Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SkyHigh]

I know nothing about flying in real life, but I do remember reading a post many years ago, on a WWII Fighters forum, by a US WWII fighter vet (probably long since dead, RIP) who said that planes were generally modeled on flight sims as being much harder to fly than was the case in reality. In particular, he asserted that it was much rarer to stall or spin in real life than in the games. Therefore, reducing difficulty settings in Il-2 may actually increase the realism.

Of course, how this impacts the relative ability of various planes is another matter entirely. Of this subject I can only say one thing with certainty-unanimity is unachievable!

[ANDYTOTHED]

I'll just throw in my two cents.

The P-51, when trimmed correctly and flown at the right altitudes is unstoppable. it will outrun, outdive and typically outzoom just about any other comparable blue plane, that isn't a jet or a late war super-prop.

However, it does have a problems, the laminar flow wing stalls at a higher speed than more conventional wings, and it struggles to build energy down low (mustang III and it's 150 octane fuel notwithstanding). This means that fighting down low and slow is no. Also at higher speeds, the 109's controls become heavier, probably leading to claims that the mustang was more maneuverable.

To make a long story short the mustang is an energy fighter, and probably one of the better ones. Close in dogfighting is better left to aircraft better designed for it, such as Spitfires. 

I know nothing about flying in real life, but I do remember reading a post many years ago, on a WWII Fighters forum, by a US WWII fighter vet (probably long since dead, RIP) who said that planes were generally modeled on flight sims as being much harder to fly than was the case in reality. In particular, he asserted that it was much rarer to stall or spin in real life than in the games. Therefore, reducing difficulty settings in Il-2 may actually increase the realism.

Of course, how this impacts the relative ability of various planes is another matter entirely. Of this subject I can only say one thing with certainty-unanimity is unachievable!

When you fly for real, you can feel what the aircraft is doing, and so it is easier to tell if you're pushing it too hard and are on the verge of departure. Unless you have a force feedback stick, it's harder to tell in sim.

[Captain Dawson]

.... It is well documented that the P-51 was more maneuverable than frontline Axis fighters such as the Bf-109 and Fw-190. I is well documented that the P-51 was FASTER in level flight than all German fighters until planes such as the Fw-190D and Me-262. Yet you rarely see these advantages play out in IL-2. If you try to turn harder than a Bf-109, the P-51 starts dropping a wing off to the side and spins out of control if you continue pulling back, while the Bf-109 easily follows. Only by flying perfectly level for a length of time can you even begin to gain speed on a Fw-190. If the enemy Fw does anything to avoid the attack, you are nearly helpless to follow their death-defying bone-crushing maneuvers.

...

Errr, no Captain Dawson, it's well documented that the Mustang was not more maneuverable than the 109, gun pods notwithstanding. True, the latest model 109's lost a lot of the agility of their older brothers, i.e. the F and G2, but the Mustang is generally not considered a turn-fighter.

http://www.aviatia.net/p-51-vs-bf-109/ You are correct, after research I see Bf-109 was *slightly* better rated in turns. However, P-51 had lower wing loading, which you would not see as much from IL-2 gameplay. I don't have an issue with certain planes having a real advantage in some areas above another plane. It's the snap rolling, drifting, and sluggish controls I have a problem with.

I've flown it online and off for years and it does a good job but you can't just yank it around like you can do in a 109 or some other Blue kites. If you have trouble escaping from a Zeke in a dive or level flight, try a fast climb at at least 400 km/h; you won't have a great climb rate but you will outpace the Zeke.
On the other hand, I've found that when I fly the P-38 offline, I'm pretty much dead meat against the 109 and 190.

I understand about yanking the controls, and I avoid this. I just think the general handling of the P-51 is made to be too unrealistically difficult!

This is interesting what you say, because I actually do fairly well against 109s in the P-38, but struggle in the P-51. In the P-38, at least I have a better form of stability. Perhaps this has more to do with different pilots and their style of flying.

I know nothing about flying in real life, but I do remember reading a post many years ago, on a WWII Fighters forum, by a US WWII fighter vet (probably long since dead, RIP) who said that planes were generally modeled on flight sims as being much harder to fly than was the case in reality. In particular, he asserted that it was much rarer to stall or spin in real life than in the games. Therefore, reducing difficulty settings in Il-2 may actually increase the realism.

Of course, how this impacts the relative ability of various planes is another matter entirely. Of this subject I can only say one thing with certainty-unanimity is unachievable!

I have heard this before. This is what I see for certain with US planes in IL-2. Good point about unanimity though.

[Captain Dawson]

I'll just throw in my two cents.

The P-51, when trimmed correctly and flown at the right altitudes is unstoppable. it will outrun, outdive and typically outzoom just about any other comparable blue plane, that isn't a jet or a late war super-prop.

However, it does have a problems, the laminar flow wing stalls at a higher speed than more conventional wings, and it struggles to build energy down low (mustang III and it's 150 octane fuel notwithstanding). This means that fighting down low and slow is no. Also at higher speeds, the 109's controls become heavier, probably leading to claims that the mustang was more maneuverable.

