Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Il-2 .... why is the I-16 so unstable?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

#1 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 18 October 2020 - 08:47

I really like the I-16 but can't believe that a real one would be that unstable.

 

The biggest thing is the snap roll that goes ballistic along it's heading. It's mad.

That is supposed to be real? The stall snap roll wig out that is bonkers and unusable.

 

I feel like it's been made to be intentionally crap because it's an older plane.

It's not very fast... why does it have to be super unstable?

 

To try to barrel roll quickly out of harms way is quite a feat.

You get two options , the very sedate barrel roll OR the holy crap we are snap rolling.

 

What?

 

Flying it with the flaps down 4 turns actually makes it feel pretty good.

But you increase drag and nosing over is much harder.

 

Frankly I think the "stall" wig out is set too low.

 

The way forward in plane design was power and speed. Sure.

But older slower planes don't have to be "crap" .

 

If the I-16 could pull snap rolls that were easier to control I would be super interested,   

but the "all or nothing" kind of reactions the plane has is a bit daft.

 

My two cents worth.

 

Did a real I-16 pilot check out the FM before they baked that cake?

and they are around...

 

S!

 

Knalp.

 

 


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#2 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 18 October 2020 - 19:30

Did a real I-16 pilot check out the FM before they baked that cake?

and they are around...

 

Yes.

 


  • 1

#3 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 18 October 2020 - 20:49

Yes.

 

 

That was extremely unconvincing.

 

I wonder if Kermit weeks Flies one? 

 

Arthur, S! , if you have the i-16, get flying and have a good fang about in 3rd person.

In particular try the snap roll. and then try a tight barrel roll. Tell me what you think,

( 3rd person shows you what happens, from the enemies perspective, when you try  

to evade, throw it about etc )

 

If the plane in real life is a easily upset as the one in il-2 I can imagine it not being

particularly well liked.

 

and no one is going to design a plane where you have have some flaps down all the time

to keep it under control.

 

I think the simulation has an issue with agility: turning up the control surfaces AND lowering stall level.

If they turn up the turn rate they counter by increasing the stall speed at increasing angle. Therefore the

turn then comes at some cost. The harder you turn the worse it gets.

In the super planes they simple increase the plane speed and decrease the stall.

This makes them better. ....

 

To believe that i-16 will behave in real life like the Il-2 one I would have to see a real one perform a

balls out snap roll. quite a few times.

 

simply ramming up the speed on a plane and dropping the stall is going to make it easier to fly.

If it's going fast enough it's ability to do slashing attacks is almost impossible to evade.   

AND it's even worse if the plane you are in becomes a hot mess just because you pushed it a bit too far.

 

It's like a sports car that when it starts to corner very hard always loses control. Always.  

No one would drive it in a race. It would be "corner shy".

 

Agility does not always equal uncontrollable. 

 

S!

 

Nlpak.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#4 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 19 October 2020 - 00:08

That was extremely unconvincing.

 

It was?  You asked whether a real I-16 pilot had checked out their fm.  The answer is in the affirmative.  This guy is Vladimir Barsuk.  He's a test pilot among other things;

 

  http://sibnia.com/in.../management.php

 

The 1CGS team made other videos with him about flying the IL2, the I-153 and the MiG 3;

 

 

If you go through the early dev diaries you'll find pictures of him at their office flying the sim.  What exactly is the problem with the I-16?  You can't perform a barrel roll in it?  Don't worry.  You, me and ninety per cent of real and virtual pilots are unable to perform a decent barrel roll either - in any aircraft.  It's a skill.  The I-16 was the first monoplane fighter aircraft with a retractable undercarraige. It first flew in 1933.

 

It was a bit of a dog.  Some pilots loved it but most hated it and died in it.  In WW2 aerobatics never saved anyone from being shot down.  However, for our purposes the I-16 can still surprise online.

