Comparison IL2 vs BobII

[GOZR]

Ok here i did a quick montage footage of some scenes from yesterday just before to go tobed no story no much sens just some moving images just to show some images inside the sim.
As SeaVee said to post this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13MQvtwMwM0

( I play 1200 x 1600 all maxed out )

[Seafireliv]

Feels weird talking across two forums with people I recognise from both on the same subject! It`s like one massive forum!

[Kwiatek]

Hmmm...

Well IL-2's and BoB II's flight modelling isn't that different IMHO (I fly "full switch" only, i.e. w/ maximum realism settings turned on). The planes are somewhat torque-y in both so you have to put some boot in when taking off, f.ex., but the amount feels roughly the same to me in both. BoB II AC seem to have their undercarriages a bit more springy than what is the case with IL-2 - which I think is more realistic - but IL-2's engine gyro effect modelling is, again, better IMHO. Or, in other words, IL-2's rudder trim is there for a reason, because you'll have to re-trim every time you change your power settings - and that is something I feel is currently a bit lacking in BoB II's flight modelling.

My $0.002 only, of course. YMMV, as they say

In BoB2 gyroscopic effect is very big - planes are more unstable then in IL2. I dont know which is more realistic - i think in Bob2 gyro effect is little too big. Other hand torque effect in Il2 is better then BoB2. In IL2 you must to retrimm plane at different speeds in rudder trim because of these. In BoB2 torque effect exist only in the ground (take off). Still Il2 (BoB2 also) miss some torque effect when at slow speed you open wide throtlle should be bigger rotary factor ( it was in some prevoius patch in IL2 but dissapeard some time ago) - thats why is so dangerous open throtlle during landings (IRL Bf109 Rotte 7 crash beacuse of it in 2005).
Also spin and stall to left and righ side is better in Il2 - in Bob2 in torque side spin is ok but in the opposite side is unnatural (plane nose just jumping - its looks like gyroscopic problem ). I like more Bob2 take off and landings which are more challenging then in Il2 - expecially Bf109. Alhought i think that slots in 109 in BoB2 during landing rather disturb then help these plane to land.

[msalama]

In BoB2 gyroscopic effect is very big - planes are more unstable then in IL2. I dont know which is more realistic - i think in Bob2 gyro effect is little too big.

Well, it depends on what we're talking about. The BoB2 planes do gyrate about more wildly when you're suddendly forcing them into a new direction - like when you're making some rapid corrections in order to get a firing solution - but IL-2's planes IMHO exhibit more realistic yawing behaviour when you f.ex. pitch them up sharply (check the slip indicator next time you do this with any IL-2 AC).

Feels weird talking across two forums with people I recognise from both on the same subject! It`s like one massive forum!

Hiya Seafire

[msalama]

And oh yeah, I was a bit vague and/or misleading up there. There's of course much more as regards propeller and engine effects than a mere gyroscope whirling around at the front affecting how your plane behaves in-flight, i.e. power settings affecting trim and steering is actually a product of at least three phenomena - torque, p-factor and gyroscopic effect - all happening simultaneously. And the sum of these effects is indeed better modelled in IL-2 than in any other flight sim I've tried so far, although it can be argued that Oleg maybe went a bit overboard with the modelling

A good and concise explanation of different RL propeller and engine effects is available here, BTW, if anyone's interested.

[ricnunes]

Regarding Spins/Stall effects I prefer and think (never flown an aircraft) that the ones in BoBII are generally better than the ones in IL2. The spins in IL2 are IMO way off as for example in some if not most of the aircraft in IL2 (for example the FW-190) when you dive and even if you attain high speeds and pull back the stick hard (recovering from the dive) you'll "automatically" spin, this IMO is very odd and should never happen since the worse thing that could happen in such a situation would be that the aircraft woudn't recover at time from the dive (due to compressibility on the control surfaces).
Other odd situation is that if you turn hard to any of the sides (for example due to being pursuited by an enemy aircraft) you'll spin right away most of the times (and almost without any warning) so and again IMO if the IL2 Spin/Stalls (specially Spins) were "very realistic" we would see in real WWII footages that the aircraft that were pursuited would in most of the situation enter in spin (a situation that doesn't happen).
So because of this and while I agree that there are things in IL2 FM that are better (for example the already mentioned Trim) I honestly believe that the FM in BoBII is in general terms more accurate (and therefore better) when compared to real world than the IL2 FM is.
Also I think the new buffeting effect in BoBII 2.05 is awesome and really gives you a lot of feedback that you don't have in any other fligth sim or if you have it's very limited (like for example in IL2).