To make a long story short the mustang is an energy fighter, and probably one of the better ones. Close in dogfighting is better left to aircraft better designed for it, such as Spitfires. 

I've flown the Spit too much to be good at the Mustang.    I often find myself using the P-51 as a turnfighter at low altitude rather than a zoomer.  Maybe I'm not cut out for Boom and Zoom planes, I'm better at turn dogfighting. I can't seem to get much out of the P-51, and yet I can actually manage to shoot down human player Bf-109 K4s with a Gladiator on HL! Something is seriously wrong here.

[raptor_9090]

Just happened now. I was flying a FW190-D9 in a mission of Boelckes Defense of the Reich campaign, spotted 4 P-51's. One got shot down, then i faced one of them on a dive, didn't work as i got too fast and had to take easy on the turn. Then a P-51 of the same squadron dived, aimed perfectly for me and shoot me down in less than 8 seconds. All this in a altitude of less than 3500m.

So, i believe it's not he P-51 FM that is wrong, much less that it have poor performance in-game. It's more the AI that is sometimes unrealistic too accurate.
For sure i shouldn't have the poor choice of combating 3 P-51s at once though...

[Highfive]

  - Agreed.. I'm new to IL-2 but have considerable experience in other flight sims. I've flow these same type of aircraft in CFS3 from downloads claiming flight characteristics very close to the real aircraft using 1% air files and weren't so difficult to fly (keep from spinning..). From my limited flight time in IL-2 seems that aircraft are way too easy to put in a spin (option now off). Enemy (AI) aircraft on even normal difficulty shoot me down in one burst.. Thought one of the optional download I applied to the game via JSGME (though not appearing on my mod. list that I can see) was to increased the AI intelligence - big mistake.. 

[raptor_9090]

I know nothing about flying in real life, but I do remember reading a post many years ago, on a WWII Fighters forum, by a US WWII fighter vet (probably long since dead, RIP) who said that planes were generally modeled on flight sims as being much harder to fly than was the case in reality. In particular, he asserted that it was much rarer to stall or spin in real life than in the games. Therefore, reducing difficulty settings in Il-2 may actually increase the realism.

Of course, how this impacts the relative ability of various planes is another matter entirely. Of this subject I can only say one thing with certainty-unanimity is unachievable!

Yes. Another thing to consider, aside from the fact that in real life you feel better the aircraft like ANDYTHOTHED said, is the controls/joystick equipment system.
In real life, as you fly with the real stick that has 100% the accuracy, endurance and etc, you have infinitely more control over the thing you're flying.
In flight sims, a lot of us (specially in countries where flight-sim sticks are ridiculously expensive, even the "cheap" ones) have joysticks that are short, not much precise and made with cheap unreliable materials. This gives you way less control over the plane.
This makes the simulation experience A LOT HARDER, compared to the real thing.

[max_thehitman]

Not enough rivets in those airplanes 

[sniperton]

Yes. Another thing to consider, aside from the fact that in real life you feel better the aircraft like ANDYTHOTHED said, is the controls/joystick equipment system.

Agreed. And add that we constantly change planes as no RL pilot did.
Add that most of us fly with one and the same joystick setting for all planes, irrespective of their various responsibilities to control inputs.
A setting which feels good for a Hurri, feels sluggish for an IAR, and over-sensitive for other planes.
A setting which feels good for general flight dynamics, proves to be over-sensitive when it comes to aiming and fine adjustments.
When you manage to stabilize before shooting, pulling the trigger is likely to move the stick as well a little bit, and most of the time it's just enough to spray bullets across the sky.
The AI doesn't suffer from these 'technical' problems related to input devices not optimized to personal human motoric.

[SAS~GJE52]

.. and for those who are unsure .. the answer is .. two.                                                .

 
G;

[SkyHigh]

Aye, we'll quickly go down the rabbit-hole if we start debating flight-models. It generally ends up in a war of all against all because of so many variables and differing experiences and components. Personally, I think one should adjust the difficulty level to that which makes one most comfortable and the game most enjoyable. Everyone will have their own ideas on what that level represents. I make the difficulty easy and the AI rookie, because I am useless. Others would be far more skilled than me and would prefer a greater challenge. This game can't be faulted for its broad choice of options.

[Alfie Noakes]

I discovered a cheap and effective way to add realism to my WWI flying experience & improved my dog-fighting skills.....

Lit one of these and placed it about 6 feet away from my desk.....



I then dowsed myself in petrol and dead insects.....

Every time I lost a dog-fight I moved the candle 1 foot closer

Give it a go https://www.amazon.com/Klotz-Candle-Benol-Castor-Scent/dp/B01M2CQSU2/ref=pd_lpo_194_tr_t_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6TTZW2C0VRT7GEXTXDPT

I find it does wonder's for the concentration 

Cheers

Alfie