War Thunder FM

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Flight_model_creation

[SharpeXB]

Nice documents. I played War Thunder for about 4 minutes before I couldn't take the gamey flight model anymore. It has nice graphics though.

[Feathered_IV]

I wouldn't mind the flight models so much if it wasn't for the crazy planesets.  I downloaded it the other day and it was Spitfire IX's over Khalkhin Gol and I-153 vs F-86 Sabre.  Its just bonkers.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That had to be a long time ago. And had to be arcade. In simulation it would be far closer to reality. Although there are still weird situations with Me 262 fighting some post war jets. The whole match making is a mess. But cant recall seeing such bad situations, not at least in 1.5 year. Earlier that could happen as arcade was total mess.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well not too long ago me and my mates too our rank 1 germans out (He 51 and co). Just for fun. Until we were shot down by british rank III spitfires and Typhoon before even reaching the combat zone...

 

The matchmakign in WT is bad and there are numberous rumors float around it. One is that WT "punishes" good players/squads by assinging them a higher player rating (which is added to the plane's rating for matchmaking). So at some point you'll start to mainly face superiour adversaris despite flying the very same plane as before. At the same time bad players will enjoy the benefit of lower battle rating and can troll anyone else with superiour aircraft.

 

Our squad is still pretty effective in WT given the long years of expirience we have, but we all noticed facing generally higher ranked adversirys more and more commonly. I don't even believe there's any sufisticated MM and always eyeroll when my mates debate 0.x battlerank differneces.

 

Their way of "statistical balance" has raised more rage than anythign else but they feel fine doing it.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

the fm of wt is ridiculous

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders..

No one

 

Granted, BoS does not provide any methods to collect data to even begin to show how accurate the FMs are.. Like War Thunder does.. There is a 3rd party tool for DCS that will allow data to be collected, but as noted above, no one had provided anything that could be remotely considered proof the BoS or DCS flight modeling is better than War Thunders..

 

Which is not surprising when you consider the FACT that the math of a 6DOF flight simulation model has existed for years, decades even and that it has been implemented on the PC for decades in all sorts of languages, One of the earlier examples being the 6DOF flight simulation code of the F16 written in FORTRAN.

 

In light of that FACT, I find it hard to believe that any flight sim maker would have a hard time implementing a 6DOF flight simulation model that is vastly different from another.. math is math.

 

Thus the only real root of error is in coefficients and data put into the 6DOF flight simulation code.. ie garbage in garbage out.

 

For example..

 

Lets assume for a moment that DCS's flight model results in a 2% error with regards to real world airplane performance data..

 

Hey that is great!

 

And lets also assume that War Thunder's flight model result in a 5% error with regards to real world airplane performance data..

 

Based on that, one could make the argument that DCS is 'better'..

 

But, now take into consideration the 'game' as a whole..

 

DCS and BoS have very Very VERY limited plane sets and maps..

 

That is to say, HOW REAL can a simulation be of a WWII event using DCS or BoS?

 

Answer

 

Not that real..

 

Where as with War Thunder you can 'do more' to simulate a WWII event..

 

Ill take that over a few percentage point differences in flight modeling accuracy any day..

 

And this argument is not new..

 

It is the SAME argument the old IL-2 users are pointing out relative to the new IL-2 BoS and soon to be BoM..

 

Where they will suffer the older graphics but be able to choose from hundreds of planes and dozens of maps..

That had to be a long time ago. And had to be arcade. In simulation it would be far closer to reality.

Bingo!

 

First time I tried WarThunder a few years ago.. I have to admit I did NOT put much effort into figuring out what was going on.. And I was tossed into one of those arcade scenarios where it was very Very VERY Quakie.. Than recently, just about a month ago, I saw a few people here talking about War Thunder and the tank simulation portion of it.. And so I took another look and put a little more effort into it this time.. Where not only did I fall in love with the tank simulation portin, but I realized the simulation mode of the flight sim side is pretty dam good too

[SOLIDKREATE]

I quit WT and never looked back. I play IL-2 CloD, 1946 and BOS now. I have DCS but I am waiting for the WW2 planes sets to fill up. I own the P-51D and the Fw-190D-9. I also have the A-10C as well.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

in wt if you fully pull the controls nothing happens, the only way to stall is zoom up and let the plane bleed off all energy

Not true..

