How realistic is the flight-model?
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Up through 1946, there appeared to be a slight bias in favor of Soviet aircraft.
I can't speak for any of the patches or later releases, but the originals were rather frustrating, particularly when an IL-2 could out climb an Fw190-A8.
I can't speak for any of the patches or later releases, but the originals were rather frustrating, particularly when an IL-2 could out climb an Fw190-A8.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I still fly the old Pacific Fighters+Forgotten Battles+AEP combination (so please take this with a grain of salt) and find the Ki-84 Frank to be WAY over performing. It looks like they based the performance on TAIC data which many have discounted as mere speculation for a machine found in pristine condition and tuned to use higher octane US fuels (they apparently couldn't or wouldn't fly it to it's limits). I rarely get into firing range of a Frank while flying a Hellcat which can't be right. This wasn't the case during actual combat where Hellcats basically dominated the type.
That being said, all the other Japanese aircraft seem to have performances comparable to what one finds in most reference books. This includes the J2M3 and N1K2, which if I remember correctly were also based on figures found in TAIC reports but they definitely don't fly like it.
Just as a reference, the performance of the Hellcat in the game is similar to the actual aircraft equipped with bomb racks and rocket launchers (about 380 mph), which is how it is graphically represented.
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/util...013coll8/id/4531/filename/4540.pdf/mapsto/pdf
That being said, all the other Japanese aircraft seem to have performances comparable to what one finds in most reference books. This includes the J2M3 and N1K2, which if I remember correctly were also based on figures found in TAIC reports but they definitely don't fly like it.
Just as a reference, the performance of the Hellcat in the game is similar to the actual aircraft equipped with bomb racks and rocket launchers (about 380 mph), which is how it is graphically represented.
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/util...013coll8/id/4531/filename/4540.pdf/mapsto/pdf
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4
Is it possible for people to create and edit their own models into the gameplay? I figure that would fix some of the problems and make things realistic. Considering how much information this forum has revolving around the standard aircraft, and unusual modifications, I figure it could be useful/
I was under the impression that thing was an underpowered clunk...
That would make a lot of sense. I'm curious what octane figures they had during different points in the war?
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
There has been some discussion about this here in the past. See post #12 in particular....
Japanese 91 and 92 oct fuel - 'rich response'?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Originally, the IL-2 releases (IL-2: Sturmovik, Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighters, 1946) were proprietary and not accessible for modification unless it was a 1C issued patch.
The only thing a user could modify were maps and skins for either human interfaced aircraft or AI aircraft.
So one had to deal with the Soviet bias and work out strategies to get past that.
The other thing that sucked, was the bomber's gunners laser-beaming your ass through heavy cloud cover or at night.
As far as the actual IL-2's performance goes, it wasn't a hotrod by any means but in-game, the flight model saw it performing far beyond Sergey Ilyushin's wildest dreams.
The only thing a user could modify were maps and skins for either human interfaced aircraft or AI aircraft.
So one had to deal with the Soviet bias and work out strategies to get past that.
The other thing that sucked, was the bomber's gunners laser-beaming your ass through heavy cloud cover or at night.
As far as the actual IL-2's performance goes, it wasn't a hotrod by any means but in-game, the flight model saw it performing far beyond Sergey Ilyushin's wildest dreams.
- Thread starter
- #7
I assumed that's changed?
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I haven't fired up my gamers since my wreck seven years ago, but I understand that 1C eventually allowed 3rd party mods, which is unfortunate, to be honest, because in order to run a session, everyone has to have the exact same patches in order to join a mission.
With CFS3, all third party mods were done through Microsofts's SDK guidelines, so regardless what mods you had, it would seamlessly interact with others in Multiplayer.
With CFS3, all third party mods were done through Microsofts's SDK guidelines, so regardless what mods you had, it would seamlessly interact with others in Multiplayer.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. The worst in my opinion are those nasty Betty bomber tail gunners. That 20 mm cannon can tear you up but good even before you get your first shots off. That's when I began reading about the real life tactic used to defeat this. It basically involved getting in front of the bomber and then reversing your direction, rolling towards the bomber as you start a high side run from right to left. Keep repeating this action until you see flames....
Have actually started playing again due to the lockdown.
Last week i was chasing an I-16 in my Bf109 G he was doing all sorts of rolls and aerobatics and was still pulling away from me !
Last week i was chasing an I-16 in my Bf109 G he was doing all sorts of rolls and aerobatics and was still pulling away from me !