 


  • 1

#5 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 19 October 2020 - 03:19

It was?  You asked whether a real I-16 pilot had checked out their fm.  The answer is in the affirmative.  This guy is Vladimir Barsuk.  He's a test pilot among other things;

 

 

 

The 1CGS team made other videos with him about flying the IL2, the I-153 and the MiG 3;

 

 

 

If you go through the early dev diaries you'll find pictures of him at their office flying the sim.  What exactly is the problem with the I-16?  You can't perform a barrel roll in it?  Don't worry.  You, me and ninety per cent of real and virtual pilots are unable to perform a decent barrel roll either - in any aircraft.  It's a skill.  The I-16 was the first monoplane fighter aircraft with a retractable undercarraige. It first flew in 1933.

 

It was a bit of a dog.  Some pilots loved it but most hated it and died in it.  In WW2 aerobatics never saved anyone from being shot down.  However, for our purposes the I-16 can still surprise online.

 

 

I did not see the pilot in the i-16 video actually giving it stick. Taking off and landing, yes. Stick, no.

 

The problem ( I have ...) with the i-16 is the way it will go into a "snap roll" which essentially is it cartwheeling along on the same heading. Just wow.

 

If there is an A/B test, simulation/real life, of this behaviour I would love to see it.

 

and What exactly did the test pilot think of the simulation?

 

I guess I now will have to trawl through youtube looking for real I-16 films...

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#6 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 19 October 2020 - 03:36

and the winner is:

 

https://youtu.be/iYKD4oD49l4?t=92

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#7 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 20 October 2020 - 12:51

Oh my gosh.

 

I have no idea why I reinstalled Il-2.   

Fanging around on Berloga watching the Germans racking up kill after kill and their side is packed. It's amazing!      

I would probably stick around if there was some populated server that had comparable early planes.

Trying to get a good protracted dog fight, well it's just not happening.  

The boom a zoom 109's just lord it over everything and frankly it's tedious.

 

The I-16 vs some of the Lower tier 109's is a good fight but the faster zoomier 109's just barge in and  

kill you off mid fight. And they don't have to watch their back because there is no one ever on their six.  

and if they get a bit stuck they can slow right down and get behind you. Of course this is due to superior  

pilot skills... etc etc. I think I heard that somewhere before....

 

Of course the German planes are superior! Jason said so! 

 

Flying a 109 F4 for about 5inutes was enough to see why you would be slaughtering Russian pilots by the bucket...   

 

Still, I don't mind getting bashed up in the wobbly as all heck I-16, now and then I get a kill.  

I generally get killed in the process though. If the effing plane was not so wobbly... uff..

 

The I-16 canons don't seem to do very much damage.... even at very close range. Sigh.

 

What a mess.

 

S!

 

Knalpy.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#8 Arty_Effem

Arty_Effem
  • Member
  • Posts: 882
  • LocationR E S I G N E D veryuseful.info/rof

Posted 20 October 2020 - 13:51

and the winner is:

 

https://youtu.be/iYKD4oD49l4?t=92

 

Either that plane has a very low stall speed or the Russians had some very fast trains.


  • 1

#9 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 20 October 2020 - 22:53

The I-16 canons don't seem to do very much damage.... even at very close range. Sigh.

 

Wut!?  klanp this does suggest that you're a rather bad shot.  The I-16 historically has plenty of problems.  The twenty mil cannon are not one of them. 

 

btw; is this a Plank turn at 1.35?

 


  • 1

#10 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 21 October 2020 - 03:04

Wut!?  klanp this does suggest that you're a rather bad shot.  The I-16 historically has plenty of problems.  The twenty mil cannon are not one of them. 

 

btw; is this a Plank turn at 1.35?

 

No that is not.   

Plank turns are flat. You bank right over to 90deg and pull back, 

skimming the hedgerows and rolling out back level to face your tailing attacker head on.

It's a last ditch effort to kill your pursuer. Tree top height SPAD's and N28's can employ this.  

( To varying degrees of success... it can work, if the plane behind you is not watching...)

 

Ahem, I am not a bad shot actually...     

Have recordings of planes being hit a lot from close range and not very much happens.

With all four guns. Planes are just not that strong. I aim for the meat bag flying it.

