Jump to content
Pringliano

Flight dynamics after the latest patches...

Recommended Posts

As much as I was critic about the aspects of the FDM I wasn't satisfied with, namely some strange damping in yaw and pitch, I have to acclaim the results achieved with the latest patches - il-2 BoS feels "right there" for me now :-)

 

I spent this morning flying Axis and VVs fighters, SP and MP in Expert and Normal modes and I am really very satisfied with the overall behaviour of all aircraft, regarding prop effects, picth, yaw and roll stability, and even ground handling although I'm convinced that has more to do with my training :-)

 

Big THANK YOU to the Dev Team!!!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is much better now. There will be those who say it is wrong, however, because it's not "as difficult" anymore. There are many who would believe a game where the slightest control input sent an airplane instantly out of control, because after all, harder = more realz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. No sim will be free from FM critics. I was surprised to see the last two updates after 1.008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

109 is perfect, 190 still not "there" I think :)

It seems like second hotfix returned the 190 to the state it was in before in 1.007. Or this may be just my mind playing tricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is much better now. There will be those who say it is wrong, however, because it's not "as difficult" anymore. There are many who would believe a game where the slightest control input sent an airplane instantly out of control, because after all, harder = more realz. 

 

I totally agree with you.

 

As I have alluded to in previous posts here and on the original IL2 forums, one of the BlitzPigs is a real world flight instructor, taught aerobatic courses, owned an up-engined (450bhp) Stearman, and is very familiar withe the vintage/warbird community on the west coast of the US.  He agrees that most sims make flying these aircraft far more difficult than it was in real life.  And he is not speaking totally of stick and rudder stuff, but also engine management.  None of these aircraft had engines that went pop just because you exceeded the max temp for a period of time.  There was no timer on them.  They were all far more robust than portrayed in any sim.  But why take any advice from folks that actually fly and maintain these aircraft?  What could they possibly know, "we" have charts, and charts r00lz.

 

Much of this stems from the fact that this "community" has been at virtual combat flying since the dawn of the genre.  We have amassed numbers of combat flight hours that make Hartmann/Sakai/Bong/Kozhedub/etc look like a pack of total n00bs.  So "we" keep wanting more challenge, and "we" want the difficulty bar raised ever higher to keep from getting bored doing something "we" have done for what, two decades, while the best pilots in WW2 maybe flew for 4 years, and not hours and hours every day for four years either.

 

Look, these aircraft were flown by and large by boys in their early 20s, someone that was 25 was an "old man" to them.  If they were as difficult as sims portray them now a days, the casualty rates in training would have been far higher than they already were.

 

The real aircraft were not as difficult as some in this genre want to believe.

Edited by ElAurens
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with ElAurens to a point, but keep in mind how much of reality isn't in the sim.  Take a hypothetical situation with an experience pilot who's never flown a 109 (or Mig, etc.) and an unachievable 'perfect' sim.  You create a sim where every input is modeled perfectly... pull the simulated stick so many degrees from center and the plane performs exactly as it does in real life at the same altitude and environmental conditions, perfectly, every time.  Let the experience pilot fly it, and then give him some hours in a real Warbird under the same conditions.  He/she likely exclaims that the real plane is SO MUCH EASIER to fly than the sim, even though the sim is modeled to perfection.

 

Until we can invent gravity wave generators, we'll never be able to simulate the visceral aspects of flying.  An 8 year old can feel an uncoordinated turn in a real plane, but it takes many hours of practice to perform them consistently in a sim without having your eyes glued to the ball... you have to develop the muscle memory to always kick the rudder so much for so much turn in each different plane.  Peripheral vision and your sense of spacial orientation play a huge part in acrobatics or ACM.  Yes, as a pilot you have to learn when those senses can lie to you, but they're way more help than hindrance.  Literally every nerve in your body helps you fly a real plane, but you can only bring a tiny fraction of that to bear in a sim.

 

So you get to the age old question of making the rules more precise or the experience more precise.  Icons can make for much more realistic aircraft detection and identification ranges, but many players hate them due to ruining the visual presentation of the world.  Modeling stick deflection limits and rate of change can help model what a real pilot could make the airplane do, but then you lose the direct experience of 'move the simulated stick this much and this is how much deflection you get' and delve into the world of subjectivity and how much muscle/speed/endurance your virtual pilot would have.  That direct connection between sim equipment and control surfaces while eliminating 95% of the sensory experience of flying is what's creating the unrealistic difficulty.

