Control sensitivities

[HagarTheHorrible]

I glanced at a topic over on the DCS pages, talking about the Spitfire V and IX.  In the thread the person who is responsible for the upcoming aircraft's FM suggested that it would be seriously demanding to fly, mainly it seems, because of the aircraft's control sensitivity amongst other things.  Evidently the Spitfire only requires 3/4" joystick travel for manoeuvres as opposed to a more normal 4".  From what I understand the DCS P51 is already challenging to fly and the Spitfire will be more so. The DCS Spitfire builders are evidently fastidious in their attention to detail.

 

I have to say though that it doesn't sound like the Spitfire I've read about down through the years.  I considered this while I bicycled home from work this evening.  Many of you, if not all, I'm sure, have ridden a bike, you will have no doubt also noticed that in most instances in order to steer you don't really steer at all, it is almost a thought process rather than an action. The movements, the lean, the slight turn of the handle bars are almost imperceptible to a casual observer, you do it almost without thinking.  That sums up for me, from what I have read and listened to, the method for controlling a Spitfire.  It wasn't a taciturn, overly sensitive, monster, it was like wearing an extension of one's own body, you didn't so much as "Do" as "Thought", just like when staring a bike.

 

The question is how does this translate into a flight sim such as BoS ?  It's all very well providing curves and responses in the settings and I'm sure this can help level out the differences between joysticks, but presumably it can also modify the feel of the aircraft, away from that intended by the developer and how do you implement something like the subtleties of manoeuvring when the method by which you manoeuvre is less about how far the joystick travels and more about an almost imperceptible thought and feel, that defined the aircraft that you are trying to emulate ? 

 

I expect the controls section of the UI in BoS will be very much the same as in RoF, possibly with a tweak here and there, I sincerely hope that they can ensure that playing with these settings won't undo all the hard work the developers put in to trying to get the right "feel" for each of the aircraft.

 

[DD_bongodriver]

Quite right, this is where they have to be really careful, the Spit was neutrally stable and therefore sensitive, but just as you describe the pilot had great feedback and could in reality control it easily, but with the limitations of our PC peripheral joysticks this might prove the opposite and render the whole experience a catastrophe, this applies to all sims.

Edited October 11, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Yep, the problem lies in our sticks not having the same throw as the real thing, plus of course the physical feedback through the aircraft, the seat of the pants feeling.

 

 

Edit. Bongo, im getting really freaked out now...lol

Edited October 11, 2013 by =BKHZ=Furbs

[DD_bongodriver]

Awww...let me keep her for a little while.

[Krig]

I wonder if a longer joystick will help?

 

I'm almost done with a floormounted joystick build with 36ish(can't remember now) cm stick and I can't wait for the last part to arrive in the mail so I can finally finish it!

Edited October 11, 2013 by Otyg

[Klaue]

Awww...let me keep her for a little while.

+1 it's funny as hell.Keep it.

[DD_bongodriver]

I wonder if a longer joystick will help?

 

I'm almost done with a floormounted joystick build with 36ish(can't remember now) cm stick and I can't wait for the last part to arrive in the mail so I can finally finish it!

 

We'd all love one that touches the floor......

 

But in all seriousness, I think it may be a good solution, the short throw on most flight sticks is totally out of place on a WWII simulator, combined with FF it could be OK though I imagine the FF strength would be reduced by the extra leverage on a long stick, I am thinking of doing it to my G940.

+1 it's funny as hell.Keep it.

 

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Over the summer I flew with a very well known Pitts instructor and longtime aviation writer, Budd Davisson. He's a great guy with whom to talk planes because he has flown just about everything, to include several WWII models. Now I've never flown any of these types. (Who knows? Maybe someday ill get lucky). But I do have the good fortune of owning and flying one of the most responsive and occasionally tricky airplanes ever made in numbers, the Pitts S1S. Insuring that I wouldn't kill myself in the thing is how I came to hook up with Budd. One of his favorite planes (after the Pitts of course) is the Spit. He has flown a couple of different versions but I forget which. Contrary to what might be asserted by the DCS developers, the Spit is very easy to fly--shockingly easy in fact. Budd thought it was just a wonderful machine perfectly suited to help a newly minted pilot possibly survive enough missions to actually contribute to the war. His only disappointment was the lack of harmony between the force required for aileron actuation compared to the elevator. The elevator was sensitive but not overly so. The ailerons on the other hand were quite stiff. But that was a small complaint for what is otherwise a magical machine. Developers tend to make planes harder to fly than they actually are. I don't know why that is but this has been my observation for years. I certainly believe this is true for the DCS P-51. It's excellent once it is flying but the low speed lateral instability is just stupid (Try lifting the tail at 50 mph on takeoff to see for yourself). But the non-pilot users enjoy it because they have a mythological respect for the pilots who flew these things and by making them difficult, developers help feed that myth. I won't claim that that the RoF models are accurate, but they definitely fly like airplanes which has always led me to believe that they are mostly pretty close. I hope that this tradition continues with IL2. Flying with a PC is hard enough without having to deal with an unrealistically hard model as well.

