Flight dynamics after the latest patches...

[Saurer]

 

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

 

 

I don't know, if you read in Galland's book "Die Ersten und die Letzten", were he describes that he and his wingman dived away from Spitfires, but he could not keep up with his wingman. 

As his plane begann to shake he went for an emergency landing and discovered that he accidentally lowered the landing gear. 

 

But it was not damaged, he could land normal

Edited December 30, 2014 by Saurer

[sturmkraehe]

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.

Interesting. It does not occur to me. I usually have a good feel when I am about to depard and usually am capable to prevent it from falling into a spin. Maybe because I use ffb? I also think accustic warnings are there but I miss a bit of ffb rattle. However there had been planes that just don't give warnings before a stall in real life. Read about it. Can't remember which one. Maybe the 190???

 

 

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

 

This has been discussed before. Some flaps are hydraulic and don't extent if dynamic pressure is too high (see Yak) so no damage possible physically. If the fact that it does not extend at too high speeds is correct I cannot tell. 

 

Also gears just be able to sustain excessive loads. Remember that they are designed to withstand hard landings and hard braking. I am quite certain that they were dimensioned to withstand landing on one gear as a simultaneous tough-down on both gears cannot be guaranteed. They also had to be sturdy enough to allow take-off and landing from gras runways which naturally inflicts more loads to the gear than a concrete runway. 

 

As modelled in game I don't see any mistakes here.

[andyw248]

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???

 

As you can tell I'm one of those that think ground handling is one of the most realistic parts of the FM  ... See my other posts and the few video clips that I made to demonstrate this.

 

A very good way to take off is to roll onto the runway, lock the tailwheel (on those aircraft that have a lock), check trim is slightly nose heavy, hold the brakes, slowly increase RPM to about 2,000, kick in right or left rudder (depending on the aircraft), release brakes and increase power to T/O power, then slowly but steadily move the stick forward until the tail lifts. Seems realistic to me, and works as well in the 190 as in the other planes.

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!!!!   

 

While I would like to see a more detailed description of how these sudden spins can be entered, I agree that the 190 goes into such sudden spins easily, specifically when flying maneuvers like scissors or climbing turns, entered at 400 - 450 kph.

 

Not so the 109 though - I found that by now it can be flown through these maneuvers steadily.

[Dakpilot]

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.

 

Have to say I really don't get the same feeling as this at all, to say it is like the old IL-2 "canned/scripted stalls" seems to be a gross oversimplification of the FM in BoS, however I guess everyone feels things in there own subjective way, perhaps your controls are set up very sensitive and you use large/heavy stick movements, but I find stalls/accelerated stalls and spin entry a Huge step forward from original IL-2

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BlackDevil]

  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!!!!   

 

 

Not on my side of BoS. I guess I have the opposite feeling compared to any predecessor of the series 

Edited December 30, 2014 by BlackDevil

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well Dak, I use CH gear and have tried to dial in filtering and dead zones as necessary to take some of the over sensitivity out of all these aircraft.  I've been at this a long time now and am not a ham fisted virtual pilot.

I think that you, andy248, and some others are just very good at flying around the problems, and more power to you, but it's still a form of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the fact that something is globally wrong, it's not just the 190s, or pick your favorite aircraft.

 

While the feeling of being in flight is very good, mostly do to excellent atmospherics (except for sound, that needs a lot of work, oh I've been hit?  I wonder when that happened? ) the actual physics of flight is still not there, and certainly not up the the level set by Cliffs of Dover, and globally not up to the current state of IL2/46.

 

The virtual aircraft in BoS do not feel like heavily wing loaded, high powered, fast for their time, military aircraft, across the board they just don't.   Their behavior would be fine for a Neiuport 17, but certainly not for an La 5 or Bf 109.

 

You and I will just have to politely disagree over this. 

[dburne]

 

The virtual aircraft in BoS do not feel like heavily wing loaded, high powered, fast for their time, military aircraft, across the board they just don't.   Their behavior would be fine for a Neiuport 17, but certainly not for an La 5 or Bf 109.