 

At least not in simulation mode, thus you must be arcade mode.. And just about every sim that offers an arcade mode disables stalls when in arcade mode.

 

this is ridiculuos as fm and intended as to let highly unskilled people be able to fly even with a thumbstick

I would agree if that was the case, but as noted above, that is not the case

[361fundahl]

Yeah I don't think I ever got to try sim mode either... Do they disable the mouse mode and the dot that tells you where to shoot in simulation mode?

 

It was so easy shooting planes down with mouse mode and lead dot...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Do they disable the mouse mode and the dot that tells you where to shoot in simulation mode?

Not sure what mouse mode means.. Do you mean flying the plane using a mouse instead of a joystick? If so, you can disable the mouse and use joystick only via the settings.. Keep in mind, War Thunder has a butt load of settings! Took me awhile to figure out how to disable the mouse, and, it is a good thing to do, because when I first started playing WarThunder planes, I noticed that each time I banked the plane, it had a tendency to want to right it self back to level.. which is really noticeable with a force feedback joystick like I have, and real annoying.. Well, turns out it was due to having more than one device set up to fly the plane.. And in this case once I disabled the mouse from being able to control the plane, that problem went away! I was just about to give up too and proclaim their was something wrong with the flight model.. But, a little voice inside my head told me to keep looking, because there was just no way the FM could be THAT WRONG!

 

I guess the moral of the story here is.. Don't give up too soon, you get out of it what you put into it

 

As for the aim circle, yes, that is disabled in simulation mode.

 

It was so easy shooting planes down with mouse mode and lead dot...

Agreed, but, it is beneficial to 'see' it.. Because I did learn something from 'seeing' it that being I was NOT using enough 'lead' on my shots! 20+ years of flight simming and it took arcade mode to 'TEACH' me something, thus the moral of the story here is, you may want to try the arcade mode just to see what you can learn from it.. Granted, it is like dating fat chicks and riding vespas.. They are fun, but you don't want your friends to see you doing it.. So I recommend only doing it off line!

oh good to know maybe i should try it again

I also recommend you check out the War Thunder FORUMS.. They will love you over there!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

anyway i hope its promotion by you is not from being discouraged from bos

Nope, not discourage with BoS at all.. Nor am I discouraged with other flight sims like DCS..

 

They all have their own strengths ans weaknesses. BoS and DCS just have a different 'focus' than WarThunder..

 

My only point is too many people here make the mistake of 'thinking' BoS and DCS have a far superior flight model.. And by playing BoS and DCS makes them 'better' pilots than WarThunder pilots.. Or should I say makes them 'think' they stand the chance of going back in time and being a better realistic pilot, or worse yet makes them 'think' they stand a better chance of jumping into a real WWII airplane and flying to near the edge of the envelope..

 

Which is just silly IMHO. They are all games!

 

So in light of the fact that the FM code has been around for decades and provided in many books and white papers, it would be silly to think BoS or DCS is doing something to the 6DOF code that makes their FM vastly better than the others. What really sets one flight sim game maker 'feeling of flight' apart from another is their implementation of the departure code, damage code, ai code, etc..

 

Thus it really comes down to game play!

 

As in which one of these 'games' do you have more fun playing?

 

And what with DCS and BoS limited plane set and maps.. At the moment I personally am having more fun playing the 10 year old IL2 with mods and WarThunder.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Your confusing a 6DOF view system with a 6DOF flight model.. This thread is in regards to flight models not the view system

[361fundahl]

I was just flying the ka-50 last night in dcs and finally figured out how to use the cyclic, collective and throttle properly.... Then finally turned on the gun can auto track and setup a target with the helmet sight... The ppartial auto aim Russian cannon is just so awesome in DCS.

 

So yeah point is, I can truly appreciate both DCS study sim now that I took the time, and hopefully build appreciation for WT planes once I get some sim rounds in

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I play both WT and BoS, more BoS than WT, these last weeks... Flying mostly Jabo with the Fw 190A-3.