 

I like the new patch quite a bit as well, as I've always thought a good sim should deliver more on the experience rather than the pure numbers.  But I understand the other side of the argument.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you NervousEnergy.   Let's use a really overdone thing in this sim as an example, ground handling. 

 

In real life the pilot, as you know, is getting seat of the pants feedback of what the plane is doing, or is about to do, in real time so to speak.  He can feel the tail start to move, and he will pretty much make the correction without thinking about it.  In the sim we don't know anything is wrong till we see the world spinning around us like a top.  Our only perception is visual.  So in this case, the ground handling should be made easier, to more accurately represent the real life experience of  driving these things around on the airfield.  Currently the aircraft behave as if they are totally weightless and are all moving on a polished ice surface with teflon tires.  Yes, the control inputs may be realistic, and the game may have correct weight and balance number etc for the aircraft, but this equates to an unrealistic experience because of our total lack of tactile feed back from the chassis of the aircraft.  And no FFB will not help here.

Edited by ElAurens
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dont knwo for sure about the 190. I've encountered some weird instant snap stalls yesterday pulling up slihgtly at 300km/h while other times it doesn't seem to stall but just going straight when overpulling.

 

It's taxiin with unlocked tailwheel is still....very physically off and unauthentic to me. Hopefully they'll fix this for a plane that was reported to be one of the easiest fighters to taxi of WW2.

As for the 109, well the G-2 still has it's ancient throttle bug (non linear throttle is confirmed by devs) and unsufficient nose heavy trim. Apart form that I love the 109s and think they're fantastic.

 

One major concern I have however is the rudder vs aileroun balance in BoS. You can't still slip right and rudders act like second ailerouns than what they actually are used for on real planes.

Sure, rudder input should introduce a roll momentum, but the way it is ingame is plainly unplausible. It's also observeable in RoF.

 

This is honest and no-bashing critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these aircraft had engines that went pop just because you exceeded the max temp for a period of time.  There was no timer on them.  They were all far more robust than portrayed in any sim.

The consequence in the real world of exceeding the limits on your engine can't be replicated in a PC sim. Sure the engine wouldn't give out immediately but it would need to be serviced, overhauled etc. in the case of the Me 262 I read that if you pushed the engine too far it wouldn't kill you, it would kill the next pilot that flew it. In any case having the engine "quit" in the game is the only way to enforce the limits.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty "gamey" approach, to my mind, and always has been.

 

And I'm not talking about boost/wep time limits here, I mean those times when engine temps go over max recommended for a short period.  If you look down and see the high temps, and pull back on throttle and open the rads and get it cool again then there should be no issue.  I'm not talking about screaming around at full throttle max boost from takeoff to landing here.

 

There should be degradation of performance over time from that, even so, a seized engine every time (and I honestly don't know if the game does this or not as I take care of my engines) should not be the outcome.

Edited by ElAurens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came here expecting a hate thread,

was surprised to see peoples are actually saying GOOD things about the FM..

Must have been on the steam forums too much  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

havent had a chance to check out the new flight mechanics yet. I am very excited to see the new changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The real aircraft were not as difficult as some in this genre want to believe.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you said, in reading Unbroken she relates a lot of stats. One was there were more guys killed in training than in combat. And all sides suffered from mass production lack of quality control. The B24 they went down in was a known dog that couldn't be trimmed right and nobody could figure out why. Then there's just the plain 'ol bad engineering and problems that were fixed on the fly. But how many pilots were killed by compressibility in the P38? Olds almost was, one of the few who escaped the problem. Then IIRC there was the problem with trying to land the P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank, causing it the be tailheavy and stall on approach.

 

Fighter aircraft like acrobatic aircraft have to be partially unstable to be nimble and add to that the built in problems and I argue only a 20 yr old who doesn't have any experience would adapt. So maybe there are some things that aren't right in sims, but there's many a reason there's very few WWII aircraft are still flying IMHO. So that makes it hard to find definitive proof of FM.

