Wobbling mostly pitch, also yaw ( all aircraft models... )

[Guest deleted@50488]

This has been debated more than many times, sorry, but for me it's becoming a very distracting "feature" of IL-2 BoS, which I like so much in many of it's aspects and potential, but ends up falling so far from my want's in this particular respect, and I believe is also something most users have complained about...

 

The effect extends probably to yet another quirk in the fdm, causing that unreasonable flat spin in the fw-190 as you pitch down more aggressively... as well as the lack of differing pitch stability characteristics on aircraft where neutral pitch stability should be seen on some inputs, and positive pitch stability should instead be the case for other pitch inputs ( pitch up vs pitch down, namely, on some aircraft models known to have that feature AFAIK typical of most ww2 fighters... )

 

The Wobbling could also defined as a "rubber-band" effect, for most pitch and yaw inputs, particularly at higher AoA.

Edited December 9, 2015 by JCOMM

[Reflected]

Also, when you pull high AoA-s, the plane should either keep  pitching up, or, if the critical AoA is exceeded, stall - at least on one wing ,depending on many factors. What ist should NOT do is what we have in game: as soon as critical AoA is reached, the plane stops pitching up, just mushes through the air, pitches/ bounces back a little, airflow comes back, so starts pitching up again, repeat... all this with the stick being kept in the same position.

[coconut]

Hard to answer that poll. I don't know if the current behavior is correct or not, so I'm not sure why what I might think on the subject should have any relevance. If you see the game as a game, then it makes sense to listen to players. If you see it as a sim, then the devs should listen to aeronautic engineers, and then it's not a matter of how many think what, but who is right and who is wrong.

 

Also pulling hard on the stick does send me into a stall, so I don't understand what Reflected above is referring to. You can even see the AI stalling a lot with the P40, to the point where I wonder if maybe it hasn't been properly "trained" yet.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Good point coconut, it's really a discussion up to aeronautical engineers and not simmers, even if some of us are also pilots.

 

In my particular case, and although I've been flying for decades, it's only gliders I fly, so, difficult for me to know exactly how a ww2 fighter should behave under some circumstances.

 

As a result, I and probably many others, end up using comparisons with other sims, which is a totally wrong track to follow....

Edited December 5, 2015 by JCOMM

[SharpeXB]

The 190 at least does have a pre-stall buffet, you can hear it as well. I don't experience "wobbling" in these planes or at least not something really distracting. I'm not a real warbird pilot so I have no idea what's realistic or not. But if the planes didn't exhibit some amount of instability they wouldn't seem realistic.

[Beazil]

I'm with Coconut on this one.  Any simulation would do best to avoid listening to people's complaints from the "peanut gallery" so to speak, and utilize actual test documentation and other sources that are not open to much in the way of debate.  Don't misunderstand - feedback should be welcomed and challenges (not trolls) should be responded to in a constructive and informative manner.  Everyone gets to learn that way.  I realize that this sim is another attempt at approximating actual flight  (as best can be done with this medium, at this particular time) and will have issues that need to be addressed or observations from RL pilots that conflict with what we see in game.

 

I am not a RL pilot, and my experience with WWII "birds" is unfortunately limited to the confines of the computer simulation.  Maybe someone (JCOMM?) with Force Feedback enabled might also be able to tell us if what you are experiencing is consistant with expected behaviours.  Sadly, I can only ask, and not answer.

 

Jcomm, are you a pilot with 1st hand experience of this behavior in a real world setting?  That wasn't altogether clear from your initial post.  S!

 

Not that you have to be; everyone's observations are what they are.  I'm just wondering on what you base the assumption that the behavior is wrong.

 

/respectfully

Edited December 5, 2015 by Beazil

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

How about clunky rudder mechanics? Wanted to see this fixed since beta (and I think this is one easier to assume issue with the flight engine). If rudders made aircraft roll as fast as ingame ailerouns would be wasted weight.

 

Don't really know how to interpret "wobbling" as it seems people reporitng it mean slightly different things. Personally I think planes might be too senseive in the lower range of pitch input (yes, you can trim + mess with settings, that does not compensate for the tailheaviness of an aircraft though). Compared to Clod, where I find the effect of damped pitch input a little exegerated, it's the very oppsotie in BoS. It's barely noticeably, especially on the fighter aircraft.