 

You and I will just have to politely disagree over this. 

 

You are not alone in your thinking on this subject.

[sturmkraehe]

That I agree with. They feel quite like biplanes at higher speed Well, we know why.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

10/10 still feel a bit "light"

[Darkmouse]

While I would like to see a more detailed "description of how these sudden spins can be entered"

 

I shall do my best when I get home - it will be good practice, as I'm about to start instructing!

 

"The virtual aircraft in BoS do not feel like heavily wing loaded, high powered, fast for their time, military aircraft, across the board they just don't. Their behavior would be fine for a Neiuport 17, but certainly not for an La 5 or Bf 109."

 

I entirely agree - I am also almost sure its because the ac aren't rotating around their c of g - their arse is dragging, which it shouldnt, ie their mass is outside the radius of their turn and thus creating an artificially high AoA causing random departures. I might be barking up entirely the wrong tree of course!

 

Cheers,

 

DM

[andyw248]

I use CH gear and have tried to dial in filtering and dead zones as necessary to take some of the over sensitivity out of all these aircraft.  I've been at this a long time now and am not a ham fisted virtual pilot.

 

Your settings are then different from the ones I use - I don't use any curves or dead zones at all. I do use a 15cm stick extension on my Warthog though which provides a significant improvement in stick precision. When I explored choppers in x-plane a few years ago I came to think that I wanted the most direct input that I can possibly get, and this holds true with fixed wings as well.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Try it with a normal, unmodded stick, that most people use andy.

 

I think you will begin to understand.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Well Dak, I use CH gear and have tried to dial in filtering and dead zones as necessary to take some of the over sensitivity out of all these aircraft.  I've been at this a long time now and am not a ham fisted virtual pilot.

I think that you, andy248, and some others are just very good at flying around the problems, and more power to you, but it's still a form of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the fact that something is globally wrong, it's not just the 190s, or pick your favorite aircraft.

 

I use CH gear and I don't do anything with dead zones or curves, and I don't have the feeling that I'm flying around any problems.  So I would not say that I'm the one with my head in the sand.  The only part of the FM that seems wrong to me is that the aircraft seem to bounce way too much on landing.

[Dakpilot]

.

 

You and I will just have to politely disagree over this. 

 

As an ex Military and commercial pilot nearing the end of a career involving quite a few WWII era A/C, I would have to say that is feels like a big backwards step going back to old IL-2 FM's even though I enjoy the massive amount of content and variety I find myself shutting it down and firing up BoS due to on rails and lack of feeling, whether a modded stick or not this does not change the FM

So I guess we shall as you say politely disagree

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[voncrapenhauser]

That I agree with. They feel quite like biplanes at higher speed Well, we know why.

+1

[Willy__]

I use CH gear and I don't do anything with dead zones or curves, and I don't have the feeling that I'm flying around any problems.  So I would not say that I'm the one with my head in the sand.  The only part of the FM that seems wrong to me is that the aircraft seem to bounce way too much on landing.

 

Try it with a normal, unmodded stick, that most people use andy. I think you will begin to understand.

 

I use CH gear and I don't do anything with dead zones or curves, and I don't have the feeling that I'm flying around any problems.  So I would not say that I'm the one with my head in the sand.  The only part of the FM that seems wrong to me is that the aircraft seem to bounce way too much on landing.

 

 

I use a Saitek x65-f and Saitek Combat Rudders. That stick its the one that doesnt move, it uses force sensors to pick up the force you're doing and then "translate" to stick movements in game. I also dont do anything with deadzones or curves and I find BoS pretty good, I dont feel any problem at all. I love the feeling of flight that others flight sims dont have. There you feel that you're flying "on rails", while in BoS you actually feel you're flying. Maybe you shouldnt jerk the stick around, and instead do very small and tiny movements, always thinking ahead of the plane.

 

About the bouncing on landing: try touchdown in a slower speed, I too experience a lot of bounce when I touchdown around +180km/h speeds.

Edited December 30, 2014 by istruba

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

About the bouncing on landing: try touchdown in a slower speed, I too experience a lot of bounce when I touchdown around +180km/h speeds.

