CFS3 or PF - Part II

[Mathias]

I think it's useless to discuss how dev a and b obtain their flight data, I would suspect that both M$ and Maddox games know their stuff.
Point of interest is, how capable is the aero engine of Sim a and b to transport real world data into a PC game, where are generic tables used and what portions are modelled individually for each single plane, or just in other words, what amount of real world flight physics is actually modelled into the sim, in what detail and what is being left out?

[Felix/FFDS]

I think it's useless to discuss how dev a and b obtain their flight data, I would suspect that both M$ and Maddox games know their stuff.
Point of interest is, how capable is the aero engine of Sim a and b to transport real world data into a PC game, where are generic tables used and what portions are modelled individually for each single plane, or just in other words, what amount of real world flight physics is actually modelled into the sim, in what detail and what is being left out?

You have presented my point of view in a much clearer manner..  thank you!

[flyingbullseye]

[quote]


And: "IL2: equal dive characteristics."



Have you actually flown PF?

[Microsoft Corporation]

There's also the issue of "playability", and Oleg will adamantly deny this, but I suspect that some of the AC in PF are "enhanced" for the sake of balanced game play.  The dive speed of the A6M might be an example of this.

I have to admit that I am glad that, for whatever reason, some planes like the Zero have been given a little "help", inasmuch as PF being played as human-versus-human competition by many folks like me.  Even in it's "idealized" state, the A6M5, for example, is easy meat for the Hellcat.  If the A6M was 55 mph (avg) slower than the Hellcat in PF (it isn't as far as I can tell), you would never get anyone to fly it online!  With all its weakness in PF now: poor high-speed roll-rate, and lack of armor (easy to light up), we're lucky to have any human Japanese fighter opposition.

On the other hand, if you are playing a campaign off-line against AI and recreating actual battles, then it would be better to stay close as possible to historic performance.

But pls don't quote me out of context as an example of how "Oleg got it wrong" or whatever, because I really don't have a clue

[Woodlouse2002]

But the Zero was more than a match for the Hellcat. It's roll rate was second to none and could outmanuvre anything going. If in a one on one dogfight the Zero always loses then this is the best example i've seen that PF's flight dynamics are suspect at best.

[Smoke2much]

There's also the issue of "playability", and Oleg will adamantly deny this, but I suspect that some of the AC in PF are "enhanced" for the sake of balanced game play.  The dive speed of the A6M might be an example of this.

I would have thought that altering the performance of an aircraft to make it more playable online defeats the purpose of even attempting to make an accurate simulator.  The BF109 was a far superior fighter to the Hurricane yet Hurricane pilots succesfully shot down Messershmidts.  In the same vein the Spitfire was superior to the 109 but the same applied.

A good simulator models the aircraft accurately and a more skillful pilot will win a dogfight in an inferior aircraft because he is able to use whatever strengths his 'plane posseses and exploit the weaknesess of the enemy, no matter how minor they are.  Tweaking the aircraft for "fair" play removes any challenge or sense of accomplishment that might have existed.

Apologies for poor spelling

Will

[flyingbullseye]

Woodlouse2002 I would have to agree and disagree with you on the A6M, even later model versions.  Yes it had a great roll rate but at low speeds much like its turn rate, but increase the speed past 250 going on 300 mph good luck moving the stick.  Likewise the F6F was superior at high speeds and was decent at low speeds but not close to the A6M.  In a one on one fight really the better pilot wins, it just is who can at advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of each plane.  Will.F good points I don't think I can add anymore to the post.  The one thing that I hate in basically every sim made these days is the AI always has a better FM than given the player.  If it has to do with the problem with making it smart enough to actually combat the player at a reasonable level then I understand but if that isn't the problem does any one know why the player is at a disadvantage?  Both sims do this.  

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]Woodlouse2002 I would have to agree and disagree with you on the A6M, even later model versions.

[Felix/FFDS]

Thats the point. If your flying a Zero then you want to taunt your enemy into joining you in a low and slow turning fight. If your in a Hellcat then you'll want to keep your speed up. Enhancing aircraft so they can compete on an even keel is just wrong for a sim that prides itself on the accuracy of it's FD's.

 Then so far, every combat sim I'veflown - boxed or online - is 110% accurate .... only the dumbest AI succumbs to my "skill"!

[C]

I swear, you guys are going to force my to actually load CFS3 and IL2 back up, and BUY Pacific Fighters and conduct my own tests (which by definition shall become the standard by which the sims are to be compared )

I was thinking of maybe doing the same thing. May give me something to do.

[Felix/FFDS]

I was thinking of maybe doing the same thing. May give me something to do.

Charlie - I think we ought to up in Gladiators and show these whippersnappers a thing or two ...  (even if they get their concentration snapped by laughing too hard, a kill is a kill!)

[C]

Gladiators? How did you know I liked them? Sat in the one at Old Warden when I was a wee boy of 9...

[Felix/FFDS]

Gladiators? How did you know I liked them? Sat in the one at Old Warden when I was a wee boy of 9...

Gladiators have been one of my favorites...  Others include the Gauntlet, Nimrod, ...

[Microsoft Corporation]

But the Zero was more than a match for the Hellcat. It's roll rate was second to none and could outmanuvre anything going. If in a one on one dogfight the Zero always loses then this is the best example i've seen that PF's flight dynamics are suspect at best.

BTW, do you know what the kill/loss ratio was for the Hellcat in 43 - 45?  ;)

Just for the record, the "Zero" doesn't always lose in 1v1 in PF.  On the other hand, if the Hellcat keeps up it's speed, at least 200 Knots, the Zeke has virtually no chance to shoot it down.  The Zeke is almost as hard to shoot down because you can barely ever pull lead on it.

Even with its apparent speed boost, the Zeke is still outclassed by the Hellcat except in low speed turnfights.

Disclaimer: I've only been in one mission online in the Hellcat where I've had to fight Zekes (I recently upgraded from the Wildcat).  The guys in the Zekes (all experienced) were only able to shoot down a few AI (average) controlled Hellcats.  Human Hellcat drivers shot down 5 out of 12 human controlled Zekes.

To me, that's the genius of IL-2: put a bunch of guys against each other, in historically matched A/C, using historic tactics, and the outcome is almost always consistent with historic accounts of similar encounters.  I think it's why, 4 years after the release of IL-2, there are more people than ever playing PF online.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

BTW, do you know what the kill/loss ratio was for the Hellcat in 43 - 45?