Comparison IL2 vs BobII

[msalama]

Interesting discussion this here.

Real WWII fighter AC were unstable by design to a degree to my knowledge too, because that was what made them manouverable - and YES, at the same time most of them had some dihedral as well, because at those power and weight levels they would have been most likely uncontrollable without (and possibly without some other stabilizing factors too). So what they most likely were was what one could describe as being "lively" without being truly aerobatic.

So Su-29's they definitely weren't, but neither were they Cessnas

[msalama]

...but this isn't what really happens in IL2 where you don't need to push hard in most of the aircraft in order to exibit unforgiving behaviours.

As I said before, this is largely dependent on how you set up your controllers. I f.ex. seldomly stall them out nowadays myself unless I really get hamfisted...

[Kwiatek]

Exactly and I completly agree!
Notice that I'm not against the BoBII FM, by the contrary. Like it was said before the BoBII FM seems to concur with most of that I read so far about WWII aircraft "handling". What I'm against here is the exageration of the FM behaviours like happens in IL2 and what I defend here is that neither is realistic a "too forgiving" FM and neither is realistic a FM which is the complete opposite "too unforgiving".
And basically what I read about real WWII aircraft is that even the most unstable ones only become "unforgiving" (Snap/Stall/Spins) is they're pushed too hard. This is exactly what happens in BoBII but this isn't what really happens in IL2 where you don't need to push hard in most of the aircraft in order to exibit unforgiving behaviours.

And regarding the FM in IL2 aircraft I would like to comment the following sentence from JamesB:
"Aircraft like the Mustang and the Corsair were far more stable and meant that they could be used for more general purposes."
It's curious to know this because the Corsair is definitly one of the most unstable aircraft in IL2, hence my criticism to IL2 FMs.

The reason why I keep pushing these arguments is that I wouldn't like to see the BoBII FMs become similar or identical to the IL2 ones.

I must not agree here with bad IL2 opinion. With version 4.08 and new control mechanism planes are more stable and are harder to stall and spin. Before Il2 1946 (4.06 ver) most planes was unstable during pitch moment and rudder input - comunity call it "wobbling". The same we have in BoB2 WOV - but still in BoB2 these effect is bigger then in IL2. These "wobbling" in Il2 cause aiming more challanging but still was some errors with staliblity of some planes knowing as stable gunnery platform (p-47, Corsair). Actually in 4.08 planes like Corsair and P-47 are more stable then e.x. Spitfire or P-51 ( P-51 was never know as a stable gunnery platform) - still Corsair or P-47 have some unstability effect but not so much like before. If we speak of stall characteristic comparing Il2 and BoB2 i think that BoB2 represent better only prestall buffet but Il2 is much better in stricte stall and spin moddeling. Playing IL2 mostly i have no problem with stall and spins beacuse i fell it in my FF stick. Only during hard slow speed vertical manouvering some times stall happend. In BoB2 i think stall exist only in some clearly sitation e.x. during hard sharp turn but dont exist in some other sitation (vertical manouvering, in opposite way to prop work) where should happend (like in IL2).
I think RL pilots think that stall behavoiur is better in BoB2 because they fell it better due to its good moddeled prestall buffet. IL2 FM have generally much less stall warnig (if you dont have ff stick) then BoB2 and pilot could have problem playing IL:2 ( like my flight instructor during playing il2 :p)
If we speak about stablilty of planes in BoB2 planes are much more unstable then in IL2. Still in Il2 planes have instablity effect in pitch or rudder movement but it is not so big like in BoB2. I personally prefer IL2 instability effect then these in BoB2 which for me is too big. But i have no RL experience with flying warbirds plane.

[Tobruk]

Since I haven't played Il-2 FB for sometime I cannot say for sure which FM I prefer, from memory they seem about the same, except on landing.

I do believe that something is Borked on the BOBII landing model. It should not be that difficult IMHO. I think the bounce is over exaggerated.

[msalama]

from memory they seem about the same, except on landing.

Yeah, they're feeling pretty similar to me too - provided that you adjust those controllers properly in IL-2 - except that IL-2 has a tad better prop and gyro effects modelling IMHO. You really have to pay attention to your rudder trim in IL-2 and you also need to put the boot in when f.ex. going through a loop there...

[Hylander_1715]

Tobruk,

The F4U was a handful, mainly on takeoff and landing from a carrier, due to the torque of the P&W R-2800 18 cyl. radial engine. Chance Vought designed the smallest airframe possible around the largest engine available.