Well, my 2 cents...

[ricnunes]

I have to get my English straight. What's the difference between flak and direct AA. Is flak only the "heavy" AA (my aviation vocabulary is pretty much from Iron Maiden's "Aces High" )?

Flak is that AA fire that explodes in around enemy aircraft and damages (or shots it down) because the explosions send shrapnels (sorry for the typo, in case I spell that word wrongly) at all directions and it's this shrapnel that will damage or shot down an aircraft. So Flak works with same principle as an infantry fragmentation grenade.

Direct fire AA guns are basically large caliber "machine guns" (in fact they are called cannons because of the large caliber) and are very similar to aircraft mounted cannons (except they are mounted on ground positions) and will try to shot down/damage enemy aircraft hitting those same enemy aircraft with bullets (therefore the "direct fire" term).

I hope to have explain myself better this time.

[spitfireace]

I think towards the middle-end of the war the AA was "updated" so it could explode by proximity and not by direct hit? i think i saw it in the History Channel one day....

[msalama]

...would be that the aircraft woudn't recover at time from the dive (due to compressibility on the control surfaces).

Which is pretty much how they behave now in the newest version (v4.071m). Which version did you try?

you'll spin right away most of the times (and almost without any warning)

That's again something I haven't noticed myself lately (old versions are however a different story altogether). There's ample warning now when you're approaching the corner - plenty of buffeting and associated sounds of disturbed airflow.

Again, just my poco dineros

[hiz]

Flak is that AA fire that explodes in around enemy aircraft and damages (or shots it down) because the explosions send shrapnels (sorry for the typo, in case I spell that word wrongly) at all directions and it's this shrapnel that will damage or shot down an aircraft. So Flak works with same principle as an infantry fragmentation grenade.

Direct fire AA guns are basically large caliber "machine guns" (in fact they are called cannons because of the large caliber) and are very similar to aircraft mounted cannons (except they are mounted on ground positions) and will try to shot down/damage enemy aircraft hitting those same enemy aircraft with bullets (therefore the "direct fire" term).

I hope to have explain myself better this time.

Yes, quite understandable . What I meant was in fact the light AA. You end up Swiss cheesed quíte too often attacking ground targets and that light AA seems to reach a bit too high.

[Trumper]

Feels weird talking across two forums with people I recognise from both on the same subject! It`s like one massive forum!

Great is'nt it,also theres no flaming on here.Long may it continue,after all we are all simmers.

[Low_Flyer]

Who are you guys? Never heard of you.

[ricnunes]

...would be that the aircraft woudn't recover at time from the dive (due to compressibility on the control surfaces).

Which is pretty much how they behave now in the newest version (v4.071m). Which version did you try?

The most recent version that I tried was 4.06 (Which is the one you'll have after installing IL2 1946).

[ricnunes]

I think towards the middle-end of the war the AA was "updated" so it could explode by proximity and not by direct hit?

I'm not an expert in Anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) but here's what I know:
- I supose you're refering to Flak an not the Direct or Light AA, right?
Well from what I know (and read before) about how Flak works:
1- The Flak gun crew calculates the altitude of the target with the help of "visual instruments" (basically optics with range/altitude scales). In the "middle-end" of the war the altitude calculations were often made with the use of radar, so basically the radar started to replace or complement the "visual instruments" since the radar can calculate the altitude of a target much faster and with higher accuracy, this of course made Flak more deadly than before (when using optical instruments).
2- After the target's altitude as been determined the fuse of the Flak shell is set to explose at the target's altitude so that the shrapnel from the shell hits the desired target(s).
3- Of course advancements such as proximity fuses as mentioned by you made Flak even more deadly but I don't know if proximity fuses were used that often during any part of WWII?

So basically and the objective of this post of mine is to say that Flak was never a "direct hit" weapon but it was instead a fragmentation weapon (similar to a Fragmentation grenade).

[GOZR]

Ricnunes No senior! After the install of 1946 is 4.07m and then patch it to 4.071m Voila!