Does the P-51 fly poorly in Il Sturmovik 1946?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Just curious. Is it even worse than in Forgotten Battles?

Seems like in most Sims it's not a very good plane compared to the Axis fighters. Axis planes seem to do best on online multiplay too.

Maybe it's just because the best players often go Axis. It's the same on Medal of Honor multiplayer too, the players with the highest kill ratio are often playing as Germans. Compound that with the fact that a lot of newbies play as Allies and you have a slaughter on your hands.

Anyway, to get back to the Il Sturmovik's P-51, was it deliberately made to fly poorly by the video game makers to sort of shame the "oh, the P-51 was the best" crowd?

What do you think, do sim games make the P-51's vices even worse than in real life or not?

 

[Amsel]

I know what you are talking about. The P-51 requires a steady hand for sure. I have cussed it plenty. At high altitudes it is superb though. I love the speed and the rate of climb. The six fifties leave a bit to be desired when fighting FW-190's though. The P-51 loves to stall at the worst possible moments, sometimes causing the pilot to be killed instantly it seems from a good shot to the canopy with a 20 or 30mm.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think you may be right about the P-51D's performance in IL-2. We all noticed that the Axis aircraft don't seem to fly as well as they should, and surprisingly enough, the Soviet aircraft all seem to have a little bit better than normal characteristics. When an early model IL-2 Sturmovik can turn inside of a Bf109G2, then you have to really start to wonder.

When I first flew in IL-2, I noticed differences right off the bat. I then compared the aircraft to the flight models in CFS3 using the super-accurate 1% aircraft from AVHistory, and there was a marked difference. To be fair, I had the flight settings in the sims all set to the highest realism levels possible, so I could compare stalls, spins, climbs, etc.

I thought that perhaps I had been flying Jane's WW2 Fighters and CFS2/3 for so long, I had become biased. But sure enough, there were lower levels of performance in a number of Western Allied machines, and lower performances by the Axis machines.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I guess I'm not the only one then!

Thanks!

Perhaps Il Sturmovik was trying to make the game more difficult so you could have a tougher time. Lot's of games like to do that.

 

[KrazyKraut]

I personally think people have become a bit paranoid about their personal pet plane not performing as they think it should. You mention the P-51 being worse than the Axis counterparts: I actually think the only axis planes that perform as you would expect are the Fw 190 D and the Bf 109 from F variant up. I regularly find myself outclimbed, outdived and simply outsped by Hurricanes when I fly the Bf 109 E. Even worse is the Fw 190 A (all variants): It is so inefficient that you can basically just fly home after the first attack(s) or you will lose so much energy that Yaks and Las will just have their way with you. Same goes for the Me 262.

I think the problem is due to energy attacks not working as they should (or being way too hard). The best fighters in the game are the dog-fighters: Spit, 109 F, Ki-84... they are a lot easier to use.

 

[Tempik]

I personally think people have become a bit paranoid about their personal pet plane not performing as they think it should. You mention the P-51 being worse than the Axis counterparts: I actually think the only axis planes that perform as you would expect are the Fw 190 D and the Bf 109 from F variant up.

I agree with FW190D9-44 this is the best piston fighters in game (is overmodeled). P-51 is good plane. But pilot must have speed. Not turn and burn. Bf 109F is slow. No oponent for P-51

I regularly find myself outclimbed, outdived and simply outsped by Hurricanes when I fly the Bf 109 E.

Mistake is between joystick and chair. Bf 109E is better then Huri

Even worse is the Fw 190 A (all variants): It is so inefficient that you can basically just fly home after the first attack(s) or you will lose so much energy that Yaks and Las will just have their way with you. Same goes for the Me 262.

This planes is very heavy, its ok with lose energy. And SSSR planes? Il2 is game from SSSR....FW190A is OK. This planes is for skilled pilots.

I think the problem is due to energy attacks not working as they should (or being way too hard). The best fighters in the game are the dog-fighters: Spit, 109 F, Ki-84... they are a lot easier to use.

Energy attack is very efective. But energy fighter must flying in squad. No alone. Look at online war servers. Many pilots of heavy FW190 prioritize this "bad" planes against Bf109F. Like as pilot P51 against Spit IX.

 

[GrauGeist]

I couldn't say that I qualify for the "paranoia" description regarding the P-51D, as it's not my favorite aircraft. I would say, however, that I have flown the P-51D on quite a number of occasions and in a good number of combat sims. I am fully aware of what the P-51D should do in flight, and what it is capable of in competant hands, both in real life and in simulation. The P-51D was a deadly machine that could indeed "turn and burn" as well as "boom and zoom". It had an advanced aerodynamic design that allowed it phenominal manovering abilities. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine gave it the ability to climb at a fast rate, enter combat at higher altitudes, had a tight turning radius and had good flight stability. It could be unforgiving at the hands of inexperience, and had a tendancy to stall/spin before many other machines. All that being said, there are some combat simulators that have taken the P-51D's performance specs, and de-tuned them to a certain degree...and this is being said from an objective, non-biased comparison, not "paranoia"...as I said, the P-51D is not a favorite machine of mine, but I will give credit where credit is due.

I will say that in my years of running various combat sims, the P-51D in the hands of experienced opponents (not AI) has given me the highest degree of battle, and I respect that.

As far as the Fw190A-8 goes, it can quite easlily stand and fight, and to say that it can't is either an untested comment of bravado, or an oversight that could easily get you in the parachute (or worse) real fast...The later Fw190A series had speed on tap, the were armed to the teeth and the combat abilities of the "Dora" series goes without saying. The Fw190 is not for the inexperienced pilot. It can be brutally unforgiving if you stall it. It has the speed to climb well, and can either overtake or outrun a large number of aircraft.