 

Regardless of how amazing they make the bigger guns, the smaller guns do not have to be  

correspondingly reduced in power.

 

Oh yes that bank of .303 MG's , as much as people would like to say they are "useless" are  

not what you want to have stuck up your tail. A hail of lead is still a hail of lead.  

They seem to have forgotten that.

 

Firing along a fuselage is going to expend almost all the kinetic energy of the round as it

ploughs through whatever is in it's way. A burst of 20mm will cause major issues.

 

Oh but wait, if the 20's are bad then how do we model the high explosive rounds?

Surely they will be super super duper more deadly?

 

and the .50's ? They can't be very dangerous.... so that makes the .303 um, nothing.

 

Would you sit in a 109 and let some one fire at you from 100m with six or even eight .303 MG's ?

I don't think you would. They maybe small but they are very aerodynamic, sharp and there are a lot of them.

 

Great battles have painted themselves into a corner in regards to "damage" and they are going to  

have to come up with a realistic way of getting themselves out. Just how long is the virtual piece of string,  

and can we keep remeasuring it with different rules to get different results? How long can this go on for?

 

The 109's seem to be bullet proof from where I stand, regardless of how many I land on target.

 

I guess they have to keep the "Germans" happy.


  • 1

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#11 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 21 October 2020 - 21:00

Good morning.

 

Looking carefully at the I-16 FM in Il-2 and comparing to real footage.

 

In the simulation the "stall" is way too much. It is early and strong ( in my opinion ).

Yes they may have had some pilot who flew the plane come and  

look at their simulator...but did they really spend very much time actually  

looking at it very carefully? Just like the game "testers" may or may not have done?

 

For no seconds at all do I think that the Russian pilots would have put up with a plane  

this unstable when actually used to it's limits.

 

From my in game experience I have found that you really only use about 25% of the stick back  

for most flying and using any more than that UNLESS in excellent circumstance is going to  

cause the plane to drop a wing. 25% is very little.

 

The plane is capable of doing some great flying WHILE IN CONTROL in real life.

An example of out of control is the classic Snap roll in the i-16, you cause the  

plane to snap roll but you are not in control during it, you can exit the move yes.  

This is not full control as far as I care.

 

In the following clip you can see the I-16 doing an aileron roll, on it's second roll it   

pulls it's nose up, rolls over then DEFTLY pulls the stick back to inverted dive down  

and complete a third roll. This is part of a  "falling rolling leaf" type move.

 

At no time does it even hint it will drop a wing. There is no evidence the pilot is bothering to counter  

a potential stall. The plane flies deftly and is not looking like it is gingerly flying at the edge  

of an envelope.

 

Se here:

 

Attached File  I-16-falling-leaf-roll.gif   4.87MB   0 downloads

 

I firmly believe that the FM is ripping off the actual outstanding ability of this plane  

and relegating it to the "old is bad" bin.

 

The film which I pinched the clip from has more shots of the i-16 in action.  

This was just the fist one I came across and managed to get to work as a gif.

 

I can see why the I-16 would become outclassed, in top speed, climb etc etc. But, in a knife fight in   

a telephone booth it should not be a stalling effing mess.

This is embarrassing for obvious reasons.

 

 

S! Никола́й Никола́евич Полика́рпов !

 

 

Secondly, the gunfire angle.

 

As per usual the "fire at a fixed point on the longitudinal axis of the plane" BS rule.

 

Where other planes LOFT their bullets to get the same range the I-16 does not.

This makes shooting at a plane, in the turn, that is just above your nose extremely difficult.

Come on this is pathetic. If the gunfire was inclined up slightly it would be killing planes  

every single time it got behind one. Oh but the silly old i-16 cannot be seen to be killing  

the new shiny modern planes with impunity. etc etc.

 

There is no reason why the gunfire of the i-16 cannot match they of every other plane in  

the game. Why it is left out of the "pointing your guns up a bit" action I have no idea.

 

This is a simulation right .

 

S!

 

Knalp

 

 

 

 

 


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#12 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 21 October 2020 - 21:57

Oh dear.