 

A lot of those issues can also come from having too much vertical speed vs. horizontal speed.

 

The LW birds seem to like to approach at a decent horizontal speed... Normally when I have issues its because I wasn't extending as fast as I was dropping. 

 

[=LD=Penshoon]

andyw248 made an excellent video on Bouncy landings:

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

They feel quite like biplanes at higher speed

 

-snip-

 

I get that feeling too. I don't really have the technical knowledge to judge their game engine... I just know what feels right, heavy and fast to me.

 

DN captures the "feel" of flight pretty well for me (and it honestly always has... DCS especially lacks good feedback against the air frame...), but that doesn't speak to how light the planes feel in the air.

[Jason_Bourne]

The big issue for me is the flight model of the fw190. You are supposed to be able to dive on someone at 600-750 kmh, and in a lag pursuit better their rate of turn. Try that and any other plane in the sim will better your rate and radius, no matter what speed they are at. Even bombers.

In the future i will bide my time on spending extra on planes until i know they got the flight model right.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think there is big difference between stability of flight russian and german planes.  Russian planes behave more natural way and have more stability in flight.  From uknown reason to me German planes are too much unstable and  wobbly in the air.  Looking at many videos of RL 109 or Fw 190 i dont see any problems like we got in BOS actually.  Thats why probably some here say that BOS planes fly like a biplanes or RC models.

 

Also i think in BOS there is lack of stall buffeting effect.  I got FF stick but it is hard to feel any shake effect at the begininig of the stall. DCS got nice stick shake and controls buffeting, also CLOD have it too.  I think BOS planes should have also similar stall symptoms. Even in ROF there was options for set FF force effects.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Kwiatek

[Darkmouse]

I said I'd explain why aircraft depart from controlled flight ie. spin, either fully developed, or caught at the incipient stage, so here goes. I'll keep it as simple as possible, mainly 'cos thats all I can manage.

 

First of all we need to look at the lift equation and a graph. As I'm sure you all know Lift= CL x 1/2 rho V(2) S, where CL is the coefficient of lift, rho is air density, V is airspeed and S is wing surface area. The coefficient of  lift is determined by wing design and angle of attack - ie. any given wing will produce more lift as angle of attack is increased - up to a point known as the critical angle, beyond which lift rapidly drops off as illustrated in the graph below. For most wing designs this occurs somewhere between 14 and 16 degrees. It is important to remember that angle of attack is, in simple terms, the angle of the wing relative to the airflow, not the pitch of the aircraft.  

 

Now, in level flight there are four main forces acting upon an aircraft, and these need to be balanced. They are lift, weight, trust and drag, acting in the manner shown in the diagram below.

 

 

 

So, we are flying along straight and level, with all forces balanced, and then close the throttle - in the lift equation we have reduced 'V', which means that if nothing else is changed then lift will have decreased. If lift is decreased, but our weight has obviously remained the same, then the aircraft will descend. We don't want that to happen, so we have to increase one of the other components of the equation to compensate for the reduction in 'V'. Well, there is nothing we can do about air density, there is nothing we can do about wing surface area (pretend we don't have flaps!), which only leaves us CL. We obviously can't influence the wing design from the cockpit, however, we can change the angle of attack - by increasing the angle of attack, we increase CL, which in turn creates enough lift to balance the weight. But, with the throttle closed 'V' continues to reduce - and we have to continually increase the angle of attack to create enough lift to balance weight. Looking back at our graph we can see that if we increase the angle of attack passed 14 degrees, lift drops off very quickly - at this point we have stalled the wing.

 

Why has the wing stalled? A slightly simplified explanation, in normal flight, with a relatively low angle of attack, air flows smoothly around the wing. As we increase the angle of attack, the airflow finds it more difficult to follow the wings shape, and some of it starts to 'break away' from the wing. Initially this only happens to a bit of airflow and only near the back of the wing. As the AoA is increased further, the point at which the airflow separates starts to creep back towards the leading edge, and more of the airflow will have broken away. At the critical angle enough of the airflow has broken away that the wing no longer produces any lift (Not actually true, it will produce some, look at the graph, but there will be a very big reduction in lift).