I remember the D.XXI model to be quite accurate. I have read several reports by Dutch D.XXI pilots about how it handled and I could recognise much of what they said in the model in Ill2.
My opinion is:
I have been playing IL-2 Great Battles a lot for several years. I think based on my reading (and I have a large aviation library) that the Soviet Aircraft (I only fly single seat fighters) are over-modeled in many ways. None of the early Soviet fighters can climb with the 109 but they are not as bad as many were in the "real" world. The Soviet fighters appear to me to perform at a level close to what the "official testing" demonstrated. But as noted by many authors (and I have spent a lot on books written by Russian or at least European researchers) the performance of the aircraft that reached operational units had considerable worse performance than the "prototypes" and special production aircraft. A lot of the difference was because of poor workmanship. Much of the construction was done with wood (which of course doesn't mean the planes had to be bad) but Soviet (and Japanese) aircraft engines had numerous reliability problems. I think by 1944, the quality control issues had been resolved and the Soviet fighters were performing closer to the official specifications. Of course, all of the air forces including GB and the U.S. had pilots flying tired planes. The aircraft that I find is a real dog in IL-2 is the P-40.
Also, the Soviets did not have the super high octane fuel used by the U.S. and supplied to the British. Germany built beautifully engineered engines but had much lower quality fuel. The Soviets did receive some high octane fuel from their allies. This is a topic I have tried to follow but there is not a lot written about fuel development. But in the 20's and 30's, U.S. military researchers worked with industry to develop additives which eventually lead to Grade 150 fuel. I recently bought a book "Innovation and the Development of Flight" which has a chapter by Stephen McFarland on fuel development which provides a good analysis. The higher octane (or performance number) allowed engines to run at higher compression with leaner fuel settings because they prevented engine knocking. In 1936, at Langley Field, a man named Cearcy D. Miller developed a camera that could take 40,000 frames per second and which was used to photograph the interior of a single cylinder engine which was capable of variable compression ratios. This allowed the researchers to demonstrate that preignition and knock were different phenomena. It also allowed the testing of different additives which allowed higher compression engines to develop more power and to be run at much leaner mixtures than the fuels used by Germany. The McFarland article is not that difficult to conceptually understand but I don't understand some of the chemistry. Actually, the Japanese had higher octane fuel than Germany because the petroleum stock that they started with was better than the fuel available to Germany. One thing IL-2 does get right (in the more recent revisions) is the darker and heavier exhaust of the German aircraft compared to the late war GB and U.S. fighters. Another thing to note is that the DB 605 also had a displacement of 35.7 liters. The Merlin's displacement was 27 liters. The Soviet engines also had large displacements. Consequently, most of the German and Soviet fighters were smaller and could carry less fuel, fewer guns or cannon, and had limited endurance. I recently purchased a number of DCS WW2 aircraft and also picked up the F-86 and Mig-15bis. However, the learning curve in DCS is long and steep.
I have been playing IL-2 Great Battles a lot for several years. I think based on my reading (and I have a large aviation library) that the Soviet Aircraft (I only fly single seat fighters) are over-modeled in many ways. None of the early Soviet fighters can climb with the 109 but they are not as bad as many were in the "real" world. The Soviet fighters appear to me to perform at a level close to what the "official testing" demonstrated. But as noted by many authors (and I have spent a lot on books written by Russian or at least European researchers) the performance of the aircraft that reached operational units had considerable worse performance than the "prototypes" and special production aircraft. A lot of the difference was because of poor workmanship. Much of the construction was done with wood (which of course doesn't mean the planes had to be bad) but Soviet (and Japanese) aircraft engines had numerous reliability problems. I think by 1944, the quality control issues had been resolved and the Soviet fighters were performing closer to the official specifications. Of course, all of the air forces including GB and the U.S. had pilots flying tired planes. The aircraft that I find is a real dog in IL-2 is the P-40.
