Will this sim's flight model ever be good enough to motivate bying it?

[Holtzauge]

I have been following the development of this sim for quite some time now. It sounded great when it was announced that a new sim based on RoF but for WW2 aircraft was to be launched. My impression from the developers announcements at the time was that this sim intended to take flight modeling to a new level with a more sophisticated flight model (FM) than it's predecessors.

This sounded great to me and it naturally raised the level of expectations. However, while graphics in this sim looks great I'm a bit hesitant to take the leap and buy it.

Why? Because to me an accurate FM is a prerequisite and the core of a sim. It does not matter how good the graphics look and the number of planes included, if the FM if off then I'm not bying.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me there are a number of issues with this sim the developers need to adress: Since I don't have the game I can't comment on how aircraft behave based on control input but heresay in this forum and videos posted show some weird behaviour at high angles of attack, sudden control inputs and ground handling etc.

What I can comment on is the performance aspect (as reported in this forum) and here I see a number of worrying issues: Climb rates seem to high, acceleration performance too good. Roll rates to high and not historically differentiated. Supersonic dives etc.

While developers have commented threads on some issues such as cockpit bars I have not seen any reassuring replies to input make on the FM, e.g. for example the ones I made ealier on the climb and acceleration performance of the Me109G2.

Anyway, I have been biding my time sitting on the fence waiting and I'm frankly worried when the developers say the FM is close to complete. Adding new aircraft before FM is addressed is going about the development of this sim in a backward fashion IMHO.

So before I commit and buy BoS, I would like to some input from the developers on this. I don't think I'm alone in this so I really hope the developers start responding to queries on the FM from forum memebers and explain the plan going forward with development.

From a graphics, maps and planset perspective this sim has great potential. It would be a shame if it stumbled and fell on the FM.......

[JtD]

Holtzauge, I think the flight model is good enough to try this game out. Whatever you read on the forum, only a small part of the criticism stands up to scrutiny. Make up your own mind on what actually does, don't follow hearsay.

[Holtzauge]

Holtzauge, I think the flight model is good enough to try this game out. Whatever you read on the forum, only a small part of the criticism stands up to scrutiny. Make up your own mind on what actually does, don't follow hearsay.

I noticed you targeted me mentioning heresay. That is a snippet and not the core of my issues. If you take the time to see what I have posted in this forum on acceleration and climb performance you will understand what I mean.

[SYN_Vorlander]

Dear Sir,

 

I don't think that you should worry about BOS stumbling or falling concerning the FM. The product is still in development and the FM are being tweaked.

[JtD]

I noticed you targeted me mentioning heresay. That is a snippet and not the core of my issues. If you take the time to see what I have posted in this forum on acceleration and climb performance you will understand what I mean.

I've done so and I recommend you try the game out and don't follow forum hearsay.

[sport02]

just as said " tweaked "

just for the " ground handling  " , and I add all the effets , aerodynamics and reaction with the ground when we take off  never a sim was so detailled as Bos on this point , i am not a specialist but this detail on ground convince me .

Edited August 24, 2014 by sport02

[Leaf]

I have been following the development of this sim for quite some time now. It sounded great when it was announced that a new sim based on RoF but for WW2 aircraft was to be launched. My impression from the developers announcements at the time was that this sim intended to take flight modeling to a new level with a more sophisticated flight model (FM) than it's predecessors.

 

This sounded great to me and it naturally raised the level of expectations. However, while graphics in this sim looks great I'm a bit hesitant to take the leap and buy it.

 

Why? Because to me an accurate FM is a prerequisite and the core of a sim. It does not matter how good the graphics look and the number of planes included, if the FM if off then I'm not bying.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me there are a number of issues with this sim the developers need to adress: Since I don't have the game I can't comment on how aircraft behave based on control input but heresay in this forum and videos posted show some weird behaviour at high angles of attack, sudden control inputs and ground handling etc.