 

The airflow beginning to break away from the wing is actually a very handy indicator of the approaching stall as it is turbulent in nature, and this turbulent flow can be felt in the controls as it passes over the elevators, rudder, and in some cases the ailerons.

 

Anyway, onwards. If you fly straight and level, close the throttle and then increase AoA to maintain altitude, at some point you will come to point where 'V' has fallen to the point where you have to pull back to the critical angle. This will be the stalling speed of the aircraft. The 109 might stall at 70kts for instance (I have no idea, its just a guess!). However this isn't the case in a turn - the stall speed will have increased. Why?

 

      

 

In the diagram above we have three examples of aircraft. in (a) lift and weight are balanced. Bank the aircraft as shown in (b) and you'll notice that whilst the weight component wont have changed, the amount of lift we have to generate to balance the weight has increased. This is because the lift vector of a wing always acts perpendicular to that wing - however we still need the same vertical component of lift as illustrated by the purple line to balance the weight and therefore will have to increase lift - if we do nothing to our speed, we can only achieve this by increasing CL through a high AoA. Figure © just shows a more pronounced example of this. So, if we are in a turn, at any given airspeed, we will have a higher AoA than if we were in level flight, meaning that the critical angle will be reached sooner ie. At a higher airspeed.

 

So, how much does this stalling speed vary by? Stall speed (Vs) times the square root of you load factor ('G' in other words) will give you the answer. For instance we roll our 109 smoothly to something in the region of 60 degrees AoB, balancing with rudder of course, and smoothly pull back the stick to achieve 6 G - what will our stall speed be? The square root of 6 is 2.45, times that by our clean Vs of 70kts and we get a stall speed at 6G of 171kts. We can tell when we are close to that because the airflow will start to separate from the wing and 'buffet' our elevators - by using a technique known as 'nibbling the buffet' we can constantly ensure that we are turning as efficiently as possible - if the buffet increases, ease off the back pressure, if it decreases, increase the back pressure. Pull too had and the guy behind you will give you lead poisoning - don't pull enough and the guy behind you will give you lead poisoning.

 

One more thing before I come onto the spin. If we entered the above turn with full power and get pulling 6 G in a level turn what would happen? Our speed would decay - this is because one of the by-products of lift is drag  - the more lift you create, the more drag you create. Going back to our diagram of the four forces acting on an aircraft in flight, we can see that thrust must equal drag for un-accelerated flight. Anyway, we have had to drastically increase our lift component, and so our drag has also increased. We were already at full power, so we cant increase thrust, therefore our speed will decrease. If we let it decay to 171kts we will stall, so what can we do about this? Well, we have two options - one is to decrease the bank and back pressure to a point where the engine can produce enough thrust to overcome the drag created by the lift we are generating. The other, more helpful in a dogfight, where rolling out isn't an option with someone pulling just as hard on your tail is to drop your nose and trade height for speed, enough to keep you above the stall speed. Ever wondered why two evenly matched pilots always end up near the ground?

 

So onto the spin - this is fairly straight forward -  if your aircraft is perfectly balanced as you approach the stall, then both wings will stall together, and other than a sudden loss of lift and a nose drop, nothing adverse will happen. However, any yaw present at the point of stall will have the effect of stalling one wing before the other (also, they might both be stalled, just one deeper in the stall than the other). This is because the inner wing will be travelling slower than the outer wing. In this circumstance, as one wing stall slightly before the other, it creates a lot of drag and very little lift, whilst the other wing is still creating lift. This leads to 'un-demanded' roll or 'wing-drop' for obvious reasons.

 

At this point the yaw and difference in lift and drag between the two wings will cause the ac to auto-rotate about the vertical axis - I'm not going to talk about the physics in the spin as they are damned complicated.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to write and essay, and I also didn't mean to teach anyone to suck eggs, so if some of that seems a bit basic, please forgive me. I hope some people find it useful!