Also, the Soviets did not have the super high octane fuel used by the U.S. and supplied to the British. Germany built beautifully engineered engines but had much lower quality fuel. The Soviets did receive some high octane fuel from their allies. This is a topic I have tried to follow but there is not a lot written about fuel development. But in the 20's and 30's, U.S. military researchers worked with industry to develop additives which eventually lead to Grade 150 fuel. I recently bought a book "Innovation and the Development of Flight" which has a chapter by Stephen McFarland on fuel development which provides a good analysis. The higher octane (or performance number) allowed engines to run at higher compression with leaner fuel settings because they prevented engine knocking. In 1936, at Langley Field, a man named Cearcy D. Miller developed a camera that could take 40,000 frames per second and which was used to photograph the interior of a single cylinder engine which was capable of variable compression ratios. This allowed the researchers to demonstrate that preignition and knock were different phenomena. It also allowed the testing of different additives which allowed higher compression engines to develop more power and to be run at much leaner mixtures than the fuels used by Germany. The McFarland article is not that difficult to conceptually understand but I don't understand some of the chemistry. Actually, the Japanese had higher octane fuel than Germany because the petroleum stock that they started with was better than the fuel available to Germany. One thing IL-2 does get right (in the more recent revisions) is the darker and heavier exhaust of the German aircraft compared to the late war GB and U.S. fighters. Another thing to note is that the DB 605 also had a displacement of 35.7 liters. The Merlin's displacement was 27 liters. The Soviet engines also had large displacements. Consequently, most of the German and Soviet fighters were smaller and could carry less fuel, fewer guns or cannon, and had limited endurance. I recently purchased a number of DCS WW2 aircraft and also picked up the F-86 and Mig-15bis. However, the learning curve in DCS is long and steep.
- Thread starter
- #13
I have two computers, one's a Mac (I'm on this now), and the other's a PC (laptop) I got for a good deal, but the PC doesn't meet the specs. Is there any kind of cloud-gaming/game-streaming thing? That would get around the limits of my computer.
For IL-2 Great Battles, the main factor seems to be the graphics card. I don't use a laptop much but the expensive "gaming" laptops will run the game at pretty much max resolution. You probably will want the equivalent of an NVIDA 1050 or 1060 with 4 GB or ram for moderate settings. I have an old home built computer (about 8 years) which was running the game on an early generation i-5 CPU but I had upgraded it to an TI-1050 and then a 1060 GPU. I built a new computer late last year and have an RTX-2070. You can lower cloud, tree, grass, etc resolutions but to really enjoy the game you are going to need a pretty good graphics card. I think DCS world requires similar GPU performance but I don't have enough experience to offer advice. IL-2 is pretty easy to set up. You will also want a joystick, throttle, and probably pedals although some people use a joystick with a swivel axis that controls the rudder. Since I have never flown a fixed wing aircraft, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the flight models. The performance (speed at various altitudes), turn radius, climb are I think pretty accurately modeled. One thing that is missing is force feedback. IL-2 has the capacity for force feedback but unless you use a very old Microsoft Sidewinder then there are no force feedback sticks. The folks who are really serious about IL-2 and DCS are flying on-line. IL-2 is easier to learn than DCS. In DCS for example, if playing it on real, then to start the engine you have to follow the complete check list which may be 20 or 30 items. Most folks do most manipulations with their mouse. I was born shortly after WW2 ended and grew up reading WW2/Great War aviation books. So if your dream was to fly a WW2 fighter in combat then this is as good as it gets. I have never played something like War Thunder but IL-2 and DCS are a different and more difficult genre. Graphics are good but not up to the level of console games or first person shooters. A lot of the folks are aviation buffs.
- Thread starter
- #15
The minimum processing speed is 2.8 GHz, and my PC processing power (Laptop) is 2.2 GHz -- something I managed to get for $200 (I was taking an Excel class, and I saw it as an opportunity to get an improved computer that could run some video-games, and there are some games which will run on my computer).
My Mac will run at 3.4 GHz, 8 GHz RAM, and has a Radeon Pro 570 4GB. I don't know how that compares to NVIDIA 1050 or 1060.
IL-2 Great Battles is evidently not support for either OS (Mac) or Linux. You might be able to run it using some form of "sandbox" but that is beyond my knowledge base. It is a fun game (simulation) but you can expect to spend $1000 on the computer and another $500 or more on the hardware (stick, throttle, and pedals) to be able to really enjoy the game. Just my opinion. But computers are cheap to build these days. Joystick and other joystick/throttle/and rudder pedals are expensive. I think CH is the best buy. Virpil is great but expect to spend over $500 for a throttle and stick. Pedals will be an additional $300. Again with CH, you can get a decent set up for around a total of $300 or $350. I am sure there are people running this with a mouse and keyboard but that would be beyond my skill level.
Il-2 runs fine in Wine or "PlayOnLinux". I have done that in the past, was even faster then on Windows on the same machine, meaning I hadhiger framerate. Disadvantage though was that the force-feedback in my Joystick didn't work. Never investigated it, because I quit playing it quite soon after.