 

What I can comment on is the performance aspect (as reported in this forum) and here I see a number of worrying issues: Climb rates seem to high, acceleration performance too good. Roll rates to high and not historically differentiated. Supersonic dives etc.

 

While developers have commented threads on some issues such as cockpit bars I have not seen any reassuring replies to input make on the FM, e.g. for example the ones I made ealier on the climb and acceleration performance of the Me109G2.

 

Anyway, I have been biding my time sitting on the fence waiting and I'm frankly worried when the developers say the FM is close to complete. Adding new aircraft before FM is addressed is going about the development of this sim in a backward fashion IMHO.

 

So before I commit and buy BoS, I would like to some input from the developers on this. I don't think I'm alone in this so I really hope the developers start responding to queries on the FM from forum memebers and explain the plan going forward with development.

 

From a graphics, maps and planset perspective this sim has great potential. It would be a shame if it stumbled and fell on the FM.......

 

Not again...

First of all, I think we can give the developers a break this week. You won't find many that that will pull all-nighters just to release a weekly update, especially one this good. 

 

I've said it so many times by now: we don't know how these planes flew. All we have are anecdotal reports and some performance data.  Data is rarely extensive enough to actually make a foundation for a flight model due to certain unknowns (air density, temperature, wind speeds, turbulence etc.) during testing. Anecdotal reports vary greatly, since every pilot has had different experiences and different tactics. They should therefore be used as a test of FM's using said data. That's why we have to simulate flight models. Because we're using certain algorithms and equations to process that "hard" data into a flight model. Is it be perfect? No. So simulation ever is. That's why it's a simulation.

Us saying that an FM is "wrong" or "weird" is utterly pointless, because honestly, what on earth do we know? A little humility is needed here, I think. Very few of us are actual pilots. If anyone can comment on flight models, it's them. Even then, most of them didn't fly the planes that are in the game, so I'd just say trust the mathematics and enjoy the flight models as they are.  

 

Aaanyway, to answer your question:

 

Yes, engine performance across the board is above average, due to the cold winter air; in summer it would be lower.

 

Roll rates have been reduced in an update already.

 

FM anomalies at high angles of attack and high-G manoeuvers are to be expected and very hard to rectify.

Because a.) as mentioned above, we don't know how, say, the BF 109 behaved at negative 5G at 400km/h and

b.) Because especially negative G are very difficult for a pilot to endure, pilots rarely ever pushed their plane to those extremes. It's only because we don't feel G forces and the cold air at 20000ft that we can perform such extreme manoeuvers. There's a difference between how the planes perform theoretically, and what the pilot can actually make the plane do. Data is only available on the latter. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by LeafyPredicament

[No601_Prangster]

I'm not sure what WWII flight sim you know of that has better flight modelling? Bear in mind that the FM programmer for BoS also programmed the FM in the DCS series.

[Feathered_IV]

Was there EVER a flight sim that people did NOT complain about FM's?  Save your money if you like and buy a real warbird. 

[Holtzauge]

Not again...

First of all, I think we can give the developers a break this week. You won't find many that that will pull all-nighters just to release a weekly update, especially one this good. 

 

I've said it so many times by now: we don't know how these planes flew. All we have are anecdotal reports and some performance data.  Data is rarely extensive enough to actually make a foundation for a flight model due to certain unknowns (air density, temperature, wind speeds, turbulence etc.) during testing. Anecdotal reports vary greatly, since every pilot has had different experiences and different tactics. They should therefore be used as a test of FM's using said data. That's why we have to simulate flight models. Because we're using certain algorithms and equations to process that "hard" data into a flight model. Is it be perfect? No. So simulation ever is. That's why it's a simulation.

Us saying that an FM is "wrong" or "weird" is utterly pointless, because honestly, what on earth do we know? A little humility is needed here, I think. Very few of us are actual pilots. If anyone can comment on flight models, it's them. Even then, most of them didn't fly the planes that are in the game, so I'd just say trust the mathematics and enjoy the flight models as they are.  