 

You seem committed to a tragic course of attention-seeking and talking out of your backside Plank.

 

Is there nothing you can do about it?  Some sort of treatment...or a soothing ointment? 

 

A pity.....


  • 1

#13 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 21 October 2020 - 23:58

Oh dear.

 

You seem committed to a tragic course of attention-seeking and talking out of your backside Plank.

 

Is there nothing you can do about it?  Some sort of treatment...or a soothing ointment? 

 

A pity.....

 

Oh really?

 

Being critically interested in the things we spend our money on is hardly a hanging offence.

 

I find it particularly annoying when, what you buy, does not stack up against what it is supposed to emulate.

and there have been loads of those here and over on the il-2 forum. For good reason too.

 

I am unsatisfied with the product. I do not think it is a fair representation of an i-16.

( very reminiscent of the Nieuport N28, with it's staggering lack of turn...)

 

Also this:

If you respond to threads you think are "fluff" or "attention seeking"  they will simply go to the top of the "View new content" list.

 

 

Imagine this:

The i-16 is a "inferior" plane, therefore is should have an inferior FM.   

 

Why the terrible stall? Anecdotal evidence? Did the test pilot come back from a real i-16 flight and tell them

that the real plane has a terrible stall and that it needs to be tweaked in the sim FM ?  

Did the test pilot actually go flying in the real i-16 to test this particular point?

 

Your "evidence" of the plane being flown by a test pilot and then the test pilot being seen flying the plane in game is  

about as useful as saying anything with no real data.   

Maybe they just focused on how it lands? I mean that is easy.... and they have video of the plane landing....

 

I bet you ten dollars they were not allowed to fly the i-16 out of a very tight scheme, no spins, no snap rolls etc 

to keep the airframe stress down.

 

I am waiting to see video evidence that I am wrong!

 

S!

 

Knalp.

 

PS Did you even look at the Gif that I made? Look at it carefully. Take notes.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#14 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 22 October 2020 - 01:30

Being critically interested 

 

You're not.  You have no critical facility.  The basis of your arguments seem to be "why don't they do what I tell them" or "why aren't things how I think they should be".......and then go on a foot stamping spree.

 

Discussion at the level "you've got to prove that I'm talking a load of old tosh"  when it is self-evident that you have no idea what you are talking about is pointless for both of us.


  • 1

#15 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 4166
  • LocationQld, Australia

Posted 22 October 2020 - 01:44

and the winner is:

 

https://youtu.be/iYKD4oD49l4?t=92

 

S!

 

Knalp.

 

 

OMG! THAT plane saved a train from a catastrophic collision which would've killed or maimed hundreds of innocent people! And it was captured on film! A remarkable documentary. 

 

I haven't seen anything like that since Mighty Mouse saved the town hall from sliding into the flooded river or Astro Boy repairing the crack in the dam wall! 

 

That is a great find laKnp. Thanks for posting.  :icon_e_salute:


  • 1

#16 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 22 October 2020 - 03:22

You're not.  You have no critical facility.  The basis of your arguments seem to be "why don't they do what I tell them" or "why aren't things how I think they should be".......and then go on a foot stamping spree.

 

Discussion at the level "you've got to prove that I'm talking a load of old tosh"  when it is self-evident that you have no idea what you are talking about is pointless for both of us.

 

That is BS. I am calling the situation as I see it.

 

From flying the plane in the sim as a fighter pilot struggling to stay a live and get kills there is

a very distinct line in the flight envelope of the i-16 which, IF YOU CROSS IT, makes the plane

an real pain in the ass. 

 

Here is an idea:  

Go online and get into a MP furball fight. ( real pilots not AI )

Record the action.

Start pushing your plane harder and harder.  

Try evading the plane you get on your tail, and you will get them.

At some stage the horizon will start cartwheeling around.

Play back the recording.

Watch where and how your plane loses it's shit.

 

Now ask yourself this question:

 

Do I think this is what a real I-16 would do?

Can I find any evidence to support or refute this?

 

Come back with anything you can find.