 

What i really like in WT, is that i can discuss with FM designers about any plane, by private messages, when there's an issue in a plane that he made, and showing him what's wrong in the data sheet he published.

 

In BoS..? No word from the devs about the data they used to make a FM, which is something very, very frustrating when you know that i've not put a single $€ in WT...

 

For example, how the hell could i show that LaGG-3 and La-5 roll rate are wrong in BoS, if i don't even know what data they've used to make them ? (because yes, they obviously are, and by a good margin)

 

Just an example...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

What i really like in WT, is that i can discuss with FM designers about any plane, by private messages, when there's an issue in a plane that he made, and showing him what's wrong in the data sheet he published.

 

In BoS..? No word from the devs about the data they used to make a FM, which is something very, very frustrating when you know that i've not put a single $€ in WT...

Yup..

 

War Thunder, Aces High, and some other sims go to great lengths to provide the user with the 'target' flight model performance data (rate of climb, speed per altitude, etc).. Not sure about Aces High, but War Thunder even provides a method to collect this data during flight much like the original IL2 did via the Device Link interface and like Cliffs of Dover did via the C# interface.. So 1C at least has a history of providing a method of collecting flight data during testing. Granted 1C's history of providing the 'target' flight performance data is to not provide it.. Unless you consider Oleg helping the original maker of the 3rd party program IL2Compare as 1C involvement. Sadly, 777 history is even worse, on both fronts, Rise of Flight provides no method of collecting data during flight and provides no 'target' flight performance data, and sadly with the merger of 1C and 777 that appears to be the 'new way' of doing things.

 

I suspect the reason 777 never provide this info is due to the fact that it takes time and effort to do it, but sadly many here, even some of the moderators, think the reason they don't provide it is to protect the flight modeling code.. Which is just silly in light of the fact that the math of a 6DOF flight model is documented and available to anyone who wants to implement one. Granted 1C/777 has done some 'research' on aircraft 'data' and I can fully understand why they would not want to give that away, in that it cost time and money to do that sort of research, but that kind of 'data' is the kind of data they use to derive the coefficients and parameter used as inputs to a 6DOF flight model (cg, mass, thrust, etc) where as the 'target' performance data is the 'output' of the 6DOF flight model and what the user 'sees' and can compare to real world performance data.

 

And for all those reason is why I have to laugh a little when someone here claims the BoS flight model is 'better' than <insert other flight sim>'s flight model.. In light of the fact that even in this forum, we can find posts where one person did a test and said 'it' was correct and another person did a test and said 'it' was NOT correct.. Where neither of them provided anything that anyone would consider as proof of either claim.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

A perfect example of which I speak is active right now in this forum, ie

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16318-eric-winkle-brown-his-own-words/

 

Where each group pick and chooses the pilot accounts that match what they 'want to believe' which becomes more of a popularity contest approach to flight modeling as opposed to just dealing directly with the 'target' performance data..

 

It would be so funny, if it wasnt so sad

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That is why I believe in math and physics, the numbers have no emotions and cant lie. Only one who provided them might not be telling the truth, might made a mistake or had a false data. 

I would use pilot accounts to verify a work, but not as a base of something. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Both is important. Numbers need to be read with reason. I remember many occasions of such abuses but I wont get into it.

 

If you have a number without any description of the circumstances of the test it was gained with it is nearly useless.

 

Only few things like mass, geometry ect can be taken easily, most of the others need to be reviewed, in some cases questioned and compared to others. Which is the most difficult part considering many aircraft are unsufficiently documented these days (as example i could not manage to find a solid power curve for the Bristol Hercules engines for months).

 

Things lime specific observations (exame: critic / stall speed behaviour, ground handling, rudder forces) are important as well to take into consideration. Either they are detailed reports like it is for stall behaviour usually - than you should try to replicate it as realisticly as possible. Or it is just a note from a test pilot declaring it a destinctive behaviourbwithout great intel - than the designers general knowledge of aviation, aerodynamics and interpretation is required.

 

As unimportant as this "anecdotal data" seems as important it is in defini.g a planes characteristics. Which is less important/more time consuming if you have 300 of them unlike BoS for example.