To help counter the torque and not exhaust the pilot, the fin and rudder were designed to be offset 2 degrees to give right rudder effect with neutral trim. (I have yet to see this simulated in a model, or the FM)

Also the stall issues of the plane were wicked, as the stall happenned without much warning. Stalls on landing were traced to a disruption of the airflow over the starboard wing causing the plane fall off to the right. This was corrected by adding a wedge shaped part aproximately 8 inches in length to the leading edge of the starboard wing to even out the stall on both wings and avoid the spin after a stall. (This has also been neglected by simulations)

The langing gear oleos had to be adjusted to reduce the bounce that the plane sufferred from.

Also, Royal Navy pilots figured out fairly quickly the best way to approach a carrier for landing was a shallow turn to port as the long nose made forward visibility during takeoff and landing almost impossible.

Watch some of the films that show F4U's being catapulted off from the smaller escort carriers, and the pilots have the rudder kicked full right, even with the assistance of a catapult.

Compared to F6F, the F4U was a handful. It took more time than the F6F to get familiar with, and train on. The F6F was designed for pilots coming out of flight school and getting into combat quickly. The F4U was meant for pilots with some time under their belts, and could exploit the planes assets.

[hiz]

That's interesting, Hylander. Not to be sarcastic or anything, but what were F4U's assets? Speed? In IL-2 I find it terrible to fly, which might be just about right. It doesn't turn and you can't see s**t. I don't doubt that the thing had something up it's sleeve that made it a deadly weapon with a skilled pilot. What was it?

[Buddye]

Hi hiz,

The F4U was a boom and zoom fighter. It could not hope to turn with the Zero (or the Jap A/C). It was heavy, powerful engine,very fast, well armed, very tough (could take some hits, and protected the pilot well).

The best maneuvre was to attack from high alt, shoot the enemy, and zoom away. The Jap A/C could not catch it. After well cleared it could then turn and reattack.

The "Black Sheep" squad was made famous using them. It was very hard to land on a carrier and for a while was taken off carrier duty but it was later re-enstated to carrier duty after the turn landing was perfected and taught.

[hiz]

Yes, I gather that's what's left if manouverability is off the table. A little OT, but I don't think you enthusiast will mind. I thought this was a great clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6j-1EyouN0

[Hylander_1715]

hiz,

The F4U was a boom and zoom fighter, but once things broke up and everything went to individual fights, the F4U pilots were told to not go any slower than 240 kts. and to use their flaps to help with turning tighter, since the Zeke, Oscar, and Tony were known to get very heavy on the controls.

The Corsair at those speeds could out perform their Japanese opponents, and in the worst case, your Corsair could outdive them if you still have some altitude. The only IJA airplane that could actually give you a run for your money was the George. But it was able to tangle with the P-51, the P-47, P-38, F4U, and F6F on equal terms, and against the American fighters, it had some better individual attributes.

If your "Big Hog" isn't performing, then there's something wrong with the FM, or your tactics. If the E/A can keep up with you in high speed manuevers, then the Japanese planes need their FM tweaked to reflect their lack of manueverability at speeds above 240 kts. The Japanese planes should perform their best between 180 and 220 kts. Above 220 kts their performance started to fall off, as the controls would become increasingly heavier, and once the 240 kt. range was breeched, the controls became so heavy that you needed to be a very strong man to move the stick around, and how long would that take to fatigue a pilot no matter how muscular he was. And your Corsair should still perform very good at those high speeds, and have a roll rate equal to or better than the P-47. The design of the ailerons, and the fact that they were covered with plywood, made them very responsive, even at high speeds.

Don't forget that Corsair Aces in the scored 545.25 kills in the South Pacific, and another 240.083 kills in the Central Pacific. These stats are from Osprey's Corsair Aces of WWII. What would the figures have been, had the Navy not taken the time they did to get the F4U cleared for carrier ops. The F6F may not have accounted for as many enemy planes as it did.

Also the kill to loss ratio was something like 19 to 1. If memory serves me correctly.

One thing too that I have yet to see in a simulator, is the F6F was built with either 2 or 4 degrees of down thrust for the engine which is why the tail "droops" when they are at cruise speeds. Does IL2 model that?

On a side note, some Corsairs had extra tape on the leading edge of the wing to make it look like they carried 8 to 10 ten guns instead of the standard 6 gun platform. Early psycological warfare.

[hiz]

The drooping of the tail of the F6F doesn't seem to be modeled in the IL-2. It is also difficult to tell if the things you mentioned about F4U against Japanese fighters are modeled. The AI has the advantage anyhow and seems to be doing things that one would be inclined to deem impossible (this, I know, is debatable...). One thing that I did check though, was the stalling of the F4U. In IL-2 the F4U tips the right wing in a power off stall instead of the left one as happens in the instruction film. The speed seems to be about right (80 kts), if the "combat flaps" of IL-2 are the same as 30 degrees in the film. However you get plenty of warning, in fact it is quite hard to make the plane stall and you have to pull the stick quite hard to accomplish this.

