Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord_Flashheart

  1. the problem is the standard trim settings. If the stab on the 109 is set to the default negative 70 or whatever it is, it retards pitch control. You have to trim to neutral and then you can pull a ton of G. When I fly the 109 I fly at 0--35% stab so that I can turn hard if suddenly bounced. I only trim negative when I know I am going to dive on something or need speed. I think the reason this happens is that due to the fact that the negative stab trim changes the position of the elevator at neutral stick, max stick deflection results in less upward elevator deflection at negative trim.
  2. No need to be snarky. Your previous post implies you think they work differently.
  3. The slats are not controlled that way. They dont come out based on speed. They are free and come out based on AoA. The video is contradictory even. It shows the slats coming out on the ground but then makes other statements
  4. yeah getting the same experience. I tried lots of speeds, etc. No accelerated stalls at all. Flys like it has a SAS or a FBW system
  5. every plane in the game suffers from the wobble, particularly in pitch. The planes in il2 handle like they are suspended from invisible bungee cords. They were even worse before the 2.00 patch (remember when planes could not yaw hardly at all and instead just rolled?) As Zacharias says in this write up, stick movement = nose movement. This is the same thing I have heard from every pilot I have asked about this specific behaviour. Every single person has agreed that real planes fly alot closer to the "rails" feeling many people in the flight sim community find boring. The general il2 aircraft stability is just cartoonish, but one of the notable issues is the pitch jerking. Specifically, if you are pitching and then neutralize the stick, the aeroplane jerks in the direction of stick travel and then rebounds backwards like its on a rubber band. Yes I realize this is not a spitfire or even the same 109:
  6. Thanks so much for pointing out the rails thing. Ive been trying for ages to tell people that the rails feeling is closer to reality than the wobble we see in newer sims. This is much appreciated.
  7. The gunners in il2 need a general debuff. Same with the flak. The AAA and tail gunners in il2 may as well be radar guided. The P-47 damage from that 7.62 was also absurd, but the fact that it even got those hits was nuts.
  8. this is referring to the wobbling effect, although i think there is alot more to the stability issues in pitch than just the wobble. quite frankly, i am finding it rather baffling that some of you cant tell the difference.... The 190 in il2 oscillates absurdly from positive to negative pitch like it is attached to a pintle mount or something. It behaves like its flying connected to rubber bands and not air. The DCS plane oscilates.....significantly less. And it does not act like its on a fixed point. The DCS plane pitches up, but I had to hold the stick for several seconds to reverse the pitch below 0 into the negative. The second half of the DCS video shows what happens if a just stir the stick forward and back like in il2. there you can see that the DCS plane barely moves at all because the short pitching moments arent enough to actually move the plane much, at least till it starts to climb a bit. Basically the il2 aircraft acts alot like its pitch control is separate, to a point, from the other forces affecting the plane. You can also reference this in the way the 109 behaves in the second video from the other person.
  9. I know, a little logical thought right? Now, could you yourself please try demonstrating some? You can tell the plane is gaining or losing altitude in my video in both games when it does. If there is anything "self evident," its what you can see with your own eyeballs. Its even more obvious here, the plane is losing altitude. In none of these videos does the camera position prevent you from telling if the plane is moving up and down relative to its velocity vector due the contols. They dont, except in the DCS bit where its fairly obvious (although apparently you are blind and cant see it I suppose) that changes in the velocity vector result in the plane moving with them.
  10. This has been bothering me since the beginning of il2, but until now we didnt have exact analogues to compare to in other games. In il2 the stability of the aircraft in pitch seems....incorrect. I have not seen this behavior in any other sim, or in real life. Mainly the il2 planes appear to be rooted to some fixed point in the sky, and they react to pitching moments in a manner that suggests a lack of interaction with the surrounding air. Two main things happen: 1) the airplane will oscillate around an axis with next to no up or down movement from the pitch inputs. Its like the airplane is fixed in space and just moves forward unless the pitch is maintained for a long time. It is extremely wobbly. 2)A relaxing of the stick does not cause near-immediate cessation of the commanded control, instead, the nose of the plane will rubber band back and forth as though it is on some kind of elastic trapeize. Conditions: no wind, 1000m, 50% fuel, combat power. In the il2 video i just rock the stick back and forth. In the DCS video the plane refued to pitch back down without a very long hold of down stick. the second set of movements in the dcs video is what happens if i just rock it back and forth as fast as i did in the il2 video.
  11. That shot was absurd. That pintle gunner kept a perfect cool while his plane was coming apart around him, then magically predicted the 190s position through smoke and debris, and then aimed downwards with lightning fast reflexes at a 190 with extremely high closure and pulled off a nearly 90deg deflection shot with a fraction of a second to do so. BS.