 

Aaanyway, to answer your question:

 

Yes, engine performance across the board is above average, due to the cold winter air; in summer it would be lower.

 

Roll rates have been reduced in an update already.

 

FM anomalies at high angles of attack and high-G manoeuvers are to be expected and very hard to rectify.

Because a.) as mentioned above, we don't know how, say, the BF 109 behaved at negative 5G at 400km/h and

b.) Because especially negative G are very difficult for a pilot to endure, pilots rarely ever pushed their plane to those extremes. It's only because we don't feel G forces and the cold air at 20000ft that we can perform such extreme manoeuvers. There's a difference between how the planes perform theoretically, and what the pilot can actually make the plane do. Data is only available on the latter. 

Nice with a constructive post for a change! Yes, it is good that things are being tweaked. However, the increased performance due to colder weather has been discussed and I and others have given input on this and I have yet to see some replies from the developers that convince me that you increase Me109G2 acceleration by 50% and get climbs rates in the 25-30 m/s range because of this. In addition, how do you explain M=1 in dives?

 

Again, I made some post concerning the Me109G2 acceleration and climb performance a while back in this forum and I have yet to see some input from the developers on this. As I said, I have been biding my time since then hoping that this will be addressed. If it is then great, I just said this sim has great potential. If not then I will be dissapointed and most likely not buy.

 

Those of you that are happy with the sim in it's current form then good for you. I just wamted to give my 2 cents and hope that the developers will listen.

[BeastyBaiter]

Every CFS I have ever played that had MP and forums has had FM debates. Some things like top speed and climb rate are easy to verify if the test conditions can be duplicated in game. For the most part, planes are performing better than their real life counterparts under standard test conditions (~25C and 1atm), but this is by design. Gasoline engines do perform better in denser, cold air which Stalingrad in the middle of winter certainly had.  Did it make as much of a difference as we have in game? This I do not know. But I do know it isn't completely off the charts either. It is within a reasonable expectation. Relative performance seems about right with the possible exception of the Fw-190.

 

As for some edge case scenarios, who's to say how a real Bf-109F4 reacts when you yank the stick all the way back then jam it all the way forwards and repeat a few times while going 500km/h. No real pilot would ever attempt such a thing so there is nothing to compare to, not even some crazy Extra 300 pilot. When flying the planes in a practical manner, the FM's are far superior to anything that has come before. For the mach 1 dive speed, you can't do that without destroying the plane. Once again, I don't know if these could actually break mach 1. I do know that if they did they'd lawn dart shortly after. It's not important as it's fatal either way both in game and in real life.

Edited August 24, 2014 by =LD=King_Hrothgar

[Holtzauge]

Was there EVER a flight sim that people did NOT complain about FM's?  Save your money if you like and buy a real warbird. 

I agree completely! I have followed IL2 and I remember the early days when there was a lot of issues with IL2 as well. However, they did tweak the model and it did get better over time. I'm just worried by the messages that the BoS FM is basically done

I'm not sure what WWII flight sim you know of that has better flight modelling? Bear in mind that the FM programmer for BoS also programmed the FM in the DCS series.

Well since you brought up DCS, I have yet to find serious deviations in flight performance in that sim. Granted, they only have two WW2 planes modelled yet but AFAIK and have tested myself they seem to have pegged down the flight performance quite well.

[BeastyBaiter]

The FM's here are more accurate than IL2's ever were or will be. One very important thing to keep in mind is that in the original IL2, basically all you had were climb rate, acceleration and top speed. Beyond that every plane was virtually the same. That is not the case here.

[No601_Prangster]

If your interested in how the BoS FM works then read this Developers Diary:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/#dd33

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

From the "for what it's worth department".  I own this but not DCS.  There is however a thread in here comparing BOS to DCS for those who own both.  If memory serves me correctly, most said the FM seems about the same.  This may give you some reference point to FM in BOS.

