|
Review - IL-2: Forgotten Battles
Back To Page 3
Flight Model (FM)
The first fact I want to emphasize
about PC Flight Sim flight models (FM) is they are very hard
to accurately quantify. “Realistic” is an extremely
subjective description at best and at worst is nothing more
than a total guess. It really depends on whose definition
is proffered as being ‘correct’. My description
of a realistic FM is 1) The physics model/algorithm should
respect basic real-life aerodynamic principals, performance
and limitations. 2) A specific virtual aircraft type displays
strengths and weaknesses appropriate to its real life counterpart,
And 3) Specific virtual aircraft types exhibit appropriate
and ‘usable’ performance strengths and weaknesses
historically proportional to other contemporary virtual aircraft.
How does FB’s FM rate? Well,
let me start with a few FM criticisms I feel are valid. The
average FB FM is a little less ‘difficult’ than
its predecessor IL-2. Some aspects have been toned down notably.
The biggest change is the lack of severe torque when power
is applied on takeoff and in low airspeed situations. The
“Aircraft” should rapidly and aggressively roll
in the opposite direction of prop rotation. FB’s aircraft
do not exhibit this vice to the degree they should. Is this
a bad thing? Depends on your definition of an accurate/realistic
flight model, but I personally think this effect could be
improved/increased slightly. High Alpha/Low speed rapid throttle
changes should be rewarded with an aggressive uncontrollable
torque roll and a violent departure. A second area that’s
“unrealistic” is throttle response. It’s way
too long! The time it takes to go from idle to military power
is more like early turbine engines rather than a reciprocating
Inline or Radial engine. The rapid throttle response is exactly
what killed inexperienced pilots in these high torque aircraft.
Since I am discussing throttle response, I guess this is a
good time to address the ME-262.
FB models the known Me-262 engines
faults pretty well, but I think they may have misinterpreted
the engine fire hazard. I may be wrong on this, as I am not
too familiar with the Jumo engine, but in all my experience
with real turbine engines I have never heard that rapid in-flight
throttle movements consistently cause in-flight fire/explosion.
A compressor stall... Absolutely plausible, a Flameout...
A definite possibility, but not an engine fire. Turbine engine
fires are far more likely to occur when there is no significant
airflow through the engine; like very high Alpha combined
with very low speed maneuvering or on the ground during engine
start. The early turbines had relatively crude fuel control
units that did not always do a very good job of fuel metering,
especially during complex operations like engine start. Rapid/improper
throttle movement in this case could cause fuel to “puddle”
inside the engine. When it lights off... BANG! An explosion
and fire that very well could result in the loss of the aircraft.
During flight there is abundant flow of ‘clean’
air through the engine that will generally vaporize and vent
the excess gas harmlessly out the tailpipe. It is also true
that even with good airflow a rapid throttle movement could
easily starve or overload the engine with extra gas and cause
a compressor stall and/or flameout. Ruptures of the engine
case and nacelle pod, as exhibited by the Me-262 in FB, are
not realistic in my opinion. As I said, I may be totally ignorant
of the characteristics of the Jumo turbojet engine, but until
I see convincing evidence indicating I am wrong I’ll
adopt a ‘Missouri’ attitude on this....Show me!
The last area of FM I want to address
is the ‘Uber’ I-16’s and the weapons modeling.
The I-16 was, by all contemporary and current reports, a fine
performing aircraft. The problem I have is that it seems significantly
over modeled in both performance and durability; conversely
many of the new ‘western’ aircraft like the P-40
and P-47 are similarly under modeled. The I-16 is a pretty
old design by WW2 standards and had it really been as easy
to fly and had the performance FB attributes it, then what
would be the need to develop the later Russian fighters? Joseph
Stalin could have saved all the design effort spent on more
modern Soviet fighters and increased I-16 production over
the 7000 examples that were produced. This leads to my opinion
of FB’s weapon effectiveness emulation; I think the .50
CAL Browning MG is way under modeled. Put a short burst of
I-16 light MG ammo (7.62 ‘Russian’, a caliber that
makes a good deer hunting round but a pretty weak anti-aircraft
weapon!) into a P-40 and it burns. Put a LOOOOONG burst of
.50 CAL into an I-16 and next to nothing happens. The I-16’s
four 7.62x54 Light MG’s appear much more effective than
four or six .50 CAL Browning ‘Heavy’ MG’s found
in western fighters. I find this very odd considering the
fact that the Browning .50 CAL was legendary for it’s
power, wide range of projectiles, and accuracy. It was so
effective that Browning’s half-inch bullet was used as
an air-to-air weapon by the US as recently as the Vietnam
War (B-52 tail gun).
An additional FB feature is complex
engine management and bombardier/gunner station interfaces.
