安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Genius... the age of the game is not in question... but how well it has "aged"
Since this concept seems beyond your grasp, I will use the example of EVE Online... which was created 16 years ago, and yet has aged very well... and while I no longer play it... it doesn't look or feel like a 16yr old game.... and is actually still more advanced then many much newer MMOs.
From what I gathered, the answer is: "The game isn't perfectly accurate, but is better then most... and if you know how to fly your particular aircraft and work as a team, you can pulll off a 'win' more often then not."
Also, to address some of the arguments that somehow arose from this thread:
* GERMAN aircraft were exceptoinally agile & well armed throughout the war, but suffered late in the war from a lack of experienced pilots... but their aircraft designs were top notch!
*RUSSIAN aircraft generally could not go toe-to-toe with a 109 or 190 and win in a turn-fight, unless the German pilot was inexperienced or flying an outdated model. However Russian aircraft were fairly rugged and could absorb a good amount of damage compared to most Axis aircraft, also with some help from the American & British, later in the war the Russians were able to develop aircaft in larger numebrs and with improved designs.
*BRITISH spitfires were some of the best turn-fighters and climbers of WWII, especially later in the war. Their biggest issue was they lacked the longer-distance punching-power compared to 109 or 190. However the British heavy-fighters (twin-engines) could easily go toe-to-toe with just any German aircraft (assuming both pilots were skilled). British pilots had balls of steel!
*AMERICAN aircraft were as varied as the American people. Early in the war, they didn't have much in the way of effective fighters, but because they head already been working on many more advanced aircraft designs (at the time they were pulled into the war [Pearl Harbor]), they were able to quickly produce these newer designs, and then quickly matched and even eclipsed most of the the Japanese & German equivilants.
Examples:
- P47 was an exceptional multi-role (ground-attack/ intercepter) aircraft, because of its power, its armaments, and its unparalleled ruggedness. It was NOT an air-superiority fighter, so genrally would try to avoid getting into a turn-fight with a lightweight 109, 190, or Japanese Zero.
- P38 was one of the fastest climbers and top-speed aircraft of its time, and with its armament, could kill most enemy aircraft at a mile or more away (almost unheard for its time), but again, would generally NOTget into a turn-fight with a lighter & more agile enemy fighter. For anyone who doubts the abilities of the P38, take a look at the stats of the P38 (not counting the early models when pilots didn't know how to use them, or the un-armed versions that only carried cameras). Once it "came into its own", it truly was the most feared heavy-fighter of WWII, and has the records to prove it.
- F6 Hellcat / F8 Bearcat was arugably the most successful American aircraft platforms of WWII, despite being lightweight carrier-based aircraft, they had expectional power-to-weight ratios, and with a few improvements were able to fly circles around the Japanese aircraft of that time. They also scored the largest (total) number of kills of any American aircraft during WWII.
- P51 made have had a slow start, and was a bit more fragile compared to most other American fighters, but with an improved engine & some minor fixes, it became one of the best (if not the best) air-superiority aircraft of WWII, as it could literaly fly circles around the 109 & 190s of that time. Now granted the Germans kept improving the 109s to the point at the end of the war, they were fairly equal as aircraft, but those late-model 109s weren't produced in large numbers like the P51s, nor did they have the range or multi-role capabilities of the P51. But if a late-model 109K and a late-model P51 came head-to-head, it really came down to pilot skill. And YES, a few P51 ace pilots reported they were able to use the aircraft's incredible power & torque, to literally skid the lightweight aircraft & stand it up to an almost instant stall (like hitting the brakes in the air), and quickly get behind their would-be predators, turning the tables on them.... something that no other American aircraft could do in WWII.
NOTE: An aircraft's climb-rate, turn-rate, and max-speed can be greatly effected by altitude, tempature, & even humidity... so it goes without saying, that while some aircraft perform at optimal levels closer to the ground, others perform best at much higher altitudes... taking this into consideration would be a challenge for any developer of a flight-combat-simulator.
They collect real data, tests and manuals and model plane according to it.