 

So far I have shown a clip of a real i-16 doing stuff that the sim i-16 can't do.

( It can do a fair approximation but on close inspection it's not sure footed or "in control" etc etc .)

and there is more where that came from.

 

also I have tons of critical facility and as you know I don't just rubbish something because it has some fugly bits.

( remember the PIAT discussion... )

 

and this a foot stamping spree? Like Rumpelstiltskin? I think not.

 

I think it is a tragedy that old planes get treated like they are less than capable.

 

 

OMG! THAT plane saved a train from a catastrophic collision which would've killed or maimed hundreds of innocent people! And it was captured on film! A remarkable documentary. 

 

I haven't seen anything like that since Mighty Mouse saved the town hall from sliding into the flooded river or Astro Boy repairing the crack in the dam wall! 

 

That is a great find laKnp. Thanks for posting.  :icon_e_salute:

 

oooh but it has womance as well! And REAL Polykarpovs! What more could you want ???

 

S!

 

Knalp.

 

 

PS. Look at the Gif. Just watch how sure footed that plane is. It's NOT EVEN TRYING. It is totally at ease. Smoking a ciggy and clutching a mug of brandy.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#17 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 October 2020 - 04:34

That is BS. I am calling the situation as I see it.

 

 

Unfortunately, you have absolutely no Fing idea what you're talking about.  They had an actual I-16 pilot fly their plane.  You probably haven't been anywhere near a real I-16.  There is absolutely no reason to take anything you say about aircraft flight models seriously.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#18 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 22 October 2020 - 04:52

Having some guy test pilot whatever fly a real i-16 is one thing,

having the same guy fly the plane in game is another ,

and showing actual evidence that he actually contributed to the FM is yet another thing.

 

and so far we have no evidence to prove that the FM was changed at all after the test pilot looked at it.

( Apart from a REALLY UNCONVINCING short film about landing the I-16. WOW. Nailed it. )

 

Do you?

 

Do you have a transcript of the conversation?

 

Do you have anything to prove that the FM was actually made better?

 

Do you have anything to compare?

 

Do you have any data on the stalling characteristics of the plane?

 

Video? A book? Anecdotes?

 

If you believe that the simulated i-16 is a faithful representation from chocks away to "here is the stall" without any evidence at all, then you sir, are gullible.

 

The moon is cheese and these are three magic beans...

 

Ahem.

 

My OPINION is that the I-16 is overly dramatic when stalling.

 

Do you agree or disagree? 

 

It's a simple question.

 

Lets see if you can answer it.

 

If you have the plane at your disposal you can fly it yourself and see.

 

I am ok with being wrong, it's a thing that happens. I was wrong about flying the N17 upside down.... there you go.

 

So prove me wrong. Go on . It must be quite easy. I am such an idiot....

 

Prove they have got it right.

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#19 Zooropa_Fly

Zooropa_Fly
  • Posts: 1592

Posted 22 October 2020 - 07:57

I have to, reluctantly, agree with BSR's statement above.

Planky old chap, I think you place way too much expectation on what is achievable in a computer game.

Not to mention that you have no real world reference points regarding any of the aerial vehicles.

I bet you were nipping Namco that Pac-man wasn't modelled corretly when you were a nipper.

Just play the damn game and have fun !

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

".. and they'll send you home in a pine overcoat, with a letter to your Mum,

    Saying find enclosed one son one medal and a note, to, say, he, Won".


#20 arthursmedley

arthursmedley
  • Posts: 847

Posted 22 October 2020 - 12:33

 I am such an idiot.....

 

No you're not. 

 

 Quite the reverse infact....and this is what makes it so frustrating; your determination to appear as one.... :icon_e_sad:   


  • 0

#21 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 22 October 2020 - 19:09

So that's a resounding no for providing any actual evidence.

 

I can see where this is going.

 

Find the video of the test pilot actually flying the snot out of the i-16.

Go on, see if you can find it. I will wait here.