 

If I compare that to my real flying expirence (gliders mainly) I agree that pitch behaviour in general feels slightly too unstable. In a ASK-21 (glider, TO weight = 450kg), which is a true leightweight compared to WW2 fighters (Bf-109 TO weight = 3t), I can really feel the weight of the plane in any move I make. If I pull the nose up harshly for example the reaction, although prompt, lags slightly behind the first 0.5 sec. Equally, when letting the stick center quickly, the nose still travels a few ° further due to inertia.

 

Also, when centering the stick after pulling, the nose remains rockstabel after the pull up movement has come to an end. It's not swinging, oscilating or trying to return to it's horizontal flight attitude. It remains rockstable at the ° I pulled it until speed drops and gravity pulls it down slowly. In BoS I sometimes get the feeling that aircraft have neutral stability at all speed ranges which makes the nose oscilate a little when pulling positive AoAs for a short ammount of time.

 

Either way we also have to keep in mind we fly with more than 60FPS, full physical feedback and better resolution in reality, which can be difficult to compare to sims in some cases.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, I'm a pilot since more than 35 yrs :-)  Got my license in October 1980 :-), but only flew gliders, although I have had the chance to pilot many other types, and flying aerobatics in a Pitts and in an Extra 300 , but, truth being said, I don't really have a formal base for my arguments, so, it's worth what it's worth... pretty much useless from a scientific PoV...

 

One thing is for sure, gliders, and SLGs are certainly different, of that I am sure :-)

Edited December 5, 2015 by JCOMM

[Guest deleted@50488]

Good point too 5tuka.

 

I know only too well the K21 too :-)  

 

And yes, that's what I meant in my above post - in gliders we know it feels really different...

 

My only comparisons can be made with those aerobatic airplanes I was able to test IRL, and pretty much of the stuff we use for tugging - from PA18s to DR-400s... - and those, again, although all exhibiting positive pitch stability, are pretty much stick and stay in terms of pitch when perturbed .... But then again, I know I can't compare it to a powerful  ww2 fighter...

Edited December 5, 2015 by JCOMM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I remember flying our LS-8 without trim weights. I though it still matched the lowest permittable cockpit weight but - as I figured out later - was slightly below that. As result the aircraft had a slight tailheaviness. The effects were similar to what we have ingame. Pitch movements when climbing or turning resulted in quick, erratic responses of the airplane. I had to make slow movements to avoid overreaction and was moer busy correcting the pitch attitude than usually.

 

It felt very unconfortable and I decided to land for good. It's just tremendous a lack of ~5kg can actually be like once airborne.

 

There still was no "wobbling" or whatever one might call it but just a more exegereted response to elevator inputs. Somehow I feel a similar thing happening when flying the 109 + the nose "wobble" when centering the stick after pitch movements.

[indiaciki]

I can't say anything from personal experience - flew too little and mostly GA twin. I had my dad fly BOS and he as an experienced pilot said it was okay. Point is - maybe Dakpilot can say something about it - he said that the problem with sims in general is: flight controls. Digital joysticks and rudder cannot simulate the forces (i'm adding not even force feedback) because they can't simulate the forces you have to deal with controls and your senses. Sims works with visual information only. And as you mentioned the Pitts - he flew the Soko 522 (as close to flying a warbird as he got) - trainer 600 HP. He had arobatics traing and some shooting. He is referefing to aerobatics in aerobatic aircaft to ballet. ACM are completly different. It' s different flying completely. Those fighters are heavy and very powerfull aircraft. You can't simulate the deafening noise and vibrations, torque. He compared flying 600 HP rotary engine armed planes to playing chess in a steel factory. Since sims can't do that - they have to visuaize that what is not visual. All I remember from stalling GA planes was sirens going off and soft controls - something that you don't have here. hm... Simulating flight as it really is it's more like simulating a bicycle ride, skateboard or skiing. Can't really be done with joysticks and monitors alone.