 

NDA rules arw taken very seriously and FM designers were prohobited of sharing any insight. It stunns me hearing this changed, but be it. As you pointed out its better, more productive than mystery and rumour surrounding silence.

 

Anyway don't overestimate the Dagar engine. Their FM engine is good and extendet continuesly, but it is not as complex in all categories as BoS's engine might be.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

That is why I believe in math and physics, the numbers have no emotions and cant lie. Only one who provided them might not be telling the truth, might made a mistake or had a false data.

Agreed 100%

 

I would use pilot accounts to verify a work, but not as a base of something.

Disagree 100%

 

unless the pilot account is that of the test pilot accounts that accompanies the test data that was collected during the flight the pilot was commenting (accounting) on.

 

If you have a number without any description of the circumstances of the test it was gained with it is nearly useless.

Agreed 100%

 

But most if not all performance testing where data (read numbers) were logged provide a detailed description of the test.. Which is why real world performance test data is so necessary for validating a flight model, and is also the reason why pilot accounts are so worthless, in that they typically provide NO information as to the state of their plane let along the state of the plane they are making retaliative references too.

[SharpeXB]

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders..

Hahahahahaha aw stop you're making it come out my nose! Hahahaha

 

You mean "no one" besides The Fighter Collection that owns real P-51s.

 

Yeah I'm sure WT researched the accurate FMs for 500 some aircraft for their free game as accurately as DCS does.

 

Bwahahaha that's funny...

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, to give a credit - P-51Ds were few of better flight models. Not DCS quality but since I know the person who made them and how he made them ... it was a high quality job. 

If you want to look for examples of flying bugs than see N1K2-J or more like couple of older flight models. Until this patch Typhoons were one big flying bug. There is quite a bit of that stuff there. And bombers are whole new experience to that too

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Or the rubberbanding J2M4

 

To add to my previous coment most plames in WT feel very similar and feauture very little - if any - distinctive character. Especially things like stall behaviour and ground handling (sure latter is not that important but it matters as well) are more uniform among all aircraft with some exeptions due to FM bugs.

 

In most cases you can even tell who desinged them when flying 2 aircraft with very similar characteristics, which only differ in performance. But than again they have hundrets of planes to compensate for this lack of fidelity, although not to everybodies satisfaction.

 

As far as the pure "feeling" goes BoS beats WT hands down, although the weirdly overdone rudder induced roll action bugs me still. No clue why RoF and BoS are the only sims simulating this at such a extreme extent, which from my expirience is plenly wrrong.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Or the rubberbanding J2M4

 

Not even a word Dennis

There are less data for it than I have expected, I dont even know on what they based the turbocharger XD

 

 

 

Especially things like stall behaviour

This somehow improves, they use far more sophisticated tools now, only problem might be now human factor - if they can use them properly.

 

 

 

ground handling

That was never a case for Wt, technically you dont taxi your warbird so there was little to nothing to care about. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Hahahahahaha aw stop you're making it come out my nose! Hahahaha

 

You mean "no one" besides The Fighter Collection that owns real P-51s.

 

Yeah I'm sure WT researched the accurate FMs for 500 some aircraft for their free game as accurately as DCS does.

 

Bwahahaha that's funny...

And

 

Well, to give a credit - P-51Ds were few of better flight models. Not DCS quality but since I know the person who made them and how he made them ... it was a high quality job.

Hey guys..

 

Going to use you hear to make a point..

 

No offence!

 

To all take a look at SharpeXB's post wrt WT FM than take a look at Hiromachi's post wrt WT FM..

 

Note

• SharpeXB would have you believe the WT FM is a joke!
• Hiromachi would have you believe the WT FM is pretty good!

So, who to believe? 

 

Should we take a poll as to who is more 'popular' here and use that to decide who to believe?

 

Before you answer...

 

Also note that neither of them provided anything to support their claims..

 

Basically they are both asking you to 'have faith' in what they say..

 

That is my point!

 

When I said "No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders."

 

Which SharpXB found so funny, but actually proved my point in doing so.

 

Hope that helps!