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#22 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 October 2020 - 19:51

Having some guy test pilot whatever fly a real i-16 is one thing,

having the same guy fly the plane in game is another ,

and showing actual evidence that he actually contributed to the FM is yet another thing.

 

I don’t give a fck how much he flew the plane in game.  He’s still a better judge of the plane than you.  Because you don’t know sh!t.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#23 raaaaid

raaaaid
  • Posts: 2248

Posted 22 October 2020 - 21:06

 ashooting game for a shooting forum


  • 1

all right doctor we got a deal i let you finger me and you extend my life

 

zen proverbs: the masochist boxer always wins,to be a real boy you need to be brave truthfull and unselfish


#24 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 October 2020 - 21:37

So that's a resounding no for providing any actual evidence.

 

I can see where this is going.

 

Find the video of the test pilot actually flying the snot out of the i-16.

Go on, see if you can find it. I will wait here.

 

S!

 

Knalp.

I have a better idea.  How about if you post your qualifications for judging the I-16s flight model.  I’m sure it will be quite illuminating.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#25 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 22 October 2020 - 23:20

I don’t give a fck how much he flew the plane in game.  He’s still a better judge of the plane than you.  Because you don’t know sh!t.

 

You still have no evidence of anything.

 

Have you flown an i-16 ? Do you even fly it in the game?

 

What exactly did they learn from the test pilot?

Did they make any changes ?

 

What does the test pilot think of the stall of the in game plane?

 

What do you think?

 

I would be keen to hear what you think of the in game I-16 and that way it stalls.

If you could take some time out of you hectic life to give it a whirl.. that would be great.

 

But I am pretty sure you won't.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

I will wait right here.

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#26 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 22 October 2020 - 23:33

I have a better idea.  How about if you post your qualifications for judging the I-16s flight model.  I’m sure it will be quite illuminating.

I don't have any, I don't need them either.

 

I have the capacity to ask questions and ask for evidence, just like you.

 

So, my question is this:

 

Is the way the i-16 stalls, in game, comparable to the the real thing?

 

it is pretty straight forward.

 

Wheeling out the test pilot proved nothing. Zero things.

Oh except that landing it was tricky. ( but then if you are a nose jockey then sure that makes sense! )

Flying it  right up to the edge of it's envelope? Nope.

 

I am suspicious of the i-16 FM for several reasons.

 

1) It looks bad. I fly it alot, it breaks out of "nice and deft" into "holy shit it's a blender" with a suddenness that is just not cool.

2) I like the i-16 a lot and feel the FM is a bit cheap, what would the designer say?

 

of course you can try to undermine my opinion etc but you are not actually looking at the issue at all.

 

For some reason.

 

This reminds me of the p51 diving and the touchy elevator in real life.

They modelled it to have a heavy elevator in game. Wrong.

The p51 elevator gets more sensitive the faster it goes, to the point where

it starts to stress the air frame way too much. Hence the warning.

Did they change that ? I stopped following the thread after it became... a joke.

 

The devs and the test pilot can be wrong about the FM, particularly when they have to "guesstimate".

 

And that is exactly what I am sure they did.

 

not to mention their FM probably can't actually replicate the subtle nuances of some plane flight characteristics.

 

But hey you have to be a doctor to understand that eh.

 

Please do some flying and tell me what you think. and I mean FLYING. Not just noodling around.

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#27 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 October 2020 - 00:19

I don't have any, I don't need them either.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, yes you do.

 

If you want to ask stupid questions that you have no idea what the answers are or if they’re even relevant, no you don’t.

 

 

 

Is the way the i-16 stalls, in game, comparable to the the real thing?

 

As far as you know, yes.  Because you have no idea.  But they did have someone who has flown an I-16 fly it.  So it seems likely that they got this right.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#28 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 23 October 2020 - 03:20

If you want to be taken seriously, yes you do.

 

If you want to ask stupid questions that you have no idea what the answers are or if they’re even relevant, no you don’t.

 

 

As far as you know, yes.  Because you have no idea.  But they did have someone who has flown an I-16 fly it.  So it seems likely that they got this right.