 

It is certainly true that the short throw and lack of feel (INCLUDING FFB) is a serious limitation. But it is one we have all learned to deal with. And compared with the lack of acceleration feel its not the biggest limitation we have as virtual pilots. To the devs: don't worry about it! You worry about what happens when a surface is displaced, not what the user had to do to displace it. Full stick gets full displacement. Neutral gets trimmed displacement. That's all that matters.

Edited October 12, 2013 by SmokinHole

[Sokol1]

Important notice that Spit IX (that should by modeled) is a very different animal than I/II.

 

Bader describe that a finger pressure over Spit I "spade" change his course.

 

And people claim to pilot this things with... "gamepad".

 

Sokol1

[69th_chuter]

I agree with SmokinHole.  The biggest difference I find between flying a real plane and flying on the computer, as far as controls go, is that in a real plane I fly largely by applied force and response and on the computer it tends to be control position and response.  (Car sims have the same problem with, particularly, the brake pedal, braking amount is more about force applied than actual pedal position.)  I find the bicycle analogy interesting but, as a sport motorcyclist, at odds with the canyon carving I do where the rapid counter-steering required for sudden transitions can wear me out way too quickly - lol.

 

 

PS.  There was an F-16 pilot (Lt. Col. Dave Thole) who flew a P-51 for the first time expecting it to have light, thought following flight controls but was struck by how stiff they were.  He wondered what all those WW2/Korean vets were thinking when they described the Mustang as they did but then realized, within the context of WW2 technology, they were probably right.  Now, he says, whenever he hears someone describe an aircraft's flight characteristics the first thing that comes to his mind is "compared to what".  http://www.flyingmag.com/aircrafts/pistons/jet-jockey-flies-p-51-mustang

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Not a pilot myself but got a chance to fly a F/A-18D from the backseat some years ago. Remembering that it struck why we have it so difficult to fly: lack of the forces affecting you and the plane. It is totally different to sit in the real deal and have the feel what the thing does and how it feels on you(that 7G+ was tingling ). We can make movements on control sticks real pilots can't and adjust our response curves and whatnot. Also we do not get tired while flying as the veterans did thus affecting their ability to fly and fight. That IMHO is the biggest factor why we always have these endless debates of FM. We just do not have a clue and base all our assumptions how the plane behaves on our screen and what we have read or heard. The truth is different and can vary depending on the pilot..

[SKG51_robtek]

S!

 

 Not a pilot myself but got a chance to fly a F/A-18D from the backseat some years ago. Remembering that it struck why we have it so difficult to fly: lack of the forces affecting you and the plane. It is totally different to sit in the real deal and have the feel what the thing does and how it feels on you(that 7G+ was tingling ). We can make movements on control sticks real pilots can't and adjust our response curves and whatnot. Also we do not get tired while flying as the veterans did thus affecting their ability to fly and fight. That IMHO is the biggest factor why we always have these endless debates of FM. We just do not have a clue and base all our assumptions how the plane behaves on our screen and what we have read or heard. The truth is different and can vary depending on the pilot..

Agree!

Next discussion should be (again?!) about to implement fatigue in game !

I know, i know, everybody is different, impossible to realize with so many variations, etc, etc...

BUT, a generalized fatigue model, as almost all pilots then were trained young man, improving with stick time and depending on the g-load would imo be very much better as not to model it at all.

It would certainly bring down the endless turn & burn dogfights to a more realistic level and it would introduce the need to keep some reserves for emergencies, or one would be a sitting duck.

My 2 cents.