Meaning every plane has it's strenghts and weakness, it's up to you how are you going to use it.
So no, there is no russian bias (me coming from EU).
Also il2 producer is American guy living in America.
For a ETO, russian planes are better turners and competitive on low alt while they suck at high alt.
German planes climb better and generaly are faster on all alts, on high alt they dominate by far.
Upcoming US fighters should be competitive on high alts but in MP rarely who goes that high.
It's no secret Germany at that time had best fighters but was outnumbered and with unexperienced pilots so don't expect P-51 or some other being best figher in the sim and "God mode" cos it wasn't IRL.
Currently EA 109 K-4 is best fighter in the game.
WT is arcade game, il2:GB is a flight sim.
If you aim on ww2 flight sim il2GB are best there is out there.
DCS ww2 is good but only few planes and not in their main focus.
but, as of last patch, this issue has been resolved. now they're just as bad as any gunner (as should be the case, after all)
Why here always some demand that this game is a flight sim -> it's just a game with flight sim elements, said the Developer
Flight sims are DCS World and IL-2 Cliffs of Dover Blitz.
WarThunder is the same style as IL-2 1946. If you like IL-2 1946 you will like WarThunder, point. However IL-2 1946 is far better than WarThunder.
If someone believe these Devs from these game spend the same amout of work as Team Fusion do is simple blind or true fanboy
Actually the "primary developer" is 1C Game Studios which is in FACT a Russian developer.
Their American partner helped them to do some conversions, translations, & get aircraft specs & such.... but most of the math for the physics engine (meaning the stuff that decides how good or bad your aircraft's performance is), came from 1C Game Studios.... NOT from 777 Studios.
CORRECT SIR .... on all accounts!
* A physics engine is based on math, so you can have an aircraft show any stats you want... while the actual performance may be 10% worse, 50% worse, or 200% better... depending on a dev's personal bias or prejudice. That is why objectiveness is important... otherwise it turns a game or simulator into just another piece of political propaganda.
* DCS is a true flight-combat-simulator, while apparently IL-2 only has some "elements" of a true simulator. But for those who do NOT want to spend lots of time doing all the realistic stuff (such as adjusting your fuel mixture, checking your amps, etc...), the DCS world can be overwhelming for some, or just a little tedious for someone like me. But I do have complete respect for DCS... it is by far the most accurate of any game out there (available to the public).
* War Thunder is definetly more of an arcade game (albeit far more modern then IL2-1946), but WT suffers from extreme prejudices & biases... so its kind of game-breaking for me.
* 1C Game Studios had NOT spent even 3% of the time gathering (real world) data as the DCS devs did for their game. And without the logistical support of 777 Stuidios, it is likely that the IL-2 Stalingrad would have been a failure (at least outside of Russia). But thankfully with the contributions of 777 Studios, the game is pretty good .... at least its better then WT currently is.
If you decide to pick up the game, please don't have these expectations in mind when flying, because there are so many variables when it comes to dogfighting and what you're stating is not accurate. Otherwise I have a feeling we'll see a bit of whining on the forums...
If CEM is what makes flight sim to you than yes, DCS is on top of it!
For me more important is FM, DCS ww2 without startup procedure is on par with il2 BoX imo, some things are better in DCS and some in il2.
Lot of pilots i know who flew similar planes comfirmed this, some wrote it on forums (guys flying post war props very close to those in il2) and from my experience being part of cockpit crew in a aircraft that fly under severe stress and great maneuverability, that's where i think il2 FM is very good and realistic.
Now i'm not pilot so i can't grant those claims, nor the other pilots who fly Pipers or big commercial AC's.
That's why i believe to those who flew very similar aircrafts.
That is where they are different, one is feel of flight and combat, other is study sim with also good FM.
DCS ww2 takes way more time to develop cos they model every system in aircraft to details (clickpit).
Regarding FM DCS ww2 props have one big drawback taking away general feel of flight and that is you can pull on controls like Superman on crazy high speeds taking away stiffness, like those flight controls are hydraulic driven without artificial feel unit.