 

As for me, flight sims are released once every 100 Blue Moons.  This one is excellent and IMO will become a standard for a number of years.  Will it be perfect?  Probably not.  The devs though are dedicated to upgrading and patching as they did with ROF.  If still not up to your high standard, which there is nothing wrong with, all I can say is, good luck in your wait for the perfect flight sim.

Edited August 24, 2014 by VR-Stick

[Leaf]

Nice with a constructive post for a change! Yes, it is good that things are being tweaked. However, the increased performance due to colder weather has been discussed and I and others have given input on this and I have yet to see some replies from the developers that convince me that you increase Me109G2 acceleration by 50% and get climbs rates in the 25-30 m/s range because of this. In addition, how do you explain M=1 in dives?

 

Again, I made some post concerning the Me109G2 acceleration and climb performance a while back in this forum and I have yet to see some input from the developers on this. As I said, I have been biding my time since then hoping that this will be addressed. If it is then great, I just said this sim has great potential. If not then I will be dissapointed and most likely not buy.

 

Those of you that are happy with the sim in it's current form then good for you. I just wamted to give my 2 cents and hope that the developers will listen.

What the developers probably mean by 'done' is 'ready for release'. I'm sure that tweaking FM's is a continuous process.

 

How large the performance increase is due to colder air is indeed an interesting question. We would have to know the temperature difference too, of course.

 

I'm sure then devs do listen, but the G2's climb rate probably doesn't take over singleplayer campaign. I see your point, but personally I'm patiently waiting until release. Then we can critique a finished product.

Edited August 24, 2014 by LeafyPredicament

[Holtzauge]

What the developers probably mean by 'done' is 'ready for release'. I'm sure that tweaking FM's is a continuous process.

 

How large the performance increase is due to colder air is indeed an interesting question. We would have to know the temperature difference too, of course.

 

I'm sure then devs do listen, but the G2's climb rate probably doesn't take over singleplayer campaign. I see your point, but personally I'm patiently waiting until release. Then we can critique a finished product.

Well I certainly hope you are right. However, I don't see the harm in being frank with the developers on this point: IMHO the FM needs some serious tweaking and I have yet to see some reassuring answers. Hopefully this will change and they will outline how they plan to go about this.

[J2_Trupobaw]

While developers have commented threads on some issues such as cockpit bars I have not seen any reassuring replies to input make on the FM, e.g. for example the ones I made ealier on the climb and acceleration performance of the Me109G2.

 

 

I think that may be the problem, this team does not make many promises in direct response to player input, especially if questions are ambigous. I rarely see answers other than "No plans to do that in forseeable future" or "Will be fixed with next week patch". Probably because if they promised more historically accurate FM for G2 before Christmas, some players would interpret "historically accurate" as "what they remember from IL2 1946 with favorite 3rd party patch", then cry foul when flight model is not up to their expectations, or takes longer than expected. 

 

The question in thread title can't be answered without giving you sim to play, unless we have an oracle on board - "good enough to motivate you" is not thing that can be verified until you try it and feel motivated or not. Surely no developer will promise that he can and will make FM that will make you feel motivated! As of FM at the moment, some people try it and love it, other people try it and hate it, nobody can say in advance what will be your reaction. From what I know, things like speed or climb rate are derivatives in Digital Nature, planes being rather described by thrust to weight ratio, wing loading and such? The effect are planes that have mass and fly through air rather than ride along the rails at pre-determined climb rate; again, some love it, some hate it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Trupobaw

[Brano]

Feel free to stay sit on that fence while we fly this wonderfull sim allready today.

[JtD]

Heresay again? Is there an echo here?

 

Glad you read my posts about the Me109G2 acceleration and climb peformance. I take it then that you see nothing strange with the 25-30 m/s climb rates and acceleration times people have posted here or should I put that down in the "heresay" category?