 

Cheers,

 

DM     

[BlackDevil]

The only part of the FM that seems wrong to me is that the aircraft seem to bounce way too much on landing.

They don't bounce at all, if landed correctly: (stick full back at touchdown)

 

 

Edited December 31, 2014 by BlackDevil

[BraveSirRobin]

So there you go, the bouncy landings are user error.  I suspect a lot of the issues are user error, but the users are not inclined to admit it.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Now, before anyone even thinks about it - NO (A) -> I do not think these differences in modelling are made on purpose!!! 

In fact, I find other aspects of the flight dynamics very plausible and  (B) -> even better than what I have in DCS World ( sorry, but I can't avoid comparing GOOD flightsim platforms, or my RW glider pilot experience, sometimes... ), so, probably  © -> the data the Dev Team had access to is much more complete when it comes to the Russian fighters than for the Axis aircraft.

 

-snip-

 

I know my previous post history, but this is not meant to be a pedantic, argumentative ****post. 

 

 (A) I'm still on the fence because of how "off" it is and how small the priority of looking in to it seems to be. I am super happy with my yaw-vector not bouncing around anymore and I'm looking forward to a (hopefully) future resolution for bouncing in the lift-vector.

 (B) I would agree that the "feeling" of the fluid dynamics of the air is better in BOS. I like the "weighty" (on the rails for some...) feeling of the birds in Cliffs but collision physics and fluid dynamics are definitely not as good... (Unfortunately) for DCS a couple of the prop-driven models are probably in perma-beta (I'm referring to the K-4 and the D-9) but their systems modeling better and their FMs are definitely seem more open to be tweaked by Yo-Yo and the team based on feedback.

 © There are so many sources for RLM/Allied testing data on the Axis birds that I find that bit hard to follow. In fact, the guys at 777 have defended their lack of transparency on how difficult it is to find good VVS data... If they have one source for VVS data and a hundred sources for RLM/Allied testing data for the Axis birds, no wonder something still feels off - it's hard to find a good average from a single source.

 

 All I know is that I have the game installed again and I have been trying to get at least a daily flight in. And thanks to the work of Jaws, Spektre and the rest of the historical Axis skin guys I am really enjoying being able to fly with some glorious skins. I also keep noticing more and more of the DM that I didn't see a couple of months back and though I am still not hearing hit sounds, I do my best not to get hit in the first place anywho. 

[Jaws2002]

The big issue for me is the flight model of the fw190. You are supposed to be able to dive on someone at 600-750 kmh, and in a lag pursuit better their rate of turn. Try that and any other plane in the sim will better your rate and radius, no matter what speed they are at. Even bombers.

In the future i will bide my time on spending extra on planes until i know they got the flight model right.

 

 

+1

 

This is the only game where the high speed controls of the FW-190 are worse than bf-109 and pretty much everything else in the game.

This is how the real thing was:

 

 

 

 

 

upload

 

 

image upload no limit

 

Try this two in game and see if you come to a conclusion that matches this.

[andyw248]

 

Anyway, onwards. If you fly straight and level, close the throttle and then increase AoA to maintain altitude, at some point you will come to point where 'V' has fallen to the point where you have to pull back to the critical angle. This will be the stalling speed of the aircraft. The 109 might stall at 70kts for instance (I have no idea, its just a guess!). However this isn't the case in a turn - the stall speed will have increased. Why?

 

      

 

In the diagram above we have three examples of aircraft. in (a) lift and weight are balanced. Bank the aircraft as shown in (b) and you'll notice that whilst the weight component wont have changed, the amount of lift we have to generate to balance the weight has increased. This is because the lift vector of a wing always acts perpendicular to that wing - however we still need the same vertical component of lift as illustrated by the purple line to balance the weight and therefore will have to increase lift - if we do nothing to our speed, we can only achieve this by increasing CL through a high AoA. Figure © just shows a more pronounced example of this. So, if we are in a turn, at any given airspeed, we will have a higher AoA than if we were in level flight, meaning that the critical angle will be reached sooner ie. At a higher airspeed.