[Dakpilot]

This is a very interesting subject and does bring into question the rather large "elephant in the room" question when it comes to flight sims and realism. Obviously control inputs from a desk joystick will be different to actual movements of the real thing, control inputs can be adjusted and set to give a more accurate feel of the A/C in question, but this will always be subjective and how many people have experience to provide the relevant info anyway?

But they can also be adjusted to give ponderous handling A/C razor sharp reactions with tiny control inputs. I am sure for online competitive combat, control curves etc. are set up to give you the most advantage, understandable, but realistic? not very, Gaming the game? perhaps but certainly not frowned upon.

I once read an article about a real very experienced DC-3 pilot  comparing flying the real A/C and flying an "accurate" (civil) flight sim version. After a lot of control input manipulation and setting up large dead zones he was able to fairly well re-create the handling to be pretty faithful to the real thing.

At the opposite scale you would also be able to make this same A/C handle like a fighter (within the limits of the FM) although this example may seem to have little relevance to combat flight sims iI think you can get my general point.

 

With the need for all flight sims to be usable with the multitude of controllers available how is it possible to achieve a "realistic" or authentic flight characteristic for just one A/C let alone many. Everyone will be flying an aircraft with a set up "Feel" that suits them rather than a reproduction of accuracy of input forces.

This is a problem of all Flight Sims and not directed at any particular one. When flying online against an opponent unrealistic control inputs have far more reaching effects than small errors in FM modelling, you are fighting with oranges against apples even when two people are using identical A/C.

 

This is all a personal thing in how you like to fly in a "sim" but adjustable flight characteristics as regard to control input were not available to the real Pilots, they had to get on with the job with the equipment they had however badly they handled. 

This for me is one problem that i dont see easily solved unless the same curves and controllers are used and set up to give an accurate portrayal of the real aircraft (obviously an impossible ideal)

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[SKG51_robtek]

Oh, i think it would be doable for the majority of players with regular, unmodded gear.

It would be expensive and very restrictive, but the game could have the stick reactions fixed with its own interface.

When the system is set up one has to move all axes to their limits and that data is used by the game.

Every input exceeding those values is ignored.

And like the example with the DC-3 pilot, the deadzones would be fixed according to the plane model used, no user input possible.

This would give a level playground.

Edited October 12, 2013 by robtek

[JtD]

I glanced at a topic over on the DCS pages, talking about the Spitfire V and IX.  In the thread the person who is responsible for the upcoming aircraft's FM suggested that it would be seriously demanding to fly, mainly it seems, because of the aircraft's control sensitivity amongst other things.  Evidently the Spitfire only requires 3/4" joystick travel for manoeuvres as opposed to a more normal 4".

Spitfire's stability is pretty old news, I find it surprising that it still causes so much excitement. Try the Spitfire V in Il-2:1946. It has a very low longitudinal stability, and a very sensitive elevator. It makes it demanding to fly, but it is far from impossible. Also, the Spitfire IX had a higher stability, because the CoG is further forward. This is also the main difference in Il-2:1946 when it comes to handling. So try swapping back and forth between Spitfire V and IX in there, and you'll see that the IX is far less difficult to control than the V. DCS is going to model a IX, and these will probably be comparable to the P-51.

 

Related, the Spitfire wasn't that exceptional in that regard. The P-39 was similar, with low stick travel at rearward CoG's, but even less stick forces, some Navy aircraft like the F6F or F4U had negative stability with heavy loadouts, which caused rearward CoG. The Fw 190 could be loaded up to neutral stability in extreme cases as could the Bf 109. The LaGG-3 in some configurations had a stability problems, the Yak-9B was notorious for it. All these were flown in service with what on the paper was borderline behaviour.

[Talisman]

Agree!

Next discussion should be (again?!) about to implement fatigue in game !

I know, i know, everybody is different, impossible to realize with so many variations, etc, etc...

BUT, a generalized fatigue model, as almost all pilots then were trained young man, improving with stick time and depending on the g-load would imo be very much better as not to model it at all.

It would certainly bring down the endless turn & burn dogfights to a more realistic level and it would introduce the need to keep some reserves for emergencies, or one would be a sitting duck.

My 2 cents.

When I have been on the PC combat flight sim for a few hours in hectic combat, sometimes involving squad co-operation flying and formation flying, I do find I get fatigued and suffer performance drop if I do not take a break (flew into a blinking windmill last night in a JU88; nice to just press re-fly and go again, unlike real life).  Of course, we experience nothing like a real pilot on the physical side, but I definitely get fatigued; ok, I'm an old git, LOL.  In short, I think I get enough fatigue to simulate fatigue, but with real fatigue, LOL.  In fact, I might be too old to safely fly my PC, hehe.