 

PS I realise that some of you claim to have NDR in place, and this is not meant to draw you out.. I simply pointing out that "No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders." Which is not to say the WT FM is as good as the others, only that "No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders."

 

Hope that helps!

Edited May 18, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

People confuse stuff easily. Infact the FM engine of WT is quite good. It does lack certain hings more realistic sims have but it still is very capeable if it is utilized properly.

 

FMs in the other hand are seperate for each aircraft. They utilize functions of the FM engien by assinging them values. If FMs are off even the best FM engine can't compensate for that.

 

Infact you can tell the FM quality difference clearly from most panes in WT. Haven't flown the P-51 lately but the Emil seemd very nicely done since when I flew it last time. But than there are looping Flying Fortresses and 15 G-turn pulling Spitfires and so on.

 

WT is a too big project to be kept uniform.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

People confuse stuff easily.

Which is understandable..

 

People making claims about FM accuracy is similar to people who witness a crime..

 

When the cops show up an interview the 15 people who saw the crime, they typically end up with 15 different stories..

 

What I am pointing out here, is no one has provided the 'security camera' view of the crime scene..

 

All we have is people asking us to believe what they saw..

 

Which is fine, for some..

 

But I personally am of the 'show me' mind set.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Infact you can tell the FM quality difference clearly from most panes in WT. Haven't flown the P-51 lately but the Emil seemd very nicely done since when I flew it last time. But than there are looping Flying Fortresses and 15 G-turn pulling Spitfires and so on.

Dont know about Spitfires, they were made by same guy who made P-51Ds but lately were totally messed.

 

And there was a better thing, a P-26 Peashooter could hold up to 24 Gs ^^

 

 

 

What I am pointing out here, is no one has provided the 'security camera' view of the crime scene..

Because no one has desire to ? It would take too much effort to prove something some do not really care anymore. Me or Dennis could possibly prove it even easier but we were both involved in the project and there was that little thing called NDA. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Because no one has desire to ?

Maybe..

 

But what ever the reason is..

 

All I know for sure is

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

As for desire to do it..

 

Many say it is easy to do..

 

Just like many say it would be easy to collect and compile all the WWII combat pilot reports into some sort of useful informational data base..

 

And they have been saying that ever since I started playing flight sims some 20+ years ago..

 

Yet no one has done it..

 

Which leads me to believe it is certainly not easy to do, and I submit not doable..

 

But, flight simulation verification is a doable thing..

 

It is just not an easy to do as some would believe..

 

And most don't realize how hard it is to do until they try!

 

Thus all we are left with is believing those who say the things we want to believe..

 

Which is most likely the root of why most if not all FM discussion contain plenty of faith based emotional responses and very little if any data that can be reviewed and re-tested for to see if it is repeatable (scientific method)

 

At least that is how it has been for the past 20+ years of flight simming, and sadly I don't see it changing any time soon.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

.

Yea right:

 

https://m.youtube.com/?hl=pl&gl=PL#/watch?v=-B9XpiViAv0

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Yea right:

Glad you agree with me! S!

 

LOL!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Best troll on the forum by miles :D

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Sad when the facts get confused for trolling

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Guys it was a joke....

 

I'm not saying that your way of seeing FM verification and reporting was wrong.

 

The way I see it is that a good Fm dev can deal with any critique. Infact he definetly should as only a selected group of guys within the comunity are able to point out certain issues in a scientific way that shows clear facts as proofs.

 

Some issues though should (not to say can't) require numerical proofing. Actu examples would be the non-linear throttle bug on the G-2 in BoS and the rubberbanding-effect due to wrong CoM and CoL placements on planes in WT.

 

In an optim scebario a reported FM bug gets checked and verified by special alpha/FM testers, who pass it on to the devs with their own gathered data. Than the dev analyses the issue, checks the FM and recalculates values that may.cause this issue. If an error is detected the issue gets fixed. If not he may close the report and explain why the data gathered in the report is unsufficient/false.

 

Unfortunately this is just the ideal sceario and far from what we currently have in BoS.

 

And as a engineering professor of one of my squad mates once said, "dont get in love with your math". Reason and practical expiriences of aerodynamics tell a lot of things math can't and agood FM dev knows how to use them combined with proper maths for the best, most realistic FM.