Since you haven't tested anything on your own everything you know about the game's FM is hearsay, by definition.

 

Of course, if you with "FM" you only mean the 109G-2 climb rate you keep coming back to, it makes the issue a little more simple, but since your first post wasn't limited to that, I recommended you try it yourself. I'm sorry that my recommendation has offended you. Might be you're better off reading forums and basing your assumptions about the FM solely on what some teenage computer gamers tell you it is like. It's not my feeling, but then I didn't think my recommendation could be seen as an insult, so I might very well be wrong.

[Gort]

Leafy wrote an astute summation.

 

There are tons of variables affecting and evaluating aircraft performance. Cold air has a dramatic effect on engine power and maneuverability. So do external stores and gross weight. External stores are destabilizing and very draggy. That seems to be modeled well enough.

 

One also has to be careful about reading performance numbers from charts or God Forbid, Wikipedia entries, and postulating opinion based on that. I could write volumes on the differences between testing developed numbers and reality. We had 14 fighters in our squadron and they all flew and performed differently.

 

You'll see posts referencing challenging ground handling. It should be difficult- the runways in the theater are short AND contaminated with snow and ice. It makes ground operations interesting.

 

You can wait for the perfect sim and miss a ton of fun, or buy it and enjoy the ride. It will continue to get better while providing hours of enjoyment.

 

Comprehensively, I like BoS far more than DCS at the moment. It is a better investment overall.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Victory205

[RainMan]

the FM programmer for BoS also programmed the FM in the DCS series

 

 

^^^ Not to hijack this thread, but I would like to know where this information is from, as I am a fan (and supporter) of both DCS and BoS.

[BeastyBaiter]

For the Bf-109G2, I just did a climb rate test (a very rough one) and achieved 5km in 3 minutes, 49 seconds using 100% fuel and standard configuration (no gunpods or such things) at a climb speed of 260km/h to 300km/h IAS. That works out to 21.7m/s. It is worth noting that this was very sloppy, I had a running start of 450km/h when I started the test. That probably shaved off a good 10-20 seconds all by itself. 21-22m/s is very reasonable for a clean Bf-109G2 given the margin of error in my test. That's just one plane admittedly, but it is one you brought up specifically. I can say the La-5 and Yak-1 climb very close to their listed rates as well.

[Holtzauge]

I think that may be the problem, this team does not make many promises in direct response to player input, especially if questions are ambigous. I rarely see answers other than "No plans to do that in forseeable future" or "Will be fixed with next week patch". Probably because if they promised more historically accurate FM for G2 before Christmas, some players would interpret "historically accurate" as "what they remember from IL2 1946 with favorite 3rd party patch", then cry foul when flight model is not up to their expectations, or takes longer than expected. 

 

The question in thread title can't be answered without giving you sim to play, unless we have an oracle on board - "good enough to motivate you" is not thing that can be verified until you try it and feel motivated or not. Surely no developer will promise that he can and will make FM that will make you feel motivated! As of FM at the moment, some people try it and love it, other people try it and hate it, nobody can say in advance what will be your reaction. From what I know, things like speed or climb rate are derivatives in Digital Nature, planes being rather described by thrust to weight ratio, wing loading and such? The effect are planes that have mass and fly through air rather than ride along the rails at pre-determined climb rate; again, some love it, some hate it.

Well I see and your point about peoples perception about how it should "feel" to fly the sim and while some think a sim feels like rails and others think it's to twitchy or there is not enough dampening etc etc. In this area I totally agree that yoiu should get and fly the sim that you like and in yoiur opinion think is the best representation of a how a WW2 aircraft should fly. However, not that I say nothing on this and I cannot comment either on how good a job the legacy IL2, Daidalos mods, CloD, DCS are in this respect.

 

However, what we can do is decide if the performance numbers are historically correct. It is in this department I think BoS has room for improvement since things like high speed dives, roll, climb and acceleration performance seems to be off by quite some distance in some cases.