 

So, how much does this stalling speed vary by? Stall speed (Vs) times the square root of you load factor ('G' in other words) will give you the answer. For instance we roll our 109 smoothly to something in the region of 60 degrees AoB, balancing with rudder of course, and smoothly pull back the stick to achieve 6 G - what will our stall speed be? The square root of 6 is 2.45, times that by our clean Vs of 70kts and we get a stall speed at 6G of 171kts. We can tell when we are close to that because the airflow will start to separate from the wing and 'buffet' our elevators - by using a technique known as 'nibbling the buffet' we can constantly ensure that we are turning as efficiently as possible - if the buffet increases, ease off the back pressure, if it decreases, increase the back pressure. Pull too had and the guy behind you will give you lead poisoning - don't pull enough and the guy behind you will give you lead poisoning.

 

Thanks for this interesting explanation! If I match this to some of the previous posts then the criticism would be that:

• When aircraft are flown in a turn and their airspeed comes close to stalling speed, there should be a sensation of buffeting as you have outlined in the section highlighted in red.
• In BoS, this sensation is missing, which makes it difficult to use the technique of 'nibbling the buffet'.

Am I getting this correctly?

[andyw248]

Incidentally, something closely related to this topic has just been re-posted on youtube at: http://youtu.be/jLDM8jQFRvs. Nice to see how Robert Taylor (of G-Men fame) was also a passionate flight instructor

[33lima]

British WW2 operational and test pilot Eric Brown in 'Wings of the Luftwaffe' has a fair bit to say about the FW 190A's flying characteristics, which he first flew in early 1944, in the form of an A4/U8, some time after its 'conformal' underwing drop tank mountings had been removed. He reports that he flew the radial-engined 190 '...on many occasions and in several versions.'

 

Of its stalling characteristics he says: 'The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a tight turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have his wits about him. The stall in a landing configuration was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph.'

Edited January 1, 2015 by 33lima

[GP*]

I use a Saitek x65-f and Saitek Combat Rudders. That stick its the one that doesnt move, it uses force sensors to pick up the force you're doing and then "translate" to stick movements in game. I also dont do anything with deadzones or curves and I find BoS pretty good, I dont feel any problem at all. I love the feeling of flight that others flight sims dont have. There you feel that you're flying "on rails", while in BoS you actually feel you're flying. Maybe you shouldnt jerk the stick around, and instead do very small and tiny movements, always thinking ahead of the plane.

 

About the bouncing on landing: try touchdown in a slower speed, I too experience a lot of bounce when I touchdown around +180km/h speeds.

 

Let me start off by saying that what I'm about to say is in no way meant to be confrontational or disrespectful.

 

But I think we need to nail down a few things here:

 

1) A lot of people are giving flying advice to anyone who raises a problem with the way the current FMs are (for example, "maybe you shouldn't jerk the stick around"). While this may be appropriate for some, realize that you're talking to people with a great deal of experience in aviation in this case. BlitzPig is one of those people.

 

2) I keep seeing this "feeling of flight is great" post everywhere on this forum. Again, this isn't meant to be confrontational, but I'd like to know your experience in real-world aviation that gives you the impression that the flight modeling in BOS is both accurate and superior to all other sims.

 

It's one thing to say that you enjoy the feeling of the game because it's fun, or challenging, or "seems" right, but another to declare yourself an authority unless you really are one. Just some general, friendly advice for all those posting on this subject

[Sokol1]

 

 

2) I keep seeing this "feeling of flight is great" post everywhere on this forum. 

Good point, it seems that if the "feeling of flight is great" all these doubt about FM/planes performance are unjustified...

Edited January 1, 2015 by Sokol1

[Leaf]

some really good stuff there

 

Send it to Han via PM. That's some really useful information that gives concrete evidence of the 190's current deficiencies/grey areas.

[voncrapenhauser]

Couldn't agree more with your thoughts Kwiatek, even with the tuning in the latest patches.