 

I would love to hear more from the BlitzPig guy, but I'm a little skeptical when his experience is with an up powered Stearman. Compared to any of the fighters in BOS that's still a trainer and docile in comparison from my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consequence in the real world of exceeding the limits on your engine can't be replicated in a PC sim. Sure the engine wouldn't give out immediately but it would need to be serviced, overhauled etc. in the case of the Me 262 I read that if you pushed the engine too far it wouldn't kill you, it would kill the next pilot that flew it. In any case having the engine "quit" in the game is the only way to enforce the limits.

Agreed, Dev's have done best job they can, in reality over revving a water cooled engine could cause a boil over, coolant would escape then over heating will occur eventually heat seizing and stopping the engine. 

 

As for air cooled engines they are naturally more robust, only oil starvation, due to a leak or mechanical damage, say stopping a few rounds would stop them, over revving may make them overheat, Old fashioned oil overheating and getting thin and unable to sustain pressure could also lead to failure eventually .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dont knwo for sure about the 190. I've encountered some weird instant snap stalls yesterday pulling up slihgtly at 300km/h while other times it doesn't seem to stall but just going straight when overpulling.

 

It's taxiin with unlocked tailwheel is still....very physically off and unauthentic to me. Hopefully they'll fix this for a plane that was reported to be one of the easiest fighters to taxi of WW2.

As for the 109, well the G-2 still has it's ancient throttle bug (non linear throttle is confirmed by devs) and unsufficient nose heavy trim. Apart form that I love the 109s and think they're fantastic.

 

One major concern I have however is the rudder vs aileroun balance in BoS. You can't still slip right and rudders act like second ailerouns than what they actually are used for on real planes.

Sure, rudder input should introduce a roll momentum, but the way it is ingame is plainly unplausible. It's also observeable in RoF.

 

This is honest and no-bashing critique.

I thought the weird snap stall or spin was just me and how I have my stick setup, I do find it a bit strange also with other controls too.

A heavily loaded wing, IE pulling hard has a greater chance of a spin for sure, I just think its too severe and could use a tweak maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still something wrong with the way that lift or aircraft weights are being calculated at low speeds.  I still think it's an artifact of the game engine originally being made for a WW1 sim.

 

One of our guys posted an interesting review on our forum after getting the sim this weekend.  I'll quote him here...

 

 

Landing is like trying to land a 200Kph helium balloon. The Lagg will bounce 20-30 meters into the air at the slightest provocation. I greased one onto the runway this afternoon and after rolling and as I started relaxing it jumped into the air and wallowed about. I have successfully landed a couple of times but I have no idea how since nothing seems to work as it should. Take off is a similar exercise in overly twitchy behavior. These aircraft act just like the aircraft in ROF during takeoff and landing, but they have way more power. This seems badly broken to me.

 

Still, overall I am liking the sim so far, but I am very limited by my computer as to what I can do, so I am suspending flying the campaign for now as when lots of aircraft get in the air over lots of ground targets, my game turns into a slide show.

 

Oh, that red blood filter when you are wounded really needs some cleaning up code wise, as it just sucks the life out of the frame rates, it's awful, there has to be a less graphically intensive way to do that.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bf109 was not hard before this patch, and it is still good. Actually, Bf109 is AWESOME.

 

But Fw190 still have lot's of problems. High speed maneuvering, Too easily stall... etc. Some of us waiting more than a month. Plz fix this DEV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things look ok now, except for the FW190. It stalls and spins very easy, the AI have problems with it too. This stops me from flying this bird at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got DCS 1944 series(Bf109K-4, P-51D), too. And I agree IL-2 BoS have better FDM.(Actually, I think problem of DCS 1944 is not FDM but physics model. The physics model of DCS 1944 made for jet aircrafts, not good for prop one.)

 

My hobby is collecting references about WW2 warbird(Yeap. I am a WW2 aircombat nerd.), so I saw some datas about Fw190. And Fw190A-3 in BoS have clearly have problem. Especially, Fw190A-3 high speed maneuvering is big problem. Fw190A-3 have the bulged horns and hinges at elevator control surface, so it has low control force at high speed. In low speed Fw190A-3 have not good maneuvering performance, because it have high wingloading(210kg/m² in 3850kg) compare with other fighter aircraft at that time. In high speed, Fw190A-3 have really good flight charateristics. Stall charateristic is serious, too. Fw190A-3 suddenly stall oftenly, but not easily stalled.

