Print

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

[sixstrings]

I've noticed that some aircraft don't behave properly within specs in BAT. Is there a standard to go through or just the modder's interpretation ? I am part of the CFS3 community and we have most aircraft at 1% standards. This plays a big role in immersion. Some aircraft in IL-2 BAT fly way different than they should. Why not set standards to go though to be certified. Just a thought. This keeps me using my CFS3 installs more just due to accuracy of flight. Just floating this idea. Any thoughts. Regards,Scott

[wern moldy]

That depends......on whether you're the in control the aircraft or the AI is in control!! Ha ha ha!!!
Seriously though....and I can only comment on the WW2 stuff; I believe bitter arguments over this in the past led to some changes being made over the past decade. I also understand that it depends on whose software one is talking about, so is any flight sim accurate?

Personally, the only thing that matters; and this software is still a game, despite ramblings in the past about how 'realistic' it's been purported to be, is that if the aircraft are sort of approximate to each other, then this would be acceptable. I've also found that the a/c are generally faster in the BAT version than others, which seems to have made them less prone to overheating.

Some stuff still annoys the crap out of me; the FW190s are difficult to land coz they don't wanna slow down, whilst the BF109s, I find to be the opposite, despite history stating the contrary. Then of course there's the behaviour of AI a/c....but that's another subject entirely.

I don't think anyone should take these games so seriously, you're not an ace just coz you got 100 kills in a campaign. Do you think someone who is really good on a motorcycle game could ride one for real?

[SAS~Storebror]

There's a reason why we have once implemented a dedicated FMTalk sub-board: Any discussion about a flight model's accuracy usually tends to go south within a handful of posts.
And most of the time, there's not even a common ground to start from.
This for instance...

I am part of the CFS3 community and we have most aircraft at 1% standards. (...)
This keeps me using my CFS3 installs more just due to accuracy of flight.

...made me giggle.
I've been coming from CFS2 -> CFS3 once as well.
The claim for having reached 1% accuracy in flight models is a bit over the top, regardless how much I appreciate what the team has done. You might have got flight models right in certain regards, maybe even in some where some IL-2 flight models are plain wrong, however the opposite comes true as well, in particular when it comes to an aircraft's behaviour, which more often than not simply feels way off in CFS3.

BAT essentially is a collection of mods made by independent modders.
Necessary changes to such mods might be applied to make them BAT-compatible, but reworking the flight model of a few thousand planes is not part of that plan.
We are not going to impose any "certification" on independent mods either.
We are a free modding community. "Free" in terms that CFS3 will never reach.


Mike

[Vampire_pilot]

BAT essentially is a collection of mods made by independent modders.

"...over the course of 15 years of modding."

Il-2 modding is The Jungle.

[sixstrings]

Didn't mean to stir a hornets nest. Sorry. Was just wondering if there were certain standards. I know as a fact that quite often these 1% aircraft in CFS3 are way off. I have a friend that revealed this to me not to long ago and he is a expert at flight modeling. He has redone some for me and it was surprising the difference. These are just games when it comes down to it, and i really enjoy IL-2 '46 BAT and what it has to offer.  I mean, i like the Luft '46 stuff ,so i'm not that picky. There really isn't that much wrong ,maybe just a few aircraft that are annoying but CFS3 has it's own problems too. BAT offers things that CFS3 just can't do. It could be that i've be with CFS3 much longer and just acclimated to it more. Thing is BAT keeps evolving and getting better al the time with many more skilled people at it than we have in the other community. Not complaining as BAT is becoming to grow on me more as i start to explore outside just quick missions. The people responsible for BAT and all the other work going on i say THANKS ! Sorry if i came across wrong.  Regards,Scott

[wern moldy]

There's no need to apologize Six Strings, you haven't stirred anything up. My only point, and the only point my compatriots were making is that it's all a little irrelevant in the context of things. I'm sure your wishes are the same as mine and as all for that matter; that one day we may have a product that everyone can be happy with. I cuss this game almost as much as I praise it.... proof of that is, I've destroyed 2 keyboards, 5 mice, 2 joysticks, a set of rudder pedals and when that behaviour got too expensive, I put my foot through the floor, cursing Oleg Maddox all the while!
The bottom line is, if one wants to play a stand alone sim, with huge variety, there is no other.....despite it's flaws.

[Mission_bug]

As has already been mentioned Six Strings the aircraft and other mods posted here are a collection from a very diverse community over a very long period of time all with various degrees of ability, from java techs to tinkering 3d modellers, as such it is very difficult to make everything to a set standard as most of us are not professionals in any particular discipline as far as flight simulation goes, we are not part of a company and we sell nothing.

Many of us do what we can to bring things into IL-2 and always accept our limitations and when we post our stuff we generally include a read me explaining the shortcomings of what we have contributed and inviting those amongst us with a better skill set to improve on things if they wish and have the time and are particularly interested in a certain mod, many things are left as is for many years but in most cases are eventually brought to a higher standard.

Rule here is if you think you can improve then please do so, otherwise your option is to use or not, we give no guarantees, you try and if you do not like then you are free not to use.

If it were not for the generosity and time devoted by many of those who have spent time here there would not be a B.A.T to enjoy, we do what we can when and if it is possible, many of us are a jack of all things, masters of nothing but try our best to contribute in some way.

Take care and be safe.

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[sixstrings]

Thanks to all who have done their part in making IL-2 '46 what it is today and the progress still being made.IL-2 BAT is the most comprehensive WW II,(have Red Core),air combat sim there is IMHO. All the aircraft i could have wished for ,along with much more, makes it outshine any other sim i have. Air combat sims are my main hobby and to think that all of this is done for free blows me away. Thanks for all the entertainment that all you modders have given !  Regards,Scott

[Wing Walker]

I have often thought about this, but I realize that no one here was a pilot flying FW190's and P-47's.  Even if you got to fly one, you would never of worked it hard like a test pilot.

So from there, I don't the P-47D-22 a true simulator of that A/C, I just consider it more like a new model of the A/C: P-47D-22-IL2BAT

Since all will not be totally accurate, but they still all have their own characteristics.  Like some physics are not very well represented with IL-2, like a moderate gust of wind doesn't really make your B-17G blow sideways on the runway, or when an AI B-24 does an extreme dive split S type menuver to evade a fighter.

Weight and structural integrity don't seem to be a modeled factor.