[Hylander_1715]

Thanks hiz,

I'll save my pennies for now, and wait for a PTO flight sim.

I double checked my references, and the F6F had 3 degrees of down thrust built into the airframe for the engine. This was offset by zero incidence built into the wing. This gave more lift during takeoff and landing with the way the wing was designed.

With that arrangement during normal cruise, the tail would droop slightly, but once full power was added, the plane levelled out.

Maybe you can do some freeflight tests yourself with the Japanese planes. The thing to remember about their early and mid-war designs, is that the Japanese designers, and military believed in manueverability above speed. This meant the planes had to be light. That is why they lacked self sealing tanks, and armour protection for the pilot, and aircraft vital points.

Too Japanese tactics were on the horizontal, while the American flyers tactics were based on the vertical plain.

Try this next time you tangle with them. If you still have some decent altitude, put the F4U into a terminal velocity dive, and see if the Japanese plane stays on your six. If he does, then the FM, and AI are porked. That kind of dive would rip a Japanese fighter apart, or in the least make it impossible for the AI to recover and bore into the sea or ground.

The latter is from an F4U pilot who had an at length conversation with me a long time ago. He was a judge at a modellers contest, and I had enterred an F4U I had built and the markings were the same as one of the planes he would fly from time to time. Needless to say, after the contest, he aquired a new model. But anyways, his flight of 4 F4U's tangled with around 16 Zeke's. He ended up with 3 of them on his tail at around 12,000ft. His wingman was preoccupied with a couple more, and his only choice was to dive to evade. The 3 Zeke's followed him, which ended with 2 of them splashing, and the 3rd one pulled out enough that his prop hit the beach, and damaged the engine, and the plane settled into the surf. He wasn't too sure how fast he was going, but he figured he was close to 500mph, or more.

Hope this helps.

[hiz]

I haven't had time yet to try that. I just bought the 1946 for the improvements it has with it (I don't understand the point of having imaginary scenarios of Germany and USSR fighting in 1946! I have no imagination. If I did, I'd cut it off.) and flew the Ki-43 II. The heavy controls are modeled in a way that it is hard to control the plane in a dive. I only flew against F4U once and let me tell you why: If the AI has a faster A/C, the only thing it does after losing the horizontal battle is get altitude. And it does this until it reaches the moon! (Now I know why they used pilots as astronauts. They already had experience in space travelling.) I must admit, this is probably realistic. You wouldn't want to risk getting into a turn fight with a more agile opponent. But it is also boring as hell!! You just fly after your opponent endlessly! He won't turn around and fight!

I'm pretty impressed with the improvements made in the 1946 compared to PF, but one thing doesn't change: The AI is idioticly favored. If I am flying a Ki-43 II from 1943, which, if I'm correct, is a pretty fast fighter, I just can't understand how I fail to reach a F2A from 1940 in level flight. Although the F2A's that were sold to Finland during the winter war and had difficulties with the modern Russian fighters like the MiG3, were less powerful than the ones used by the Americans, British and Dutch, the F2A WAS NOT a fast fighter no matter which version.

This is your humble narrator saying: RIDICULOUS!!!

[GOZR]

I repeat again to me since i never play offline versus ai's..
The major lack for BOB2 is that you will never be on a team, you will never fight real person, never do competitions, never talk about someone flying tactics, Never share a kill and on and on.. All the il2 vs BOB2 make no sens to me right now.
BOB2 is starting and il2 is basicly at his end of life. The need of the next generation of BOB2 should be really re-concidered

So even if BOB2 is a great sim versus ai's it will never do the cut for me is as simple as this.
What are the success of a sim? well it's basic, Great graphics land, air and damaged models, A great FM planes and world meaning weather, clock time change, clouds, winds turbulences etc.. correct loads and weapons etc.. and the capability to shoot down real thinking person..


So it's basicly talking or watching a movie but never share the actual story .

[ricnunes]

What are the success of a sim? ... and the capability to shoot down real thinking person..

So it's basicly talking or watching a movie but never share the actual story .

Well that's your oppinion. We can't be sure if that's in fact the oppinion of the majority of the players (I personally doubt that is, but that's IMO).
For example for me the only Multiplayer mode which is worth playing is cooperative mode. Team versus Team games become in the vast majority of the times in "arcade shooting galleries" (not to mention the cheaters and other unpleasant "surprises" which comes with multiplayer games).
Saying this the multiplayer coop mode is only worth if the AI is good since in the end you're still fighting against AIs only with some human wingmen and the IL2 AI is simply NOT GOOD.