 

Yaks and Las have no device for high speed maneuvering but they have no problem in highspeed situation but, Fw190A-3 is.

 

If Fw190 was fly like BoS, RLM does not choose this aircraft for their fighter pilots. Fw190A is the most strong aircraft in 1942.

 

Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCtdAfpWIS8&feature=player_detailpage

Edited by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been able to play the game since the last patch, but before the 190 was pretty good, loved flying it. But now reading all the comments you guys are making me worry that the latest patch broke the 190  :o:

Edited by istruba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought the 190 a few days ago so I am still learning it. One thing if I could ask, it keeps wanting to roll left and I can't seem to correct this, does the 190 have a trim function to stop rolling like the La-5 does?

 

Cheers,

 

Mick. :)

 

edit: Disregard question, I noticed another thread with an answer, ta.

Edited by 3instein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my honest opinion both are close matching, though entirely different. Flight model wise I feel DCS to be superiour to BoS aircrafts (comparing the DCS Dora and Mustang vs every aircraft in BoS). PLanes behave the way you expect them to be, basic air combat manouvres can be performed flawless giving DCS aerial combat a realistic appearance. On the other hand I still can't slip right with my 109 or Fw 190 due to strangely overmodeled rudder-roll momentums that can't be countered with ailerouns. Or a weirdly snapstalling Fw 190 since last update.

 

Imersion wise I rate BoS to be superiour. Winds, turbulences and stall vibrations  feel more natural, authentic and add a huge ammount of imersion. In DCS aircrafts feel to behave all the same once trimmed out properly, going straight and fine. No turbulences, no disortions of your flight path. From this point DCS is very unimersive, a bad mouth could call it boring.

 

So what's left is a 1:1 score. A DCS with BoS weather and envirounmental simulation or a BoS with DCS like flight models could easily change my mind. As it is now I enjoy BoS more due to more content, not higher quality FMs (hopefully this will change).

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been able to play the game since the last patch, but before the 190 was pretty good, loved flying it. But now reading all the comments you guys are making me worry that the latest patch broke the 190  :o:

Not broken just needs a tweak IMO especially in high wing loading the spin characteristics seem too severe.

I have never flown a fw190 IRL and not likely too but most Aircraft I have, only tend to spin with heavy wing loads at high speed or large rudder inputs at slower speeds.

I can only comment on these types, But a majority of peoples on this forum seem to agree on the severe departure from flight of the FW 190 is strange to say the least.   

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not broken just needs a tweak IMO especially in high wing loading the spin characteristics seem too severe.

I have never flown a fw190 IRL and not likely too but most Aircraft I have, only tend to spin with heavy wing loads at high speed or large rudder inputs at slower speeds.

I can only comment on these types, But a majority of peoples on this forum seem to agree on the severe departure from flight of the FW 190 is strange to say the least.   

 

Not to mention the bizarre low speed and ground handling of all the aircraft in the sim.  It's not just limited to one type of aircraft.  It's a global problem with the physics modeling, or the way the game engine calculates control surface or wing areas, or the actual weight of the aircraft, or a combination of all of the above.

 

It almost feels like the game engine is doubling the wing area because it thinks we are all flying biplanes.  Maybe it didn't get the memo that it isn't WW1 anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my honest opinion both are close matching, though entirely different. Flight model wise I feel DCS to be superiour to BoS aircrafts (comparing the DCS Dora and Mustang vs every aircraft in BoS). PLanes behave the way you expect them to be, basic air combat manouvres can be performed flawless giving DCS aerial combat a realistic appearance. On the other hand I still can't slip right with my 109 or Fw 190 due to strangely overmodeled rudder-roll momentums that can't be countered with ailerouns. Or a weirdly snapstalling Fw 190 since last update.

 

Imersion wise I rate BoS to be superiour. Winds, turbulences and stall vibrations  feel more natural, authentic and add a huge ammount of imersion. In DCS aircrafts feel to behave all the same once trimmed out properly, going straight and fine. No turbulences, no disortions of your flight path. From this point DCS is very unimersive, a bad mouth could call it boring.

 

So what's left is a 1:1 score. A DCS with BoS weather and envirounmental simulation or a BoS with DCS like flight models could easily change my mind. As it is now I enjoy BoS more due to more content, not higher quality FMs (hopefully this will change).