[SKG51_robtek]

@56RAFTalisman

 

i do believe there is a itsy bitsy difference between the psychical exhaustion that you experience and the physical exhaustion one experiences after some minutes of high g turns ;)

[dburne]

I glanced at a topic over on the DCS pages, talking about the Spitfire V and IX.  In the thread the person who is responsible for the upcoming aircraft's FM suggested that it would be seriously demanding to fly, mainly it seems, because of the aircraft's control sensitivity amongst other things.  Evidently the Spitfire only requires 3/4" joystick travel for manoeuvres as opposed to a more normal 4".  From what I understand the DCS P51 is already challenging to fly and the Spitfire will be more so. The DCS Spitfire builders are evidently fastidious in their attention to detail.

 

 

My opinion on this , and I may very well be in the minority here - if they make the WWII birds as difficult to get a handle on and fly, as they do some of their other modules - like A-10C and Black Shark, I may have to just stay away from it. I mean really, the learning curve on those is extremely steep - and long. I do not necessarily want to be fighting just to maintain control of my plane when I am trying to engage in a dogfight. I don't really want to spend hours upon  hours, learning how to start from cold and dark, like I have done with A-10C. Yes they are study sims, and for me they have somewhat a place, but much more of my attention is steered toward ROF and  Cliffs of Dover. I found the learning curve in these sims, about on par with what I would expect and one I could handle without spending a ton of time just trying to get my arms wrapped around them - and I still continue to learn something with both of them, and having a blast doing so.

 

I am sure there are many that really like it as hardcore as they can get it, and love having to go through all the steps and learning just how to handle those things - like I say I may be in the minority. But if is that hardcore I will not be as excited - and I did contribute a fair amount to the kickstarter.

 

Based on what ROF is, and from what I am seeing of BOS, it looks like it is going to be right up my alley as far as difficulty level. 

 

Edit: Heck I have the DCS P51 module installed, guess I could give it a go and see just how difficult it will be for me to get a handle on ...

Edited October 12, 2013 by dburnette

[76SQN-FatherTed]

 

 

Edit: Heck I have the DCS P51 module installed, guess I could give it a go and see just how difficult it will be for me to get a handle on ...

 

I'd class myself as a competent IL2 1946 pilot (but not fighter-pilot) and I found the DCS P51 very difficult, at least initially.  Slowly coming to grips with it, but it really needs to be handled with kid-gloves.  At this point, some readers of this post will be thinking, "It's realistic, it's supposed to be hard".  Is that actually logical?  We're hard-wired into that belief, i.e. that if a sim's any good it must be difficult, but why should that be true?

 

As a counterpoint to that, II read a throw-away comment in a BoB pilot's memoirs (will try to find the quote) which was along the lines of:  the Spit is a wonderful plane to fly, if you are a good pilot.  Received wisdom is that it responded almost to the pilot's wishes, but maybe that testimony just comes from successful pilots - maybe we shouldn't  expect that all sim "pilots" should find the Spit a "delight to fly".

[SKG51_robtek]

One thing is for shure, if there is the time and money to create the maximal complexity, it can always be dumbed down to cater all tastes. Impossible the other way around.

[56RAF_klem]

The post over at DCS refers to the PC joystick input relative to the real size control column and the difference in FM response between similar movement on each. It simply means that a standard joystick is likely to give more response for the same physical movement as the full sized control. Even putting aside the 'real flying' aspect and thinking only about PC flight sims, I regularly jump into a full size EE Lightning sim (Prepare3D, FSX as was) as well as flying the same FM at home on my PC (FSX). A 10mm movement in the cockpit allows fine control while my X52 gives more input for 10mm movement (although the X52 is perfectly ok for providing those same fine inputs but with less travel). The X52 travel is about 6 inches whole the cockpit joystick is at least double that. That's the point.