 

BTW he has a hearing problem because of his flying. Flying is really loud even if you fliy light GA. i can't figure how some people can fly while listening to music :D

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by indiaciki

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

I work in the field of automatic control systems design and my personal opinion resulting from a lot of experience in aircraft dynamics modeling and RL experience is that BoS has it right. Yaw oscillations (dutch roll mode) especially at low speed/high AoA is today still a serious problem, which solved aerodynamically during the design phase and also  by implementing systems that counter it, by implementing yaw dampers (e.g., all airliners have them). I don't think that much thought and priority was  given to it during WW2, where design goals for aircraft were completely different than now. Thus you cannot compare nowadays aircraft where stability and safety are key factors in certification process and are deeply embedded in aircraft aerodynamic and systems design. I had also some talk with professional pilots last week about flight dynamics and I was very surprised when when they asked me if I've flown the new Il-2 as it has some fantastic flight models...just my 2 cents.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Flight dynamics in BoS (namely turbulence simulation) in BoS is great. FMs...well, I preferr DCS. The P-51 and Dora behave more calm, naturally to inputs and just act like aircraft should. No overdone rolling when pushing rudder, easy to trim for every fligtht state, good feel of weight when manouvering. That's everything BoS lacks in my opinion.

 

I still can't see how the BoS modelign of ruddes can be accurate if you can barely even slip with the 109. It was practised a lot in WW2 by Luftwaffe pilots so it can't be the 109 was just "too bad" for it or anything like that.

 

I disagree a little on the stability statement though. Sure, there were compromises and civil aircraft have a different design philosophy (nowdays) than WW2 combat aircraft. Some were designed with a slight instability purposely to give them better turn characteristics. Still, designers and especially pilots gave high attention to safety. Kurt Tank for exmple gave this a higher priority than Willy Messerschmitt when desingning the 190 and many pilots praised it for it's higher safety.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Anyone who still has original IL-2 installed can try Eric Browns Joystick settings

 

Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

 

Whist i have some small experience with WWII aircraft i feel his reputation is a bit more impressive 

 

Although a copy from my post in the the other thread it is still relevant

 

"One of the problems is the speed that you can deflect a control surface, it would be hard to test but i guarantee the reaction time in pushing full down elevator deflection from neutral is much quicker than possible in real life 

 

Does anyone remember Eric Brown's (famous and very experienced WWII and later test pilot) joystick response settings from original IL-2, he felt they were an accurate setting for authentic feel based on his rather undeniable wide experience

 

Nobody used them much because having 'tie fighter' reactions was more desirable

 

I wonder if when using a full sized control stick and accurate control surface deflection speeds (and preferably accurate FFB) the wobbling would still remain an issue in BoS/BoM"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

There isn't much point in having a poll on a subject like this. The devs have responded to community input on flight models and such but only when actual data is presented. The FM of another sim isn't data. Neither is modern civilian glider behavior or such.

 

But as an example the DCS planes behave in a similar fashion as BoS, they will rebound from pitch and rudder inputs etc. It's seems logical that aircraft would behave this way.

Edited December 6, 2015 by SharpeXB

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

But as an example the DCS planes behave in a similar fashion as BoS, they will rebound from pitch and rudder inputs etc. It's seems logical that aircraft would behave this way.

No, they don't, at least not in relation to the points I mentioned.

 

FMs are not purely based on maths, otherwise they could be created by machines and save valuable men power. The thing is that FMs include artificial values not related to real world physics like damping factors, sensetivities and so on (this was at least the case in another game I worked on). Those are used to calculate things like input reaction, "stiffening" and so on.

 

These values, being artificial, are open for tweaking as far as they end up showing more satisfying results. But this costs manpower and time, which is pricey for a small team like 777.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

No, they don't, at least not in relation to the points I mentioned.

If I kick the rudder right in the DCS Dora, the plane will slip to the right and roll in that direction, when I let go it rebounds straight.