 

This sums it up perfectly. 

 

Additionally, I'm not sure why some people insist that the physics in DCS are somehow jet-biased. I haven't flown the 109 or 190 much beyond one or two flights, but the P-51 is modeled beautifully. It's perfect how, at higher speeds, the aircraft flies "smooth," whereas in the pattern at low speeds, changes in power setting, configuration, etc have a much more noticeable effect. This reflect all that I've experienced in the real world quite well.

 

I think the spastic FMs in BoS (which have greatly improved over the last year, but still could use some tuning) have made many believe that this, or something similar reduced by a small margin, is what is "real." Thus, sims like DCS (or even IL2 1946) are seen as either jet-biased (DCS), or outdated and no longer realistic (1946). While IL2 '46 is now dated and limited in many ways, it still understands that even WWII "light" aircraft didn't perform a high-alpha maneuver with even a mild flight path change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the bizarre low speed and ground handling of all the aircraft in the sim. It's not just limited to one type of aircraft.

 

I agree with you NervousEnergy.   Let's use a really overdone thing in this sim as an example, ground handling. 

 

In real life the pilot, as you know, is getting seat of the pants feedback of what the plane is doing, or is about to do, in real time so to speak.  He can feel the tail start to move, and he will pretty much make the correction without thinking about it.  In the sim we don't know anything is wrong till we see the world spinning around us like a top.  Our only perception is visual.  So in this case, the ground handling should be made easier, to more accurately represent the real life experience of  driving these things around on the airfield.  Currently the aircraft behave as if they are totally weightless and are all moving on a polished ice surface with teflon tires.  Yes, the control inputs may be realistic, and the game may have correct weight and balance number etc for the aircraft, but this equates to an unrealistic experience because of our total lack of tactile feed back from the chassis of the aircraft.  And no FFB will not help here.

 

Hmmh, in what scenarios do you get this spinning? When taxiing? Or when rolling out after touchdown? During the initial takeoff run? 

  • If this happens when you taxi: What is your speed? When you look out of the window, over one of the wings, does your speed appear real slow? Or does it seem fast, like driving a car? 
  • If it's the rollout: What amount of rudder do you apply? Just a tiny bit? Do you ever apply full rudder on rollout? Do you apply brakes on rollout? If you do, at what speed - right after touchdown, or only when the aircraft has already slowed down?
  • If on takeoff run: Do you run up the engine as much as possible with the brakes applied, and then let the brakes go? Or do you make a rolling takeoff, without stopping? I take it for granted that you lock tailwheels for takeoff where they exist.

I always thought ground handling was one of the strongest points of the BoS FM. I think BoS could be sold as a taxi simulator (just kidding). But honestly, to me it seems the aircraft sit on the ground solidly, and they stay on track when steered properly. Some other sims, like X-Plane for example, or MSFS if I remember that correctly, make me feel the aircraft slide around on the ground, or veer off the runway in an unrealistic way, but not BoS. In BoS, the aircraft can be landed straight, even with a crosswind component. Of course, one has to by quick and coordinated with throttle, rudder, brakes, and (in some cases, like the Fw-190) the stick. 

 

You are correct about the lack of tactile feedback, but it seems deviations on the ground can be easily and quickly detected through ground references. For example, when S-turning on a taxiway the relative movement of the nose against features on the horizon, such as trees, buildings, or revetments is a great and instant clue; if taxiing slowly enough it's easy to apply rudder, throttle, and, in some planes, brakes as necessary and quickly. When rolling out after touchdown, relative movement of the cowling against clouds can be detected as easily and allow quick reactions.

 

Also, the ground handling is different between the different aircraft. I find the La-5 extremely stable and docile. The Yak-1 would be on the other end, being a little twitchy it requires much faster reactions than the La. The Bf-109 is somewhere in the middle. The Fw-190 has this unique feature of locking the tailwheel by pulling the stick back, so it appears extremely stable, and yet it's possible to do tight turns in it by relaxing the stick and then quickly applying brakes when the nose points in the right direction. So, differences are modeled; if correctly I don't know, but the way the differences are modeled clearly corresponds to design differences between these aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andyw248,

 

I think we are playing different sims.   :biggrin:

 

Or at least are playing with different controllers perhaps.