[Brano]

^^^ Not to hijack this thread, but I would like to know where this information is from, as I am a fan (and supporter) of both DCS and BoS.

Check and read thru link in post #14 from Prangster

[Rama]

I've seen real pilots disputing about performances of planes they've actually flown.

On forums, we often see disputes about comparisons of simulated planes players fly with versus real plane they didn't flown.

It's the very first time I see a complain comparing performances between unflown simulated planes and unflown real ones.

 

IMHO the FM needs some serious tweaking and I have yet to see some reassuring answers

On what is based your opinion? On things you've read on the forum? If you think it's enough for you to have a definitive opinion about the FM.... then so be it.

But nobody will reassure you with any answer if you give your full confidence in stuff you didn't tested yourself. It will be "say against say", and so useless.

 

I really hope the developers start responding to queries on the FM from forum memebers

They wont. Except by giving general informations about how the FM are built (like in the link Prangster gave you).... and that's a good thing, since entering FM discussions on forums is allways a waste of time.

Now if you want to contribute, you can allways, by giving informations about specific planes, rare datas and documents and or anything the dev could have missed... that would be usefull, and very wellcomed.

And if you do this you'll probably understand that there are many contradictory sources the dev can use, that they have to make choices, and that these choices can't be discussed on forums (because in abscence of definitive proofs, everybody is potentially "right", and discussion either end quickly on this simple observation, or inevitably turn into unsolvable disputes).

 

Now, If you have strong preconceived ideas about what a warbird FM should be (including performances), then better try no simulation, you will be deceived.

Don't even try the real plane (if you could), you will also discover her behavior has nothing to do with your opinion.

[RainMan]

Check and read thru link in post #14 from Prangster

 

Thanks. 

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Well, Holtzauge, I think you should hop off the fence and forget about BoS.  The only way you'll ever know if the FMs meet your requirements is to buy and play the game, and since you won't buy until those requirements are met you'll never know if they've been met.  Therefore, it's pointless to start threads like this.

[FlatSpinMan]

I've seen real pilots disputing about performances of planes they've actually flown.

On forums, we often see disputes about comparisons of simulated planes players fly with versus real plane they didn't flown.

It's the very first time I see a complain comparing performances between unflown simulated planes and unflown real ones.

 

On what is based your opinion? On things you've read on the forum? If you think it's enough for you to have a definitive opinion about the FM.... then so be it.

But nobody will reassure you with any answer if you give your full confidence in stuff you didn't tested yourself. It will be "say against say", and so useless.

 

They wont. Except by giving general informations about how the FM are built (like in the link Prangster gave you).... and that's a good thing, since entering FM discussions on forums is allways a waste of time.

Now if you want to contribute, you can allways, by giving informations about specific planes, rare datas and documents and or anything the dev could have missed... that would be usefull, and very wellcomed.

And if you do this you'll probably understand that there are many contradictory sources the dev can use, that they have to make choices, and that these choices can't be discussed on forums (because in abscence of definitive proofs, everybody is potentially "right", and discussion either end quickly on this simple observation, or inevitably turn into unsolvable disputes).

 

Now, If you have strong preconceived ideas about what a warbird FM should be (including performances), then better try no simulation, you will be deceived.

Don't even try the real plane (if you could), you will also discover her behavior has nothing to do with your opinion.

 

 

I agree. Holtzauge - you may well have the key to combat flight sim perfection, but what are supposed to think if you base it on hearsay? With all the goodwill in the world, that is not an argument that stands up.

[Bassly]

Well, Holtzauge, I think you should hop off the fence and forget about BoS.  The only way you'll ever know if the FMs meet your requirements is to buy and play the game, and since you won't buy until those requirements are met you'll never know if they've been met.  Therefore, it's pointless to start threads like this.

 

Bingo!

[Pringliano]

Holtzauge,

 

IL2 BOS is certainly an excellent flight simulator, based on the features yoo, just like me, car to consider fundamental.