 

There is also on those aircraft something that causes an overdone yaw-roll coupling - as other have pointed out, it is for instance impossible to properly sideslip in the Bf109s and Fw190 because you run out of roll authority given the huge amount of yaw-induced roll from the rudder deflection towards the "up / retreating " wing side...

 

Ground handling is still problematic too. There are ways to taxi, but the way the G2 opposes pilot inputs during taxi is simply unplausible to me ... By far I find DCS and even CloD which I tried a month ago, much more plausible, even according to RW pilot descriptions and looking at youtubes of taxiing Fw190s and Me109s...

 

I believe the latest flash patches pretty much tweaked the moments of inertia ( I assume there are also cross-moments in il-2 BoS ? ) so, there is a new sensation of inertia on the various axis affecting ( positively in most circumstances ) all aircraft, and helping to fade some of the unwanted effects caused by other flaws in the flight model parameters.

 

While I believe some problems may be tied to the core FDM, in the major part I also believe they're only connected to specific model parameters ( yes I know it's an advanced flight model, and it uses BeT, but still, there are always parameters... ) because for instance the Russian fighters do not present the problems regarding yaw-roll coupling and I can perfectly sideslip my LagG3, Yak-1...

 

Now, before anyone even thinks about it - NO I do not think these differences in modelling are made on purpose!!! 

In fact, I find other aspects of the flight dynamics very plausible and even better than what I have in DCS World ( sorry, but I can't avoid comparing GOOD flightsim platforms, or my RW glider pilot experience, sometimes... ), so, probably the data the Dev Team had access to is much more complete when it comes to the Russian fighters than for the Axis aircraft.

 

I keep "fighting" with myself because, all this said, there is definitely something EXTRAORDINARY about il-2 BoS, just as there is about RoF, apart from the immersive scenery, weather, cockpit rendering and visibility ( all much better than what I get in DCS... ) not to talk about the way we can glimpse other aircraft around us - very very realistic IMO. There is actually something too regarding the flight dynamics, the overall physics modelling that, in some aspects, makes me by far prefer the sensation of flight I get in il-2 as opposed to DCS, but, the most intriguing is that I am yet to find out what it is - I'd say that, it is the closest to real sensation of flying when I try to compare it with my RW flying although not on powered aircraft, provided I do not get into extreme AoA situations ( ? )...

Agreed +1 but don't know about the new DCS

Edited January 1, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[voncrapenhauser]

Send it to Han via PM. That's some really useful information that gives concrete evidence of the 190's current deficiencies/grey areas.T

The grey area's is a good way of describing the 190 problem.

IMO the snap stall as some call it, IE dropping a wing and starting to enter a spin is correct but just a little severe especially at speed.

So as I've said in other threads the 190 FM is not broken just needs a tweak at high speed high wing loadings. 

Of course IMO only as I have never flown a fw 190 IRL and not likely to, but being a IRL pilot I know basic aerodynamics so can only comment on that.

[BlackDevil]

You don't feel the air in any other sim, as you do in RoF or BoS (DN engine). The helis in DCS are the exception. They give me the same feeling.

[voncrapenhauser]

When flying a real plane you get a lot of sensations you cannot replicate in a sim but BOS comes very close.

Flight models need a tweak here and there based on the Info above and from real life wwII pilots accounts of certain aircraft characteristics.

They will get there I,m sure.

[sturmkraehe]

Have to say that I too find the yak now too flimsy in a tight turn. It now seems to start to stall as quick with little warning as the Lagg3 does. Can't remember this behaviour for previous version.

[303_Kwiatek]

Exacly something is not good with stall symptoms and behaviour in BOS.  Also there is lack of force fedback effects at stall -  no shaking stick at all.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, I agree with the stall issue, that's what I described as the slipping on a banana peel feeling.

 

Or perhaps a giant hand that flicks your wingtip and sends you spinning as if the aircraft was made of paper. 

[BlackDevil]

No, it is a well known behaviour of the 190 to stall abruptly. But it only goes into a spin, if the pilot doesn't react. It will not spin, if you release the stick as soon as the wing drops. No plane is safe against pilot error.

Edited January 1, 2015 by BlackDevil