 

I never have issues on takeoff.  It's always when on the taxiway, or on roll out after touchdown.  I agree the La5 has the best ground handling, but oddly, because they share basically the same airframe, the LaGG 3 has the worst.

I can make a nice long slow approach in the LaGG, really just absolutely grease a 3 point touchdown, have a nice long slow roll out and it will spin like a top at the end of the roll out, every time.  Very odd.

I expect the 109, with it's utterly compromised landing gear design to be a handful on the ground, but I have a bit less trouble with it than the LaGG,  Go figure.

 

The fact that you can master the odd behavior is a credit to your skills, but that doesn't make it right.

 

As I said, the aircraft feel absolutely weightless when on the ground, and not much better in the air, like balancing them on the head of a pin.

 

I wish I had a better explanation but for now, words fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andyw248,

 

I think we are playing different sims.   :biggrin:

 

Or at least are playing with different controllers perhaps.

 

I never have issues on takeoff.  It's always when on the taxiway, or on roll out after touchdown.  I agree the La5 has the best ground handling, but oddly, because they share basically the same airframe, the LaGG 3 has the worst.

I can make a nice long slow approach in the LaGG, really just absolutely grease a 3 point touchdown, have a nice long slow roll out and it will spin like a top at the end of the roll out, every time.  Very odd.

I expect the 109, with it's utterly compromised landing gear design to be a handful on the ground, but I have a bit less trouble with it than the LaGG,  Go figure.

 

The fact that you can master the odd behavior is a credit to your skills, but that doesn't make it right.

 

As I said, the aircraft feel absolutely weightless when on the ground, and not much better in the air, like balancing them on the head of a pin.

 

I wish I had a better explanation but for now, words fail.

I agree all planes are a handful on ground more so .Especially as the Lagg has no lockable tail wheel I can find.

I find using the same method of locking the FW190 IE having stick back from centre until speed is attained helps with the lags take-off and landing.

Also catching the yaw from the torque of the engine as soon as possible(without PIO) and smooth progressive throttle application also help as with all real world inputs is maybe the answer.

But to be honest I think a tweak here and there is the answer but that said I don't want to loose that realism of torque felt in this sim.

So small tweaks please.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one of the secrets might be that I'm using a set of CH rudders. For the German planes this allows me to apply relatively precise brake pressure. For the Russian planes I have mapped the lower lever on the front of my Warthog to the brakes - still requires a little more attention since hand/foot coordination is involved. I can't imagine how differential braking would work if one does not use rudders.

 

Regarding the spinning at the end of the landing rollout in the La-5 and LaGG-3: It is key to:

  • Use only tiny amounts of rudder, you should almost never need full deflection
  • Don't start braking right after touchdown, wait until the plane has slowed down
  • When applying brakes, make sure the rudder is in neutral position - otherwise you will get differential braking which you don't want on rollout.

A while ago I made a little video on the occasion of a similar discussion here. It demonstrates how tiny the rudder deflections should be on rollout: http://youtu.be/jrNhJR7zYpE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, so far I'm pretty satisfied with the flight dynamics - with one exception, though:

Has anyone else had the problem that the La-5 generally feels a bit 'wobbly' in the air?

If I'm going below 300kph, due to tight turns or when climbing, the La-5 always feels that it's damn near stalling - I went into a spin more than once when doing just a mediocre turn; especially when going starboard, against the engine torque. And, when climbing, I am often in the situation where I'm stalling but am able to keep the plane straight, with the nose still pointing up (Yes, I know, I should put the nose downwards to gain speed etc. etc. - it's the principle which feels a bit fishy). Then, I literally go ballistic, dropping like a stone - just like that RL-accident of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447. That happens even when I'm still going between 230-250kph. That's not too fast, sure, but still, I should not stall at that speed!

 

Is it just me? Or has anyone made the same experiences? As said, I feel that the La-5's Flight model needs a bit more tweaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not alone with this probs. Sluggish, wobbly in the air. Devs made minor corrections to the DM, but the FM is overall unfortunately failed. Useless in MP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andyw248,

 

I'm running the full CH equipment. 