The dog-fighting qualities of the Me262 has been discussed almost to death, it wasn't a true fighter, but an interceptor. It can stand and fight if flown by experienced pilots who understand the Me262's short-comings. There were quite a few cases in 1944/1945 where Me262 pilots did turn and fight, much to the surprise of the attacking Allied pilots. The one thing a pilot never wants to see, is the business end of a Me262 pointed at you...this is not a good thing...If you must dogfight in a Me262, you must always keep your speed up, engines at a minimum of 90% power. Always watch your fuel level, you have 80 minutes flight, but in combat, you have 30 minutes...less if you've been in flight for a length of time before entering battle. Sharps turns bleed off alot of energy, so use nose-down attitude when turning to maintain that speed. Always remember that a Me262 can outclimb an adversary. To dive away from an opponent is to die, period...especially when against a Jug.

The Bf109 aircraft series until the G-6/AS was a good and deadly machine. The early '109 proved itself against all the allies had, and was where a large number of Germany's "Experten" earned thier reputations.

We could go on speculating why the western allied and axis aircraft in the IL-2 series don't appear to be operating at their fullest. But unless you can get inside Oleg's head, it'll be just that, pure speculation.

I figure what we should do, is understand what the machines can do and can't do regardless of what they're supposed to do, and then use that knowledge to the best of your abilities.

 

[KrazyKraut]

...

Wow, nice how you evaluated my piloting skills. You must be a real (virtual) ace i guess.

 

[Tempik]

Wow, nice how you evaluated my piloting skills. You must be a real (virtual) ace i guess.

My english is not good. I apologize if i stumble you. And Hurricane is definitely worst then Bf 109E 4/7. Is slower, not good climb, fast lose energy. Only turn at low speed is better.

 

[Amsel]

No offense to anybody, I'm just posting what Oleg says about it.

Pilots win dogfights. Not airplanes. If a pilot is not particularly good, regardless of a plane, he'll always have a sinking feeling that something somewhere is wrong... and not everyone is willing to admit that the fault lies within. - Oleg Maddox

 

[KrazyKraut]

My english is not good. I apologize if i stumble you. And Hurricane is definitely worst then Bf 109E 4/7. Is slower, not good climb, fast lose energy. Only turn at low speed is better.

No offense taken I was just fooling around. I only play singleplayer and I definetly had Hurricanes outrun me, without any previous turnfights involved. Just straight level chase and all of a sudden the Hurri slowly gained distance from me.

 

[eddie_brunette]

No offense taken I was just fooling around. I only play singleplayer and I definetly had Hurricanes outrun me, without any previous turnfights involved. Just straight level chase and all of a sudden the Hurri slowly gained distance from me.

Get the new AI mod, (All Aircraft Arcade :: View topic - [MOD] AI Mod V.17 *UPDATE*)

It completely turns this sim on its head, and make it 10000 times better. Now you will have AI BnZ you in BnZ planes, and the same goes for TnB planes.

So hurricanes will try to outturn you, not a good point of the Emil, but you can BnZ the Hurri to pieces

The question of the '51.... It is the pilot and contrary to popular belief, the '51 is not such wonderplane. I personally rate it only 5th of all the fantastic machines the USA build during WW2
1) Hellcat, This plane to me is a true dogfighter that never got enough accolades
2) F4U,
3) P38
4) P47
5) P51

But, at the end it is pilot skill

edd

 

[Amsel]

I agree about the F6F5 being number one.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I don't know. I would stake the best US fighter was the F4U-5. But then again I have never flown in either.

It would be great to do so though.

 

[Nightwitch]

We could go on speculating why the western allied and axis aircraft in the IL-2 series don't appear to be operating at their fullest. But unless you can get inside Oleg's head, it'll be just that, pure speculation.

I actually have some Russian test data from WWII with performance curves, testing both Soviet and German aircraft. The IL-2 performance curves that can be obtained via IL-2 compare actually match up very well with the Soviet data that I have. The only trouble is that there are discrepancies between the Soviet data of what German planes could do in the tests and what the German data says. So, it could simply be a case of Oleg, being Russian, using Russian data. Whether that data is more or less accurate than the German data, I couldn't say, it's just an observation I've made.

 

[GrauGeist]

...The only trouble is that there are discrepancies between the Soviet data of what German planes could do in the tests and what the German data says. So, it could simply be a case of Oleg, being Russian, using Russian data...

And that stands to reason. You'll always have debates on "true performance", but unless a person was actually there, then you have to rely on what other people have noted and hope that it's accurate (or close enough).

 

[mabuse_]

Hi,

has anyone ever tried to copare at least the top speeds of the airplanes with original datasheets?
Are there any such lists around?

 

[GrauGeist]

Hi,

has anyone ever tried to copare at least the top speeds of the airplanes with original datasheets?
Are there any such lists around?

I haven't heard of anything done like that, honestly.

Would be cool to do, though.

 

[sturmer]

then i have a question on the possible comparisons, doesnt it depend on the gameplay settings aswell? i mean if you play it arcade-wise, isnt this going to affect the game less then when you play it 100% realistic.
for example: you play it on realism and i play it on arcade, isnt it possible that i go faster then you in the same plane? because i wouldnt get affected by winds or ... ?

 

[mkloby]

then i have a question on the possible comparisons, doesnt it depend on the gameplay settings aswell? i mean if you play it arcade-wise, isnt this going to affect the game less then when you play it 100% realistic.
for example: you play it on realism and i play it on arcade, isnt it possible that i go faster then you in the same plane? because i wouldnt get affected by winds or ... ?

Groundspeed is affected by wind, but True Airspeed is not.