 

Do you have any evidence that the in game plane and the real plane have similar FM's when pushed to the limit?

 

Have you actually tried flying the game i-16 yourself, pushing it as hard as you can, and can you report back  

with your findings.

 

Where are the conclusions drawn from the test pilot and the devs?

I am sorry but I am not convinced that they did a good job there.  

That video is painfully light on real flying stuff. Not a stall in sight.

 

The film from 1943 however actually shows a REAL i-16 being tossed around in the air by a great pilot.

 

Can you see in the film just what that real I-16 and real pilot is doing? Do you even understand it?

It's a rolling "falling leaf". It's amazing.

 

Where is the video of the modern test pilot doing that? If he is as good as you seem to think he is then

I would have expected to see some pretty impressive flying. Oh but there is none. For some reason...

 

I am allowed to express my opinion, I have done so and, I am not breaking any rules.

 

I am allowed to question whether the test pilot contributed to the planes FM in a significantly productive way.

 

I am allowed to contest that the i-16 looks a bit like it had a "we are not sure what it does at this point" kind of FM design.

 

Sure all of this might be hard to prove or disprove but I have not seen you actually bring anything to the table bar

your normal gatekeeping style.

 

Watch the film. Go on. It's got a real i-16 with a real pilot. You can't tell them they are not qualified to comment.

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#29 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 October 2020 - 03:41

 

Sure all of this might be hard to prove or disprove but I have not seen you actually bring anything to the table bar

your normal gatekeeping style.

 

 

I don't have to bring anything to the table.  The dev team had an actual I-16 pilot fly their aircraft.  That's good enough for me.  If it's not good enough for you, post a bug report on the GB forum.  Be sure to include lots of evidence, because unsupported FM whining will result in a ban.  

 

 

 

 

I am allowed to express my opinion, I have done so and, I am not breaking any rules.

 

I am allowed to question whether the test pilot contributed to the planes FM in a significantly productive way.

 

I am allowed to contest that the i-16 looks a bit like it had a "we are not sure what it does at this point" kind of FM design.

 

 

 

lol

 

No, you're not.  You were perma banned from that forum for ridiculous nonsense like this current thread.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#30 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 23 October 2020 - 09:00

I don't have to bring anything to the table.  The dev team had an actual I-16 pilot fly their aircraft.  That's good enough for me.  If it's not good enough for you, post a bug report on the GB forum.  Be sure to include lots of evidence, because unsupported FM whining will result in a ban.  

 

 

 

lol

 

No, you're not.  You were perma banned from that forum for ridiculous nonsense like this current thread.

So you don't have anything really to hold up your argument...

 

I am not satisfied that the test pilot actually did anything to the i-16 FM development  

until I see some kind of proof. He may have only talked about the landing and from the video   

sounds like he was learning from scratch himself.  ( Taildragging )

 

You have not taken any time to study the I-16 at all have you?  

I dare say you have never even flown it in the game.  

 

and I bet you a tenner you have no idea what the stall is like and  

how careful you have to be when you get near it. but then you strike me as a 109 kind of guy really...

 

And how many times have you flown a real one?  

I only bring this up because you did as an attack on my criticism.

 

Which is your normal MO for attacking people. Attack their credibility.

Never even bother to look at what they might be saying.

 

Look at the thread topic:  "why is the i-16 so unstable?" 

 

You have failed many times to even discus this. Why?

 

I postulate something and you and others ignore it and go on the offensive.

the best you have is "the test pilot did flew a real one".

 

Again, where is the money?

 

Without some reasonable evidence showing how they worked the FM with the test pilots help...

you have not very much to go on and a whole lot you filled in yourself.

 

Sounds like some kind of act of faith. etc etc.

 

It's quite funny, this whole thing sounds like the emperors new clothes. 

No one wants to rock the boat.

 

And now you are making lies up about the il-2 forum, as you have no idea why I was banned.

That is between myself and Haash. You will never know.

Do you wish to continue on that? because if you do I will report you.

I have every right to and I  warned not to get personal.

 

So go and fly the hecking plane and tell us what you think.