 

If I can take a judge from an engineer or a real pilot of a certain FM I take the pilot one's. To each his own.

[361fundahl]

If the end result is off then the math is wrong.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Guys it was a joke....

Roger that Stab, I knew 'you' were!

 

If I can take a judge from an engineer or a real pilot of a certain FM I take the pilot one's. To each his own.

I don't care if it is the high school janitor, just as long as they can provide proof of it, documented in such a way as what they did can be reviewed and the test procedure reproduced.. As the scientific method requires.

 

Put another way, asking me to have 'faith' in what they say just becuse they have a title of engineer, pilot, president, etc means nothing to me.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

Poor Lemsko, I cant imagine how painful that had to be ...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I don't know of anyone claiming the WarThunder FM is without bugs..

 

I know I am not saying that..

 

With that said, I think it is safe to say that all flight sims have had similar bugs at one time or another..

 

And glaring bugs is not what I am talking about, any noob can find those, and those are not the type of bugs people get their panties in a wad about..

 

What I have been referring to in this thread from the start is the accuracy of the flight model with regards to real world performance numbers (ROC, TSPA, RR, etc)..

 

 

Where people are talking/arguing/debating differences in the +/-5% range.

 

I thought that was clear from my post(s) but based on your post, I can see it needs to be said again.

 

Hope that helps

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

War Thunder has generally 3 parameters measured by testers in flight model testing - TAS at given altitudes, Time to Altitude and Stall speeds. They are compared to the datasheet issued by the developer. This way it often ends with flight tester finding them in accordance with datasheet but the matter is that flight model might not be correct at all.

Its like the FM is at first glance looking correct, speed is ok, time to altitude (given by the developer) is ok, stall speeds are also ok ... and yet everything else just screams "I'm a bug", a totally overdone stiffening of F4U which cant pull out of dives, a stiffening of J2M3 elevator, absurd spins, those are just examples.

 

So if you are only thinking of flight performance, and you will test and stay on the three mentioned above ... mostly you will be satisfied. But that does not mean its correct flight model. 3 parameters is not much. At some point P-51 D was meeting over 30 parameters, but that was a mentioned by me example of a great FM. 

 

Hope that explains

Edited May 19, 2015 by =LD=Hiromachi

[SharpeXB]

Yup..War Thunder, Aces High, and some other sims go to great lengths to provide the user with the 'target' flight model performance data (rate of climb, speed per altitude, etc).. Not sure about Aces High, but War Thunder even provides a method to collect this data during flight much like the original IL2 did via the Device Link interface and like Cliffs of Dover did via the C# interface.. So 1C at least has a history of providing a method of collecting flight data during testing. Granted 1C's history of providing the 'target' flight performance data is to not provide it.. Unless you consider Oleg helping the original maker of the 3rd party program IL2Compare as 1C involvement. Sadly, 777 history is even worse, on both fronts, Rise of Flight provides no method of collecting data during flight and provides no 'target' flight performance data, and sadly with the merger of 1C and 777 that appears to be the 'new way' of doing things.I suspect the reason 777 never provide this info is due to the fact that it takes time and effort to do it, but sadly many here, even some of the moderators, think the reason they don't provide it is to protect the flight modeling code.. Which is just silly in light of the fact that the math of a 6DOF flight model is documented and available to anyone who wants to implement one. Granted 1C/777 has done some 'research' on aircraft 'data' and I can fully understand why they would not want to give that away, in that it cost time and money to do that sort of research, but that kind of 'data' is the kind of data they use to derive the coefficients and parameter used as inputs to a 6DOF flight model (cg, mass, thrust, etc) where as the 'target' performance data is the 'output' of the 6DOF flight model and what the user 'sees' and can compare to real world performance data.And for all those reason is why I have to laugh a little when someone here claims the BoS flight model is 'better' than <insert other flight sim>'s flight model.. In light of the fact that even in this forum, we can find posts where one person did a test and said 'it' was correct and another person did a test and said 'it' was NOT correct.. Where neither of them provided anything that anyone would consider as proof of either claim.

See Forum Rule #18

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v102/