 

Rudder pedals, stick, throttle and throttle quadrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would love to hear more from the BlitzPig guy, but I'm a little skeptical when his experience is with an up powered Stearman. Compared to any of the fighters in BOS that's still a trainer and docile in comparison from my understanding.

 

I regularly do aeros and have flown machines that, whilst modern, are broadly similar in performance and handling characteristics to early ww2 fighters -  - there is something very odd about the 'general' FM and it affects all of the BoS ac. As has been alluded to, its probably a hang over from adapting a biplane centered FM, but from the 10 hours or so I've spent with BoS so far it makes everything harder to fly than it should be.

 

Take the 109 for instance; sure it had its handling quirks, but it was a thoroughbred fighter - in the mid speed range it should handle very smoothly, the controls should be crisp and responsive, and it shouldn't depart (ie enter the incipient spin - un-demanded roll) as easily as it does in BoS - there also seems to be very little correlation between the stall (which is generally required for a spin!) and AoA. Although I haven fully documented it, I've had the ac depart (and bear in mind that at the speeds I'm talking about, between 180-250 odd kts the 109 should handle very well, with very good aileron response, good elevator response and almost no tendency to drop a wing) at very odd times - not when I would expect. I suspect its because of the way that the ac mass is modelled - ie its vector lags, and as such you have artificially high AoA's generated (up to and beyond the critical angle) because the wing has moved, but rather than the aircraft smoothly responding its 'dragging' its arse through the air (which it shouldn't) and thus the modeled airflow is at an artificially high AoA.

 

And then there is the 'bouncing around' that occurs when at all airspeeds - very odd. And the ground handling. Although I must say the 109 seems to handle normally during the takeoff roll. 

 

I probably didn't explain that very well, and I keep meaning to do some proper investigation, which I will get around to. Anyway, I think that at present the original Il2 and DCS have a more realistic general FM with ac behaving broadly like ac should, even if individual 'chart' characteristics aren't quite right.

 

All that said, the immersion in BoS is fantastic, and I hope to see it expan to cover many more aircraft and theatres!

 

Cheers,

 

Darkmouse 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What continues to mystify me is the fact that the developers do not see the aircraft flight models as a high priority. When I purchased the game well before the release, I understood it to be a historical World War II flight simulator. Along with other things this would mean that the aircraft flight models should be as accurate as technology will allow.

By the discussions on this forum it would appear that many people agree that the aircraft flight models are not accurate. The FW-190 would probably be the flight model that most agree is the least accurate. If you have read about Russian Front history you realize there were many German pilots who were mediocre at combat when flying the ME-109, but became extremely efficient once they began flying the FW-190. An example of one of these German pilots is Erich Rudorffer.

Erich Rudorffer is the seventh ranked ace in history with 222 kills. 138 of his kills were on the Russian Front in the FW-190. Including downing 13 Russian aircraft in 17 minutes on November 6, 1943. The FW-190 qualities were also noticed when it was introduced on the Western Front. It was nicknamed the "Butcher Bird" because of its superiority over the Spitfire.

I mentioned Erich Rudorffer because he may be one of the avenues that the FW-190 flight model issue can be clarified.  Erich Rudorffer is still alive, he is the greatest living ace. Maybe it would be possible for someone to demonstrate the in game flight characteristics of the FW-190 to him, then get his opinion on the accuracy of the flight model.

This suggestion may appear to be far-fetched, but the original IL-2 flight models were improved after they were reviewed by German World War II veterans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I regularly do aeros and have flown machines that, whilst modern, are broadly similar in performance and handling characteristics to early ww2 fighters - - there is something very odd about the 'general' FM and it affects all of the BoS ac. As has been alluded to, its probably a hang over from adapting a biplane centered FM, but from the 10 hours or so I've spent with BoS so far it makes everything harder to fly than it should be.

 

Take the 109 for instance; sure it had its handling quirks, but it was a thoroughbred fighter - in the mid speed range it should handle very smoothly, the controls should be crisp and responsive, and it shouldn't depart (ie enter the incipient spin - un-demanded roll) as easily as it does in BoS - there also seems to be very little correlation between the stall (which is generally required for a spin!) and AoA. Although I haven fully documented it, I've had the ac depart (and bear in mind that at the speeds I'm talking about, between 180-250 odd kts the 109 should handle very well, with very good aileron response, good elevator response and almost no tendency to drop a wing) at very odd times - not when I would expect. I suspect its because of the way that the ac mass is modelled - ie its vector lags, and as such you have artificially high AoA's generated (up to and beyond the critical angle) because the wing has moved, but rather than the aircraft smoothly responding its 'dragging' its arse through the air (which it shouldn't) and thus the modeled airflow is at an artificially high AoA.