If I push down on the stick and then let go the plane doesn't stay in exactly that attitude, it rebounds back a bit. Just like BoS

They're different games with different engines so they won't be identical. But the general behavior is the same. It's also understandable given the forces involved. I'm not a real pilot but it's easy to understand that if you're applying a force to the stick to push the nose up or down and then let go, why would the plane stay in exactly that attitude? It would center itself aerodynamically. The rudder behavior is more pronounced since the plane is traveling sideways in a slip and when you let go, it's going to snap back to its path because of the airflow.

I won't use the term "realistic" in these sims since I don't have the experience to say what is. I'll just settle for "believable" and be satisfied with that. These kind of topics are just black holes of debate that have no resolution so there's not much point in worrying. Unless you can present some sort of actual flight test data to the 1CGS team.

Edited December 6, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well, regarding gliders IRL, SharpeXP, my experience dates from the time when we flew K6, Bergfalke III, Rhonlerche, Mucha, Zie... all old gliders ...

 

But back to the theme of wobbling in BoS, yes it's similar and plausible among sims.

 

Many ww2 flighters even responded diferently to positive vs negative pitch inputs, showing positive stability in one direction and neutral in the other. 

 

The problem is also not with roll, or even inertia. I, for instance, think that the weight is very apparent and plausibly modeled in BoS, and in some sense inertia coefficients too, but, it's for pitch and yaw inputs that when the controls are returned to neutral, that rubber band effects becomes more evident.

 

Although I seldom use it, I did run some tests in RoF, and didn't find the same effect, but of course the ww2 fighters are completely different from the ones modeled in BoS for ww2...

 

I don't like it the way it is, because it doesn't look plausible even from an aerodynamics PoV, but I do not have real data to base my claim, so, no point in arguing here about it...

Edited December 6, 2015 by JCOMM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If I kick the rudder right in the DCS Dora, the plane will slip to the right and roll in that direction, when I let go it rebounds straight.

Of course it will roll, but not as exaggerated as in BoS so even full aileround can't compensate for it. Again, try to sideslip in BoS and than in DCS with as much rudder deflection as possible. I know pretty well how it works and I can tell you DCS is a far more plausible representation for that than the BoS bf wobblenine.

If I push down on the stick and then let go the plane doesn't stay in exactly that attitude, it rebounds back a bit. Just like BoS

I suspect a wrong set of trim or too harsh inputs here because when I do that the plane stays.

I won't use the term "realistic" in these sims since I don't have the experience to say what is. I'll just settle for "believable" and be satisfied with that. These kind of topics are just black holes of debate that have no resolution so there's not much point in worrying. Unless you can present some sort of actual flight test data to the 1CGS team.

They are black holes as long as they're lead by people who have nothing to contribute to the subject. As I understand it this topic demands aerodynamical knowledge and / or real flight expirience to develop a constructive debate. And pls, if I can take the time trying to explain sth, read it.

 

No offense meant but this is getting tiring.

[SharpeXB]

As I understand it this topic demands aerodynamical knowledge and / or real flight expirience to develop a constructive debate.

Right. But flight models are not going to be revised based upon forum polls.

[Guest deleted@50488]

It would be difficult for most of the users to present here the equations used in flight dynamics, to record data from test flights, and sum it all up in a concise and scientific way in order for the developers to pay attention to it...

 

Some things are evident, and, just as they ask ( 1C777 just as ED ) rw pilots to test their flight models and show users how they felt when using it, and make use of their opinions on this or that aspects of the aircraft response without those pilots acting as rocket scientists and presenting to them complex maths, I believe they also hear to the opinions of the users, specially when they are themselves RW pilots.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Right. But flight models are not going to be revised based upon forum polls.

Just saying, they tweaked IL-2 flaps based on a video of a modern restored one. And I don't think this polls main goal is to convince sby to change sth but to collect opinions about the observations the OP has made.

[Dakpilot]

I still contend that the speed at which control inputs can be applied with a desk joystick are much higher than what could be applied IRL

 

If you are cruising at 400kph full up and then down elevator can be applied in a split second,(even with FFB) same with all axis, far quicker than you could do while flying the real A/C

 

The FM having to deal with these responses is then oversensitive in its reaction, I feel this is a contributing factor

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 7, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

Just saying, they tweaked IL-2 flaps based on a video of a modern restored one. And I don't think this polls main goal is to convince sby to change sth but to collect opinions about the observations the OP has made.