With modern jets that is not problem cos they modeled fly-by -wire, hydraulic driven controls...etc.
While other things are very nice detailed; torque effect, propwash...etc.
If you wan't clickpit and good FM DCS is way to go, i personally don't care for clickpit (i press buttons in cockpit all day at work), i just want to fly sim with good content, gfx, DM and FM and that's il2BoX, while for jets i go DCS.
Now Clod FM is nowhere near BoX or DCS.....it's a plane on track with partial clickpit.
Also good argument to compare live mmo game with subscription that is always in development genius.
To answer the original post, its a realistic take on ww2 air combat and i recommend it. DCS is good to but i dont like click pits they become a bore and a pain in the neck after a week and multiplayer isn't the best.
Its Apples and Oranges mate, both are good. i've been simming for 25 years and i spend most of my time with BoX.
Spitfire lacked "longer distance punching power of the 109 and 190". The range of the Spitfire was not dramatically worse than the German planes (756km (Vb) vs 850 (G6) vs 800 (A8)). The Spitfire was unsuitable as an escort fighter for sure, but then the Bf109 was notorious for not having the range to reach far inland as an escort during the BoB also.
As for British twins going "toe to toe with any German fighter" - well no. I am a Mosquito and Beaufighter fanboi but either of these would have a very bad time if caught by a 109 or 190. The Mosquito 's saving grace was speed.
P-38 shooting enemy planes at 1 mile? 1.6km? Maybe one hit a very slow and stupid bomber or transport once, but a 190 in combat? Would be a miracle.
To say that it had a very high top speed is also a bit misleading (time for a quick copy paste): After some disastrous raids in 1944 with B-17s escorted by P-38s and Republic P-47 Thunderbolts, Jimmy Doolittle, then head of the U.S. Eighth Air Force, went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, asking for an evaluation of the various American fighters. Test pilot Captain Eric Brown, Fleet Air Arm, recalled:
"We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East."
The P-38 is an amazing looking aircraft, and was excellent for the Pacific, but perhaps not the uberplane that many may expect, certainly in late 1944 and early 1945. In Bodenplatte we shall see! (I will certainly look forward to it).
F6F a "lightweight carrier aircraft". Well it is a very good carrier aircraft, but lightweight??? It was a monster. Unloaded it weighed 4,190Kg, versus 3,200Kg for a Fw-190 or 4,195Kg for the huge Tempest V.
P-51 was a great fighter, and superb long-range escort. But "running rings around 109s and 190s". Hmm. A little exaggeration I think. But lets see if the K4s and D9s are "run rings around" by the P-51D in Bodenplatte next year. I have my doubts.
You talk about FMs and we talk how big impact their physics engine based on math influence the plane performance. The physics engine makes the difference not the FMs! FMs are fixed stats. In 2014 the physics engine was different so the planes behavior too compared to 2018 but the FMs never changed. Like I said FMs are static and the physics engine makes them dynamic.
You say CloD FMs are not near as BoX or DCS? - So you do compare BoX or DCS physics engine vs CloD physics engine what is still a buggy mess thanks to Oleg and all Developer who were involved in CloD development who were unable to do their job right. Now some of them working for BoX Development like in CloD they do again not their job. Good to see how two year old bugs still are there. One example? - The P-40 can fly forever with fully closed radiators, cools down with fully closed radiators - lol. And you say BoX FMs are accurate better - lol.
DCS was never a WW2 sim in the first place, DCS was more WW3 oriented. Jets behave much more different than propeller driven planes. So DCS need to adjust their physics engine to match how it feels to fly propeller driven planes. Same as BoX never was a WW2 sim in the first place. WW2 planes behave much more different than WW1 planes. Again physics engine changes are needed.
Without physics everything feels wrong flat and boring. Walk on Earth, walk on Moon and compare it can you notice how the physics changed but your weight never changed. See, the same we have here the FMs never changed but the physics.....................
I'm not quite familiar in game development but wouldn't developing new engine and game based on it be easier than rewriting engine.....at least that was the case with Arma.