Chasing icons, being NORMAL, and as a result wobbling ?

[Sokol1]

 

but previously I used a Thrustmaster COUGAR HOTAS ( the old model, very stiff ).

 

In this standard form (without 500$+ HALL sensor/ball bearing gimbal mod) this joystick is not much better than a Logitech 3D, use the same kind of low cost potentiometer - that deteriorates with use, and a low cost (Zamak) metal gimbal with mechanical deadzone that increase with use due metal wear. Of course, was considered at time, the "Ferrari" of joysticks ("It's metal, it's real").

[GP*]

Threads like these are what keep me coming back to this board. Some good information, some misleading information, and lots of entertainment.

 

1) regarding the wing loading debate. I don't think Liz was at all trying to say that wing loading is the only metric by which to measure how an aircraft handles. It was just one example used to illustrate that a 172 is NOT as close to a WWII warbird as many holders of PPLs like to tell themselves.

 

2) I think it's fair to argue that military pilots aren't the ultimate authority on this either, if you only consider the jet they currently fly. However, as others mentioned, many of our trainers have similar performance to WWII warbirds. Additionally, the perks of flying a fast jet means dudes who own warbirds but were never military pilots tend to offer us rides in their planes at the slightest hint of the fact that we fly something like the Raptor. The rich get richer .

 

I grew up flying cessnas and pipers, and have flown the DA-20, T-6II, T-38, F-16, and have since moved on to another jet. Given that the most recent two jets I've flown are FLCS controlled, I don't base my opinions about this game on them at all. I've also had the pleasure of flying a few hours in a Stearman and the original T-6s. Additionally, some dudes in my sq own high-powered Cubs, which are a blast to fly.

 

I've already stated my opinions about the game in previous threads. I think 80% of BOS is really well done in terms of flight modeling, for the record. Some tweaks just need to be made and it'll be an even better CFS.

 

I'll leave my opinion at that, however, lest the experts come out and tell me I'm a poor pilot and can't fly properly.

 

PS - I fly with a Warthog.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Sokol1]

 

 

I'll leave my opinion at that, however, lest the experts come out and tell me I'm a poor pilot and can't fly properly. 

PS - I fly with a Warthog. 

 

Maybe they say... because your Warthog dont have that 15/20cm extension. 

[Eckhart]

Maybe they say... because your Warthog dont have that 15/20cm extension. 

I have to agree: size does matter   and I am a very lucky guy flying with one the rare Schreinerschmid KG-3 replica sticks (compares to the standard market sticks like an Aston Martin to a Hyundai).

Another thing I wanted to point out: IL-2 veterans will remember Eric Brown's setting for IL-2. Eric Brown was a test pilot who has flown almost all existing WWII fighters. He pointed out that in order to get a more realistic flight behaviour with the old IL-2 flight model and those short sticks, sensitivity needed to be tuned down significantly and that in general no pilot would fly all the time close to the edge of the enveloppe.

Here is an old thread from 2004!: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/191081-2004-interesting-thread-eric-brown-comments-on-FB

 

The new IL-2 has a much better flight model but something similar needs to be done for you guys with the short sticks

 

Cheers,

Eckhart

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by Eckhart

[Sokol1]

This Eric Brown profile don't make much success with "il-2 dogfighter's" at time - some continued preferring their "unrealistic" 100/100 curve profiles. 

[GP*]

Wow, moving this to the bug reports section really killed this thread.