 

Exactly that!

 

I would be glad to see Han showing us what he thinks about it. After all, he's also a devoted simmer, and aviation enthusiast, (as well as an aeronautical engineer ? ), so, he certainly knows better than most of us ( me for sure ), what' it's being talked around here.

 

I've seen Han flying some excellent aerobatic figures in some of the IL-2 Fighters. It would be great to see him playing with the pitch stability, showing /telling us why he thinks it's ok the way it is, or, that it's still WIP.

 

Yesterday I spent hours browsing youtubes and other sources to find out real world examples of response to pitch, on different aircraft. Unfortunately my search was sterile :-/  I'll keep trying...  All I could find was this well known video by A2A regarding pitch response in their C172 vs RL C172, but it's different and has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about here, anyway, I leave here the video - but please bare in mind the pilot is holding strongly on the yoke, all of the time, and rocking it, not bringing it up or down and then returning it to neutral! And it's a C172, not a ww2 fighter of course...

 

For DAKPILOT: The problem is there at any speed / trimmed speed and AoA you try. The pace at which the initial return of the "nose" to the trimmed state occurs is just to fast / abrupt - that's the rubber some of us are talking about. It happens same way with your suggested pitch curves, and I did try it DAKPILOT :-)

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by JCOMM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I still contend that the speed at which control inputs can be applied with a desk joystick are much higher than what could be applied IRL

 

If you are cruising at 400kph full up and then down elevator can be applied in a split second,(even with FFB) same with all axis, far quicker than you could do while flying the real A/C

 

The FM having to deal with these responses is then oversensitive in its reaction, I feel this is a contributing factor

 

Cheers Dakpilot

In a glider I can apply a quarter stick deflection on pitch at cruise speed and recenter the stick wihtin a sec. Still the aircraft doesn't behave like ingame.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

It would be difficult for most of the users to present here the equations used in flight dynamics, to record data from test flights, and sum it all up in a concise and scientific way in order for the developers to pay attention to it...

Well that's what is required if you want them to take this issue seriously. You can't just say things like "the planes wobble too much"

What are they supposed to do with that?

 

You guys act like you think the 1CGS team has never seen a real airplane. Maybe you missed these...

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Exactly because I didn't miss this, I wrote on the previous post:

 

"Some things are evident, and, just as they ask ( 1C777 just as ED ) rw pilots to test their flight models and show users how they felt when using it,"

 

so, both ED and 1C777 teams have experimented flight in real aerobatic aircraft and / or talked to rw pilots, like  Brunotte for ED or Mikoyan for 1C777 :-)

 

DAKPILOT,  but thanks anyway for the links!

Edited December 7, 2015 by JCOMM

[Guest deleted@50488]

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well, actually the rate at which the ( Bristol ? ) twin in the above movie recovers from a perturbation in pitch ( initial seconds of the movie ) is high - almost to the level I see in the G2 for instance ... Well.... 

[GP*]

Unfortunately, I can't respond to this poll.

 

While I agree there's a wobbling issue, I think stalls are handled superbly in this sim, both in the warning and the behavior of the stall itself.

 

• The pre-stall buffet is mostly accomplished through sound, given that it's a sim. There's also some additional "shaking" (not wobbling, that's not what I'm talking about here) to account for pre-stall buffet. Although I think that, with the FFB2 stick, there should be more "force feedback," I understand the limitations of programming stall indications with a very old joystick. So, while the FFB effects could be upped a bit, the warning in the game is sufficient.