 

I have been using flightsims for more than 20 yrs, flying real aircraft for more than 30. Having dedicated a whole lot of my spare time to flight simulation, looking ofr the closest to real flight and overall physics and systems modeling, having used every civil sim you can name :-), I ended up having in my disk only three sims, but I can't get rid of any of them:

 

- IL2 BOS

- DCS World

- Rise of Flight ( used just 4 times, but WHOW! )

- Aerowinx PSX - the "only" worth mentioning b747-400 simulation available

[Holtzauge]

Since you haven't tested anything on your own everything you know about the game's FM is hearsay, by definition.

 

Of course, if you with "FM" you only mean the 109G-2 climb rate you keep coming back to, it makes the issue a little more simple, but since your first post wasn't limited to that, I recommended you try it yourself. I'm sorry that my recommendation has offended you. Might be you're better off reading forums and basing your assumptions about the FM solely on what some teenage computer gamers tell you it is like. It's not my feeling, but then I didn't think my recommendation could be seen as an insult, so I might very well be wrong.

The insult is you cheery picking me saying "hearsay" related to the flying characteristics out of my post when I specifically said that my input was on performance part (i.e. climb, acceleration etc.) not flying charcteristics and posting this twice when it was cleary not what was the focus or my beef with the FM.

 

And yes, I keep coming back to the Me109G2 climb and acceleration posts I made. Since this makes it "simple" why don't you enlighten me and explain where I got it wrong and why the current modelled BoS if this si so "simple"?

 

Clearly, we have different opinions on teeneagers. I happen to think there are teenagers (computer gamers as you derogatively refer to them ) out there who are perfectly capable of extracting flight performance data like acceleration and climb performance data out of this sim. At least they seem to be capable of uploading videos to Youtube that show the BoS Fw190 doing dives at 1060 Km/h TAS at 3 Km alt i.e. M=1 but I guess that goes into the hearsay department as well right?

[dburne]

Just my humble opinion, the answer to your question at this time would be probably not. I am not going to get in to the specifics of flight models and how realistic they are in this flight sim.

 

I think your best bet would be to wait for the released product, evaluation the reviews and the data they include, then decide at that time if it is enough to motivate you to spend the bucks...

[SYN_Mike77]

What db said.  In the meantime, get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word hearsay.

[Holtzauge]

Well, Holtzauge, I think you should hop off the fence and forget about BoS.  The only way you'll ever know if the FMs meet your requirements is to buy and play the game, and since you won't buy until those requirements are met you'll never know if they've been met.  Therefore, it's pointless to start threads like this.

Well I don't agree it's pointless: I'm with you on the flying characteristics part because I will never know how it "feels" to fly in BoS until I try. However, If measured data in BoS show dives at M=1, acceleration data 50% higher than IRL, that other aircraft roll as well as the Fw190 then the developers need to adress the FM.

 

So the meaning of my post was input to the developers that some potential customers may not buy this sim because the flight performance numbers deviate too much from IRL data. So the message is: Improve FM, get more customers.

 

However, as I said before, this sim has a lot going for it in the other departments like graphics, planesets and maps which other sims may lack. However, for me the FM is paramount and if this is off no matter how good it looks and whatever planes are added it won't rock my boat.

What db said.  In the meantime, get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word hearsay.

Pathetic

Just my humble opinion, the answer to your question at this time would be probably not. I am not going to get in to the specifics of flight models and how realistic they are in this flight sim.

 

I think your best bet would be to wait for the released product, evaluation the reviews and the data they include, then decide at that time if it is enough to motivate you to spend the bucks...

With you 100% on this and that is exactly what I intend to do. So my message to the developers is that there are additional customers to be had if they focus on FM instead of adding more planes.

[Rama]

So message has been delivered.

Since now the thread didn't add any more information about the FMs and has started to turn into a personal dispute, it's time to close it.