 

There is nothing wrong with making curve adjustments if they seem to give a more 'realistic' response but of course the curve passes through the mid point and gradually recovers to the full values to bring ever increasing response to inputs as the larger deflections begin to 'catch up' with the full output range. In some sims, like DCS, it is possible to reduce those full values too,

 

The DCS P51-D is not especially hard to fly. It is sensitive to a PC joystick around the centre position and I have put in a curve (value ~ 20) and have slightly reduced the output values for full deflection because I simply never go there with my joystick, even in combat maneouvres. Is that real? Of course not because I don't know what 'real' is for the P51-D although the DCS P51-D was 'passed' by Nick Grey and even 'The Horsemen' were impressed (one using an X52).

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111388

 

So, for a desktop joystick I like to think that the curves are a bit more realistic than the bare X52/Windows input values.

 

Bottom line? It isn't ever likely to be 'real' with a PC simulator and especially a PC joystick. As has been pointed out, apart from deflection/response aspects, we don't get the physical feedback or "control loading" that you get in an aircraft (even FFB won't be that accurate) or the realistic feedback that is possible in a professional flight simulator.

 

As for that DC3, it must have been an old sim. Modern professional simulators are that good you can learn to fly the aircraft and, technically, be qualified to walk straight onto the flight deck of a wide bodied jet and fly it. Not as first officer of course.

[DD_bongodriver]

be qualified to walk straight onto the flight deck of a wide bodied jet and fly it. Not as first officer of course

 

 

Not sure what you mean here, you can qualify on type and fly as captain as long as you hold an ATPL and do the check ride left hand seat, if you have a CPL then you can only fly as first officer.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I wonder if a distinction has to be made between "lightness" and "sensitivity" and if "lightness" is used, what distinguishes it from "sensitivity" ?

 

If a Spitfire is defined by being light on the controls then I imagine it is a bit like a bicycle.  The relative movement for most flying is exceptionally small, possibly almost negligible, but at the same time it is very easy to control and certainly not overly sensitive to control inputs.  That is not to suggest that there are times when more is required of the aircraft than simply flying from A to B and then the controls might have a completely different feel as the extremes are explored.

 

I don't imagine that flying a WWII front line fighter was easy, but I think that the difficulty was down to other things such as engine and fuel management, navigation and weather and last but not least combat skills whether that be technical, tactical or strategic.

[DD_bongodriver]

in the Spitfires case it's sensitivity comes from it's neutral stability, basically meaning it has little to no damping and in some cases divergent, it wasn't so much light on the controls but rather you got a lot of pitch for little stick movement, in reality the controls were stiff enough to give a desirable resistance to overdoing it, something that our PC flight sticks will struggle to replicate.

[56RAF_klem]

Not sure what you mean here, you can qualify on type and fly as captain as long as you hold an ATPL and do the check ride left hand seat, if you have a CPL then you can only fly as first officer.

 

Sorry bd, I was really referring to the fidelity of flight sims today. The DC3 story about setting dead zones etc to make the sim fly like the real thing isn't necessary or relative today when simulators are built to represent accurately a specific tail number of a commercial aircraft based on flight data from that aircraft.

 

There was always the occasional client pilot who felt things needed tweaking to suit his experience (and cause a lot of extra cost!) but I think that's gone out of the window now because it was subjective and in any case would only be related to his experience flying other tail numbers. A sim today is sufficiently representative of aircraft type to bring the student to a safe flyng level but specifically only truly accurate for the tail number used. The airline specifies the tail number and that's what they are buying.

[56RAF_klem]

in the Spitfires case it's sensitivity comes from it's neutral stability, basically meaning it has little to no damping and in some cases divergent, it wasn't so much light on the controls but rather you got a lot of pitch for little stick movement, in reality the controls were stiff enough to give a desirable resistance to overdoing it, something that our PC flight sticks will struggle to replicate.

 

I asked a friend of mine about this, he used to maintain and fly the back seat of the Grace Spitfire on longer journeys. I asked about the pressure on the stick in normal flight, was it light to the touch etc. He said there was of course sufficient force to keep it in place but he could fly it with just finger and thumb. That's just gently flying it around, not extreme maneouvres or air combat! And he confirmed it was sensitive, even using that old adage that if you wanted to turn left you almost only had to look to the left.

[DD_bongodriver]

Hi Klem, there may be a slight terminology barrier going on, are you from the US? as I understand it 'tail number' is reference to what we call 'registration' here in the UK, in which case we are talking about a specific individual aircraft rather than the type? this sounds unfamiliar to me as we never configure the simulator to use data from an individual aircraft, they are always generic based on manufacturers AFM, in some cases there are physical differences in the actual cockpit, I know many of the type I fly have vast differences  that way but all aircrews are trained on the same simulator and the only tweaking it gets is changing between pounds/Kgs config for the fuel.