 

• Stall behavior is one point where this sim excels. The "slipping on a banana peel" stalls from other sims are exaggerated IMO. With the engine at full (or near full) power, when you enter an accelerated stall, the nose stops tracking, a wing may drop (aircraft dependent), and the torque effect of the motor is felt. When entering an accelerated stall power off, the greatest indication (aside from sound) is that the nose stops tracking. In high performance aircraft, that is the greatest indication of a stall -- the nose stops tracking. That's no kidding how the USAF teaches (accelerated) stall recognition, especially when guys are first learning to fight BFM. And this doesn't just apply to jets -- same for piston-driven aircraft as well. Realize that low-performance civilian aircraft will immediately pitch forward because they're engineered for safety. Additionally, most civilian flight schools teach (power on/off) stall recovery as "get the nose down ASAP," further leading to the assumption that aircraft should always nose down and/or drop a wing -- the military, when teaching traffic pattern stalls (essentially the same thing as power on/off stalls), teaches to break the stall by getting right back to the moderate buffet and minimize altitude loss. When going through initial training, my greatest critique during the stall phase was that I wasn't aggressive enough finding the line between stall and "nearly on the verge of stall," which lead to "unnecessary altitude loss" -- even though I felt as if the aircraft was about to shake out of my hands, and that I was about to nearly stall once again!

 

If I kick the rudder right in the DCS Dora, the plane will slip to the right and roll in that direction, when I let go it rebounds straight.
If I push down on the stick and then let go the plane doesn't stay in exactly that attitude, it rebounds back a bit. Just like BoS
They're different games with different engines so they won't be identical. But the general behavior is the same. It's also understandable given the forces involved. I'm not a real pilot but it's easy to understand that if you're applying a force to the stick to push the nose up or down and then let go, why would the plane stay in exactly that attitude? It would center itself aerodynamically. The rudder behavior is more pronounced since the plane is traveling sideways in a slip and when you let go, it's going to snap back to its path because of the airflow.
I won't use the term "realistic" in these sims since I don't have the experience to say what is. I'll just settle for "believable" and be satisfied with that. These kind of topics are just black holes of debate that have no resolution so there's not much point in worrying. Unless you can present some sort of actual flight test data to the 1CGS team.

 

Your comments/questions provide great insight into the issue that we're trying to define here. Again, given that much of this is based off of "feel," it's sometimes difficult to convey via the English language exactly what's going on. And, until more testing can be done, you're right -- it'll just remain another FM complaint.

 

As I stated in a previous thread, my belief is that too great of an alpha / beta is introduced during maneuvering. This is a consequence of either 1) flight controls that have too much authority at moderate speeds or 2) airflow that doesn't provide enough flight control centering force at moderate speeds. I say "moderate speeds" because, in a low-speed fight (at or near what would be defined as minimum sustained turn rate airspeed in Em charts), I would definitely expect to see/feel some of the "wobbling" that I keep going on about. Additionally, at high speeds (speeds only achievable during a dive), I think the sim behaves reasonably well -- whether or not controls "lock up" enough at high speeds is a different discussion, but as far as the feel of the nose tracking as you increase aft stick pressure, it's very believable.

 

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but just so we're all on the same page: alpha is similar to AoA, but is typically defined as the angle between the longitudinal axis and the aircraft's actual flight path (you can substitute in the relative wind as an opposite/negative vector for the aircraft's flight path). Keep in mind that wings typically have some sort of twist and/or a slight angular offset from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Beta is the same thing, with regard to yaw instead of pitch.

 

Anyway, with all of that out of the way, back to what's in bold in your post -- yes, the alpha and/or beta introduced during maneuvering should "zero out" once flight controls are returned to neutral (at least for maneuvers that don't induce an accelerated stall)*. The issue, then, is that if this angle is too great based upon arguments 1) and 2) above, when the flight controls are neutralized, the aircraft will experience a dramatic return to what you call "center[ing] itself aerodynamically." THIS is what I mean when I refer to "wobbling."

 

Hopefully this helps explain what I'm talking about. I'm sure many will still disagree though, or assume I'm just a bad pilot.

 

*alpha will never center-out to zero, so long as the aircraft is still flying. 0 alpha or negative alphas can only be achieved via flight control input. This statement is synonymous with stating that an aircraft has to have an AoA even while flying straight-and-level.

[KoN_]

And the crowed gets smaller and smaller . Ive noticed a trend when a new patch comes out the servers get populated then after a few days go back to the normal , So is it because people are coming in to see if things are fixed , then realising that they are not .

You have some serous issues here and yet still not addressed .