The complex engine management allows the hard-core crowd to
realistically control just about ever aspect of operating
a WW2 military aircraft. Things like separate multi engine
settings, superchargers, mixture, radiators, prop pitch, mags,
and fire extinguishers can all be manually used. Be warned,
you will be busy... no VERY busy... in a fight operating in
complex mode; you will also reduce your performance if you
do it wrong! That is VERY realistic! The Gunner/Bombardier
function is new, realistic, really well done. The bombsight
is complex and takes an effort to learn, but the rewards of
watching your bombs destroy a target make the hard work more
than worth it. This truly could be the bombing simulation
that Microprose’s B-17 "The Mighty 8th" was not... This game works in multiplayer! The only bad thing
about manning the bombardier station is the autopilot does
not help you much. It will not act like a human (or smart
AI) pilot and fly an attack course to your target. You have
to do that manually and believe me, that is a real challenge.
Hopefully this will be fixed in the near future.
 At
this point you may think that I do not like the FB FM. If
my criticisms seem harsh or overly analytical, please realize
my intention is ‘constructive criticism’, in order
to identify a few things for improvement. I really like what
I see in FB flight models, and there definitely is a whole
lot to like. The ‘airplanes’ generally react to
the myriad of aerodynamic variables in a believable and realistic
manner.  Maneuver
the aircraft too aggressively to high alpha and it
will react as it should — departure and spin. Spins are
appropriate, the recoveries are equally realistic. If you
carefully reduce AOA just as the aircraft begins to depart
it very well may recover prior to spin entry. That is very
similar to actual high AOA flight. If you take hits from your
adversary your aircraft will lose some capability depending
on where the damage is. The damage model VERY realistically
affects performance, it is by far the best I have experienced.
No PC game FM can be perfect but this one comes as close as
I’ve seen. My overall rating would be ‘excellent’
in the FM category.
AI, Sound,
Ambiance, and other Notable Items
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
I have yet to experience truly realistic
AI control of virtual aircraft in any game, especially in
the highly complex and dynamic environment of an Air Combat
Simulation. I am not really sure it is possible with the
technology available to us now or in the foreseeable future.
This obviously applies to FB’s AI also. It’s not
perfect and I really didn’t expect it to be, but it’s
pretty believable and is the best I’ve seen to date.
A few AI Idiosyncrasies tend to be frustrating… like
AI wingman that sometimes totally disregard flight lead
command, AI bandits that can ‘see you’ in clouds,
and AI bandits that seem to ignore all your wingman and
target just you. And then there are the “dumb”
aspects of FB’s AI; like the bandit trapped at your
six breaking off the attack when you dive straight down
and recover just above the trees. It is almost like he can’t
see you anymore. Another odd behavior is when a AI bandit
attempts a ‘bug out’, he will keep flying straight
and level while you blast away! No noticeable defensive
reaction. The opposite is true when you’re trying to
sneak up unobserved on a single unwary bandit, they magically
‘see’ you every time just as you close to shoot.
Is all this bad? Not really, because in most cases it just
makes the game a little more challenging. That challenge
makes for very satisfying game play, it’s also great
practice in preparation to face human opponents in multiplayer!
Sound
The sound effects in Forgotten Battles
are pretty good but I think they would be more accurately
called ‘industry standard’. Not anything revolutionary,
but more than adequate to render an accurate environment
to a combat flight simulation. The guns sound real, the
engines sound real, and the crashes sound real. The only
"Hollywood (meaning goofy or odd) noises" heard
are some of the ‘radio’ calls from AI wingman.
They’re occasionally silly, but that’s a minor
distraction. These ‘radio’ sound files are now
in several languages, so if you want to hear only English
then all you have to do is copy the English files into all
the other language files. That way your Russian wingman
speaks to you in English!
View System
The view system is just about the
same as most quality Flight Simulations. It’s controlled
with either keyboard commands, mouse command, or a combination
of the two. Track IR users will be happy to know it should
work very well with FB, but since I don’t have one
yet I have not personally tried it. The ‘Padlock’
mode is IL-2 standard, therefore it is a little different
than most other combat sims. You must be ‘looking’
at the object to padlock it, and there are some other minor
padlocking limitations including cockpit obstructions that
limit its field of view. I personally feel it is a bit too
restrictive. In a real-life aircraft the field of view is
much better because of your peripheral vision, and it’s
much easier to see and ‘padlock’ a bandit. In
FB the field of view is limited to how far an individual
can turn only his head. In actual practice you can and do
turn/twist your whole body in order to significantly increase
the available visible airspace volume.
Ambiance
The overall environment, feel and
immersion factor of IL-2: Forgotten Battles is outstanding.
I have flown military aircraft in northern Norway and the
impression of the Finland ‘map’ and terrain set
is shockingly familiar. I feel like I have flown over the
very same Fjords. The attention to historical technical
detail and accuracy really adds significantly to this game.
Once again, I find myself stating that this is not the result
any one factor, but a combination of the whole package that
melds into a very realistic and believable simulated military
world. Other than the actual smell of gunpowder and aviation
fuel, everything else is there!
Go To Page 5
Click here
to go to top of this page.
|