Edited October 13, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Agree!

Next discussion should be (again?!) about to implement fatigue in game !

I know, i know, everybody is different, impossible to realize with so many variations, etc, etc...

BUT, a generalized fatigue model, as almost all pilots then were trained young man, improving with stick time and depending on the g-load would imo be very much better as not to model it at all.

It would certainly bring down the endless turn & burn dogfights to a more realistic level and it would introduce the need to keep some reserves for emergencies, or one would be a sitting duck.

My 2 cents.

 

Couldn't agree more. Zac posted a poll about this but I think many people mistook it for purely sound effects of heavy breathing etc. Fatigue in game would be a major strep forward in combat flight sims.

[Matt]

I'm using a Warthog with 7,5 cm stick extension and don't have any problems flying the DCS P-51.

 

I guess with a shorter stick with less throw, I would've needed curves though, to make it less sensitive around the center position.

 

Overall, a longer throw makes flying easier, but might be of a disadvantage in some combat maneuvers like scissors.

[JtD]

Another thing to consider with the Spitfire controls, and possibly a lot of other aircraft, is that input and reaction aren't linear. This is pretty well documented for the Spitfires ailerons, for example. Looking at the NACA test, you can see that a roll at ~20°/s at 300 mph needed a stick force of about 4lb, but if you wanted to roll five times as fast, you needed ten times the stick force. Other (British) sources give similar characteristics, though the figures may vary. Now for todays peacetime display or transit flying, just like wartime formation flying, you'll hardly ever need truly high roll rates. These will be limited to rare exceptions in some combat or emergency situations, and most pilots assessment of control heaviness will be based on the low forces necessary for low roll rates. This was already noticed in wartime, where for example pilots transiting between P-40 and Hurricane/Spitfire aircraft, usually commented on the lightness of the ailerons on the British aircraft, even though the P-40 could easily outroll them at higher speeds, where control forces are the limiting factor.

[56RAF_klem]

Hi Klem, there may be a slight terminology barrier going on, are you from the US? as I understand it 'tail number' is reference to what we call 'registration' here in the UK, in which case we are talking about a specific individual aircraft rather than the type? this sounds unfamiliar to me as we never configure the simulator to use data from an individual aircraft, they are always generic based on manufacturers AFM, in some cases there are physical differences in the actual cockpit, I know many of the type I fly have vast differences  that way but all aircrews are trained on the same simulator and the only tweaking it gets is changing between pounds/Kgs config for the fuel.

 

Hi bd, I'm in the UK. The simulation company I worked for called it a Tail Number, perhaps a follow on from the a/c manufacturer's terminolgy (Boeing, Airbus etc). It was even put on the factory info board which gave passers by an idea of what was being built but we are talking about the same thing, it was tailored to a specific aircraft and was considered faithful enough to the type (e.g. B737NG-800) for training purposes even though the real things sometimes had their own little foibles. Sometimes a sim would be built re-configurable between -numbers (-700,-800 etc) and a couple of Helicopter sims had roll-in/roll-out flight decks for different helicopter types but all FMs etc were based on actual aircraft data. I wasn't on the design side but I am sure the data used was collected from the specific aircraft. I didn't think that kind of data was readily user-configurable, unlike fuel and passenger loads, fault events etc. Of course if waiting for aircraft data during a/c development they would work with computer predicted data, as happened with the Dreamliner delays, and correct it later.

 

I will say this though, the company I worked for had, long before I joined them 25 years ago (I'm retired now), fallen into the trap of tailoring the sim to a specific customers final wishes including changes following those pilot-approval type checks. I did hear that some other sim manufacturers did adopt a more 'generic' approach along the lines of "this is what you get, no arguments, it's a bloody B737-300!", but nicely put. They must have had a/c data from somewhere and it sounded a much more sensible approach.

Edited October 13, 2013 by klem

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Also got the DCS P51D module. It feels strange, especially rudder input and how plane responds to yaw. Hard to explain, but the plane feels very reluctant to yaw input in certain maneuvers. For example on that track you have to fly between houses etc. it is very pronounced when trying to make those turns. Maybe need an extension like mentioned above to my TM Warthog..