Last edited:
How could I miss this thread...
Still playing Il-2 from time to time. Original versions 4.13.4 and 4.14.1 online and BAT mod "superpack" offline.
Flight models.
It was a long and somewhat painful (for the players) evolution. I remember those strange days when I-16 was unbeatable and I-153 outclimbed everyone but at the same time, FW 190 could outturn Yaks at low speed and Bf 110G2 was a serious contender in any pre-1944 dogfight. There was a lot of fine-tuning from version to version and improvements were obvious. Oleg himself has said continuously: "We do everything right". This expression in original Russian became a popular mem "u nas vse pravilno", or just UNVP.
There were more changes in the modded versions, of course. What remained mostly untouched was the performance of AI aircraft. So, yes, AI I-16 doing aerobatics without a loss of energy or B-17 doing barrel rolls escaping the attack - still happens.
Some parameters of the model can be checked in IL2 Compare which is a very useful tool that helps to understand the capabilities of the aircraft in the game (not in real history, of course). There are IL2 Compare versions for the original game, up to 4.11, and for mods as HSFX and BAT.
Equipment.
The video card is the most important, no doubt. Saying that I played without serious problems on my older PC with GT670. Exceptions were missions with large bomber formations and flying low on some heavily populated maps as Berlin in the original game or new huge maps created by modders. I upgraded later to GTX 1060 3GB and it handled well everything I could encounter.
Mods and mod packs.
They brought new life to the old sim. The amount of work done by modders was just staggering. Maps, aircraft, ground vehicles and objects, ships, special features that introduced electronic warfare, etc. BAT has about 1,800 aircraft models now. Yes, many of them come with crude cockpits or are "frankenplanes" but there are many others done with a great attention to quality.
Community.
It just a shadow of it used to be 15 years ago but still active. There are probably 20-30 servers online. Some are simple sandboxes with many realistic settings off, others are more complicated. The benefit of the forgotten game is that most players today are serious and behave well. Discussions are live on the original developer's forum and some others as SAS, Missions4Today, etc.
All the above was said about Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 only.
No experience in DCS and Il-2 Great Battles.
Still playing Il-2 from time to time. Original versions 4.13.4 and 4.14.1 online and BAT mod "superpack" offline.
Flight models.
It was a long and somewhat painful (for the players) evolution. I remember those strange days when I-16 was unbeatable and I-153 outclimbed everyone but at the same time, FW 190 could outturn Yaks at low speed and Bf 110G2 was a serious contender in any pre-1944 dogfight. There was a lot of fine-tuning from version to version and improvements were obvious. Oleg himself has said continuously: "We do everything right". This expression in original Russian became a popular mem "u nas vse pravilno", or just UNVP.
There were more changes in the modded versions, of course. What remained mostly untouched was the performance of AI aircraft. So, yes, AI I-16 doing aerobatics without a loss of energy or B-17 doing barrel rolls escaping the attack - still happens.
Some parameters of the model can be checked in IL2 Compare which is a very useful tool that helps to understand the capabilities of the aircraft in the game (not in real history, of course). There are IL2 Compare versions for the original game, up to 4.11, and for mods as HSFX and BAT.
Equipment.
The video card is the most important, no doubt. Saying that I played without serious problems on my older PC with GT670. Exceptions were missions with large bomber formations and flying low on some heavily populated maps as Berlin in the original game or new huge maps created by modders. I upgraded later to GTX 1060 3GB and it handled well everything I could encounter.
Mods and mod packs.
They brought new life to the old sim. The amount of work done by modders was just staggering. Maps, aircraft, ground vehicles and objects, ships, special features that introduced electronic warfare, etc. BAT has about 1,800 aircraft models now. Yes, many of them come with crude cockpits or are "frankenplanes" but there are many others done with a great attention to quality.
Community.
It just a shadow of it used to be 15 years ago but still active. There are probably 20-30 servers online. Some are simple sandboxes with many realistic settings off, others are more complicated. The benefit of the forgotten game is that most players today are serious and behave well. Discussions are live on the original developer's forum and some others as SAS, Missions4Today, etc.
All the above was said about Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 only.
No experience in DCS and Il-2 Great Battles.
I tried War Thunder in GeForce Now. A good solution for low spec computers, you just need a fast and reliable Internet connection. But there were problems with peripherals, no joystick, just a keyboard.
