular aircraft, as much as it is about getting the relative performance between all the aircraft in the game within an acceptable bracket.

I think Il-2 is a long, long way from "relative aircraft performance" accuracy, like all simulation games, and should instead just be content to offer some realism on "general aircraft behaviour", which I'm sure it does a fair job of...

If you want a closer approximation of how the different aircraft models actually compared in combat (if any combat pilot account is to be believed -as opposed to test pilot account-, you should substitute aircraft names to get a closer approximation of how they ranked in actual horizontal (and sometimes vertical) combat maneuvers... Unfortunately, this would still leave you with mostly inaccurate vertical performance, which are usually closer as is, so I tried to get them as close as possible taking that into account...:

Spitfire Mk V-: Fly as if a P-47D Razorback

FW-190A-4: Fly as if a Spitfire Mk V

Spitfire L.F. Mk IX: Fly as if a P-47M

FW-190A-5: Fly as if a Spitfire F. Mk IX

Spitfire Mk XIV: Fly as if a P-47M

FW-190A-8: Fly as if Spitfire F. Mk IX, or maybe a Ki-100.

P-47D Razorback: Fly as if an early Spitfire F. M IX

P-47D Bubbletop: Fly as if a Me-109G-2 with Gondolas

Me-109G-6: Fly as if a FW-190D-9

P-51D Mustang: Fly as is maybe...

FW-190D-D9: Fly as if a P-47D Bubbletop

Ki-84 Frank: Fly as if a FW-190D

Ki-100: Fly as if an A6M5, or A6M8 if possible...

The wonderful thing is most Spitfire virtual modelling does seem to overstate wildly the Spitfire's roll rate, so these virtual Spitfires are a fairly good impression of what a FW-190A was actually like in real-life, minus the Spitfire's better climb rate: The Mk V is probably the closest on that account...

And yes the Ki-84 was much faster, but a complete anvil compared to the Ki-100 (and an anvil even compared to the P-47N)...: The Japanese did extensive comparisons with both types, and found one lone Ki-100 could take on 3 Ki-84s and win, then switch pilots and do the same again...

Yes, there is a "kink" in the flight physics somewhere... And we never bothered to find out what it was... You have to remember these specific types of low-wing stressed-skin single-engine aircrafts were truly "active" for under two decades, "football wars" notwithstanding...

Gaston

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by Gaston

inaccurate

No! I have good news! what Il-2 does well is in fact the relative strengths and weaknesses. You can't compare Spitfairy with a 190. They're two different things. While the AI Spitfairy can roll like crazy, in human hands the 190 roll rate is vastly superior.

As for the "combat pilot" anecdotes, they can be flushed down the proverbial (and literal) toilet. Oh well... what is waste to some, is fertilizer to others. The only thing that is missing in Il-2 realism is the controls locking up at high speeds.

[Marabekm]

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?

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Marabekm

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?

Have a look at the current Ju88 bombers - just what you suggest has been done. Maybe that is only the beginning

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Have a look at the current Ju88 bombers - just what you suggest has been done. Maybe that is only the beginning

On the other hand, it was often possible for aircraft to take off overloaded if they had a long enough runway. B-24's were occasionally overloaded for missions, and it was probably true for other aircraft types.

As long as the game engine can handle the overload calculations, you should be able to max out on fuel and historical ordinance loads and take your chances.