Rubber band = 109 .

Flat spin = 190.

Flaps = Yak.

Invisible aircraft to back ground .

And the 3k Bubble effect .

Please please fix .

Edited December 30, 2015 by II./JG77_Con

[Hoots]

The crowd gets smaller and smaller because it's so dull reading responses from the same group of people trying to convince the same crowd of people that they are wrong. It's really not going to work you know, you won't persuade each other that one of the crowd is wrong. There are what, a whopping 56 votes for this poll? Surely that must tell you something?

 

The sim is what it is, if you don't like it, go do something else, if you do then carry on flying it and having fun but for the love of god stop having constant back and forth arguments, you sound like my kids.

 

Rant over

[Guest deleted@50488]

I started this Poll.

 

Yes it may look as a useless one, and indeed I deleted my initial vote and voted on the 2nd option... Why ?

 

Because the more I use il-2 BoS and really like a lot more the positive aspects of it's flight dynamics, damage, weather, ... models, and the more I get accustomed to correctly using my limited hardware for input the more this "wobbling" get's unnoticed to me...

 

Using input curves and dead zones for pitch, and yaw, and only a null zone for roll, proved to be a good solution.

 

In Il-2 I have this "problem", in the other sim I have other... None is perfect... but il-2 is by far the most immersive experience I have had in any combat flight sim, as a whole ( all aspects of the simulation being considered ), so, I'd better find my way around the limitations it may have, and those imposed by using cheap hardware controllers instead of a home cockpit with correctly proportioned stick and rudder pedals, like those I have in the gliders I fly :-)

 

It's the same when I use a great soaring simulator - Condorsoaring - using my hardware vs when I fly some of it's gliders IRL...

Edited December 31, 2015 by JCOMM

[Dakpilot]

I still keep my vote as option 1

 

But the issue is so small (for me) that with a little familiarization it does not effect me in a very negative way 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Hoots]

 

 

It's the same when I use a great soaring simulator - Condorsoaring - using my hardware vs when I fly some of it's gliders IRL...

 

I have the exact same problem no problem keeping the string centred in real life but on condor soaring I struggle like mad.

[KoN_]

Well that's what is required if you want them to take this issue seriously. You can't just say things like "the planes wobble too much"

What are they supposed to do with that?

 

You guys act like you think the 1CGS team has never seen a real airplane. Maybe you missed these...

 

 

mikoyan2.jpg

We all know they went up in a trainer aircraft .

Sitting in a trainer and a fighter big difference .

With the MiG-3 who flew that .

And did he test the BOS MiG-3. to confirm the simulation , and was it tested using good hardware and cheap hardware .  ??

Plenty of WWII birds still fly today .

No problem to sit along side pilot .

Edited January 1, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Sokol1]

and those imposed by using cheap hardware controllers instead of a home 

 

Like most of "gamers" - specially the target public with his 40$ 3in1 joystick...

 

What is expected? That people buy controls from Bugeyetech for fly better in this game?

 

Their pre-announced price for the - non released - "home" version start in 2.500$+... 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Sokol1

[Guest deleted@50488]

 

Like most of "gamers" - specially the target public with his 40$ 3in1 joystick...

 

What is expected? That people buy controls from Bugeyetech for fly better in this game?

 

Their pre-announced price for the - non released - "home" version start in 2.500$+... 

 

Oh!  I want one of those!!!!

[Guest deleted@50488]

With gained experience, in both the Fw190 and the 109s, the wobbling has completely gone out from my sim experience....

 

Is it a non-problem ? I don't think so, and it would be great to see some fine tuning in this area, but it can be dealt with, and we can overcome the effects, specially avoiding flying near the corners of the envelope....

[Sokol1]

BTW - The "anti-wobbling" settings used by "Señor Diez" for the  CH Fighterstick PRO, in the pictures for Fw 190, for LaGG is all in "100".*

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/589-video-ot-mkmrx/page-30?do=findComment&comment=368932

 

* 100 means the slider all left, in 0.

 

"In Putin's Russia, a flight game full sensitivity controls is equal to zero".   

Edited January 2, 2016 by Sokol1