  12. Im not trying to be contrarian here, just confused. If you stop accelerating why would any changes matter, since speed is now constant? If you have two P-47 shaped rocks, one of 8 tons and one of 8 ounces, do they not fall at exactly the same speed? so if I add a propeller to each, would I not just have the same two rocks plus whatever speed the prop adds?
  13. I dont understand how weight has anything at all to do with dive speed. Someone correct me if I am missing something, but acceleration due to gravity is constant irrespective of mass. So woudlnt dive speed and acceleration just be a function of drag and thrust? My guess would be that the faster diver would be the plane with the highest level top speed not counter structural limits. Am I wrong?
  14. There are some fairly clear and obvious problems with the bomber gunnery in this game. Primarily when the bomber is turning and shooting at the same time. The gunners are also way too accurate at long ranges or when the enemy fighter is being evasive. I have had Pe-2s shoot me down when I was almost 90 degrees above them and climbing away at high speed. That's some absurdly impressive dexterity on the gunners part. It would be one thing if we were talking hydraulically operated ball turrets in a B-17. But no pintle mounted MG should be as accurate as they are. The bombers right now might as well have the radar aimed 20mm of the B-52 in the back. Who knew we never needed such a device, because the mere pintle mounted MG where the gunner doesn't really even have a sight picture was superior all along!
  15. Does anyone know how i can set my default Fov to specific number value?
  16. So if I understand right, this could still be in il2s court and not tacview?
  17. Where do you beg to differ? The only aspect of the flight model that matters is the relative combat performance between planes. It really does not matter in the slightest if the engine output model in 9000% percent accurate, or if the aero is accurate, if that is offset by the fact that the engine limits reduce power or limit its use to tactical obscurity. In other words, it means exactly zilch that I have the exactly correct bhp or lift or drag if that power is not actually available.
  18. Indeed it would have been great, because then I would not have had my time wasted by you.
  19. Imagine if we could have figured it out without your input. Now THAT would be a problem solved.
  20. Do try to make sense when you type. I stated in the first post that tacview might not be right. The point of this thread was to explore what was going on. Hence my first post ending in a question.
  21. Who is throwing shade at the devs? I agree more testing is needed. We dont actually know if there is a problem here yet. But wings stalling at a certain AoA is indeed simple shit for aero. Its not simple in general, but its pedestrian compared to some of the much more complicated things this and other sims do. Sims for twenty years ago could do it. If we do have a problem here its a fairly big deal. What we dont need, which is in line with your call for more testing and discussion, is people coming in here and making appeals to their supplicancy to the developers and passive aggressively telling us to all be thankful for what the gods have deigned to give us.
  22. I mean this is just a bogus comparison Most of the cost you just compared deals with the motion platform. Second, professional grade things, especially when they are possibly for the government, have tons of other costs that have [edited] to do with the fidelity of the sim necessarily. And then there is rather obvious fact that sims made for gaming are intended to be MASS MARKETED, and their costs vary accordingly. VBS3, the US Army's sim for training is [edited]. Each copy costs more than 3000 dollars. The computers the army uses to play the game on, are more expensive than my desktop computer by about 4 times, and have less than a quarter the performance. The civilian copy of Arma 1, 2, or 3, all of which are superior especially with mods, cost 60 dollars. What is more, we are talking about simple shit here, simple for aero anyhow. Getting stall AoA correct is something sims have been doing since the late 90s.
  23. I hear what you are saying, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. The fact that this issue keeps coming up over and over and over, even in threads not directly about it, is an indication that this is a rather huge problem. I think we should keep bringing it up because complaining is the only way anything gets fixed. You have to let people know that the current situation is not satisfactory. The fact that this subject creeps in everywhere is better than a vote of dissatisfaction. It shows that the issues is extremely pervasive. And the development period of a new module is EXACTLY the time to be complaining. The devs have always introduced the biggest overhauls during major releases. With the current implementation, the developers may as well not even do flight modeling. Its a waste of time because the engine management makes a mockery of aircraft performance and renders it moot.
  24. The best solution would be to just remove all limits. But I think both parties in the community could be made happy by just giving everything 10-15min of WEP, or when water runs out, whichever comes first. And NO limits on the use of any setting below WEP, such as military power. Long enough that you wont run out in a fight. Short enough that you cant fly around using WEP as cruise.
  25. The solution to the worries about comm saturation is to do what aces high did twenty years ago. You have custom channels anyone can set up just be typing a number into the comm menu. so channel 126 for example. Then you have a general voice channel that only activates within a certain range. In aces high this was called the "range channel." On "range" anyone withing 12nm in your team would pick up your comms. Everyone was simultaneously on their own custom channel and range. In this way the comms do not become cancerous trash due to everyone being on them at once, but you still have a general comm that is useful in combat for coordination with people you are not flying with personally.
  • Create New...