 

I have flown it a lot and have an opinion on it.

 

It really is that simple.

 

S!

 

Knalp.

 

PS. I'm off to fly it right now.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#31 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 23 October 2020 - 10:58

And here for your entertainment is an ACMI track for you to watch.

 

Kutyzoff32 vs myself. I-16 vs I-16.

 

Pretty darn good fights, this was the best one I remembered to record.

 

I was particularly interested in how to evade the super climb then turn then attack type move that

just about every 109 jockey does.... If he had bee in in a 109 I would have been toast.

 

Tacview is amazing.

 

Attached File  dogfight.2020-10-23_22-32-59_02 - Kutyzoff32 .zip   962.68KB   0 downloads

 

https://www.tacview....oduct/about/en/

 

Tacview and RoF would be an excellent couple...

 

Ahem,

 

Flying with 4 cranks of the flap handle. It's essential. No flaps and the plane is just useless. Totally.

 

You can see Kutyzoff loses it a few times, and recovers. It's the i-16's saving grace, a lot like the Dr1.

 

It was a real pleasure to have a few good fights with them. they were pretty good, probably a bit too used to  

power on tap. We had some really really good slow race fights. They were amazing, not on track though.... oops.

 

mmm, pull the stick back too much and the i-16 loses it's shit. Which relegates it back to this "super smooth"  

on rails type of fight to avoid the helicopter spin out.... oh well.

 

S!

 

Knap.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#32 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6602
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 October 2020 - 14:14

So you don't have anything really to hold up your argument...

 


I’ve got a pilot who has actually flown the I-16.  Which is a lot more than you’ve got.  Because you’ve got absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

Do you wish to continue on that? because if you do I will report you.

Go for it.  Considering that you were also permanently banned from this forum, and are now questioning aircraft FM without any evidence whatsoever, I’d like to see how that goes for you.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#33 knalp

knalp
  • Member
  • Posts: 858
  • LocationNew Zealand. ( ex. Scotland )

Posted 23 October 2020 - 20:54

Well you still have no brought anything new to the table.

 

We have discussed the test pilot thing and there is no evidence bar the landing

that they did ANYTHING to the FM. 

 

"So it seems likely that they got this right."  Your words. Nothing to back this up yet.

 

Why is the i-16 so prone to tumbling along in flight like a drunk?

 

Is it really like this in real life? Repeating these questions to you is fruitless as

the only answer you come back with is "test pilot" and " you were banned" ...

 

Mind you, every time you reply to this thread it goes right back to the top.

 

and you still have not flown it yet have you...

 

Worried you might see that I have a point?

 

Go on fly it. Go on. Get your goggles on and fly the plane.

Try some on line MP dog fighting. Icons on even.

 

Fly the plane. This IS what this is all about. Flying.

 

You say i have no ability to comment on the plane.

 

If you wish to have a discussion about the way the plane flies in game I am right here.

 

I contest the way it breaks traction and just spins out.

I would love to see any evidence that this is true or false.

To hold up my end I brought the film of a real i-16 and real i-16 pilot doing there thing.

 

Of course only three people and a one eyed dog have looked at this thread and   

no one really cares anyway. Still, I am allowed to talk about things. I would add without  

fear of ridicule but that is not true, which is a shame but the culture of fear of being banned

for saying what you like about something you bought.... I am glad I am not in the il-2 forum.

 

Or we could have a duel, 1x1 on berloga or combat box. I-16 vs 1-16... if you have the time.

 

 

S!

 

Knalp.


  • 0

Spam patrol: on duty and on guard. None shall pass!

I was there: The Great Spam War  of 2019/2020

2020_3_18__7_57_36.jpg

 


#34 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16608

Posted 23 October 2020 - 21:30

Tired of all this interpersonal bickering, especially about something that ought to be being discussed over on the IL-2GB forums rather than here.

 

How about y'all take all this over there, and see how the IL-2 mods like it.

 

Locking this one as pointless at this point.


  • 1

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online: RoF SPAM killer markings 66.jpg



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users