New FMs for IL2

Read Here

Read what Oleg has posted up. Sounds brilliant. Actually difficult to land and takeoff again :slight_smile:

Seems like it will probably take more PC power but it will be worth it I think/hope.

Sterling.

This is what I want most of IL2. A new, enhanced FM…waiting…

Sounds great but I’m worried about the cpu required and it looks like I’m not the only one. I was planning to upgrade it for BOB. In a years time cpu’s will be more powerful and current ones will have fallen in price but to do an interim upgrade and then another one in a years time is scary. I hear it maybe optional but I know which one everyone will be using in HL.

Now I wish I hadn’t given up the day job… :o

My worries too. What use is an upgraded FM if you can only have 12 planes in the air?

Still I put my trust in Oleg’s team and I wish him the best of luck coping with all the FM whiners :slight_smile:

sounds great as long as my XP3200 can cope.

As Flowbee says I was expecting to need to update to 64 chip set when BOB specs were known but sounds like may need to do sooner than I wanted.

But we will see maybe will work great with my chip. Hope so but better FM’s will be good. Been moaning enough about current one :stuck_out_tongue:

A free update of windows to 64 bit is excepted very soon, but until games are written to use 64bit and have driver support you won’t notice any different.

Longhorn, the next windows OS excepted in 2006, should be when we see real 64bit driver support and so games. Intel have just release their first 64bit chip after a complete reverse on what they planned, but more interestingly is their promise of dual core cpus due soon.

What will BoB be written for? Oleg seems to prefer Intel and Hyperthreading, but currently AMD’s 64bit FX chips are the quickest. He plans the BoB engine to last seven years so it must take into account Longhorn and 64Bit, aswell as Dual core cpus and maybe up to 4GB of memory that Longhorn supports.

Enough of this techie talk, Scotty pass the vodka and tell me the one about the two fat ladies…

As difficult to land as THIS?

Sorry, OT, but couldn’t resist :slight_smile:

more:

prepare to get your plane out of the “rails” you have been into since a long time !

More torque, means extended use of rudder and trims, much more inerty means anticipating the manoeuvers, and decrased air gunnery precision.

Immel on SimHQ

…and if we have more inertia, probably we will also burn more E in hard maneuvers :):slight_smile:

Sounds like actually keeping the aircraft in a straight flight path will be a little more difficult when he talks about flying on ‘rails’ at the moment. Maybe we will have to take more notice of the tail and try keep it from not flopping around :slight_smile:

Sterling.

If the Spitfire is running on rails then they must be maintained by Railtrack. In real life they operated from unprepared grass airstrips - you try to take the Spit over rough grass in Il2 and you’re flat on your tits before you can say oops.

I hope that rather than just making the model “harder”, what it means is that it will be made more consistent instead of focussing on the popular aircraft. For example, the Corsair in Il2 is not particularly difficult to take off and land. In real life, the long landing struts required to give prop clearance made it a bitch.