 

And then there is the 'bouncing around' that occurs when at all airspeeds - very odd. And the ground handling. Although I must say the 109 seems to handle normally during the takeoff roll.

 

I probably didn't explain that very well, and I keep meaning to do some proper investigation, which I will get around to. Anyway, I think that at present the original Il2 and DCS have a more realistic general FM with ac behaving broadly like ac should, even if individual 'chart' characteristics aren't quite right.

 

All that said, the immersion in BoS is fantastic, and I hope to see it expan to cover many more aircraft and theatres!

 

Cheers,

 

Darkmouse

Thank you for being another voice of reason on this matter.

 

With regard to ground handling, something is definitely off. I've heard some people say it's very realistic, but nearly in the same breath tell people that the easiest way to take off in a 190 is to firewall the throttle. Indeed, this allows for the most stable T/O run.

 

Isn't there something wrong with that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the 109, with it's utterly compromised landing gear design to be a handful on the ground, but I have a bit less trouble with it than the LaGG,  Go figure.

Try landing the 109 with unlocked tail wheel.

 

Lockable tail wheel makes all the difference in ground-handling in BoS. Now i have no idea how the real planes would handle on the ground, but when it's easier to just taxi with locked tail wheel all the time (not just rolling straight), it does feel a little off to me.

 

The FW-190 would probably be the flight model that most agree is the least accurate.

Actually, i think it's the other way around. One could say that compared to the other planes, the performance increase due to the cold temperature conditions is not as massive, but i would say that this boost is a good bit overdone for the other planes (it's close to 20% boost for most other planes in various areas, like climb rate and top speed, with a less than 10% increase in engine power).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding performance BOS Fw 190 has still no cold air benefis for climb rate only for speed.   BOS A-3 climb rate is the same like for ISA condition ( +15 deg temp) but all other fighters in BOS got much better climb rate then ISA charts.  So here Fw 190 is the most hurt plane in BOS.  Not mention that Fw 190 A-3 lose quickly elevator effectivness at higher speeds  like no any other fighter in game. So or Fw 190 is vell done in dive and other planes got too much elevator effectivness or just Fw 190 is off here also.    Many aspect of BOS planes performance is very questionable like  very high maximum dive speeds for Russian fighter - i dont belive that in these era any of them could safetly dive more then 700 kph expecially Lagg3.  RL manuals of these planes are here very restricted because Russian knows that their fighters can't sefetly dive such fast.  Not mention very dubfull roll rates of Lagg3 and La5.

 

Regarding flight physics i think that general ground handling ( take off and landings) are very good done except taxi on the ground - planes just drift too much. In the air some planes fly very natural ( mostly Russian ones) but some feel to much wobbly  ( 109 or Fw 190).  109 and Fw 190 should fly just smooth in the air like Russian planes.

 

Still there is lack of damage physcis of gear and flaps.

 

I think icreasing speed feeling is very good done in BOS like any other sims the same i like stall and spin behaviour of planes. 

 

BOS could be really good sim if developers could take care more historical accuracy regarding performacne of these planes.  Something like we got in DCS.  But i just think that these is just busisnees solution for eastern market.

Edited by Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I won't get into performance issues with specific aircraft, as we are far too early in the process to nit pick that much, I do have issues with the global flight modeling, and last night it finally came to me why it feels like deja-vu all over again...  It's the old "slip on a banana peel departure from controlled flight for no reason" that plagued the original IL2 in the early years.  Some even called it a canned or scripted stall/spin that happened every time you approached critical AoA.   No buffeting, no warning aurally or visually, just whoopsie we're spinnin' now!!!!   

 

It's just like the old IL2.  You get to a certain point, and the game engine just throws up it's hands and gives up trying to figure it out and defaults to a stall/spin.

 

You would think that all these years later, with all the knowledge gained, and the improvements in FM calculating algorithms, that we would be beyond this sort of thing.

 

Oh well.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...