ZachariasX Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 The only problem with FSX are the FM-s, not on par with RoF or BoS. I disagree on that one as it is really up to each plane what it can and is suposed to do. What is more lacking in many FSX planes is convincing stall and post stall behaviour. Most planes are not tweaked for that as (much in contrast to RoF or DCS) as you don't spend yout time with a Cessna (or B17) flying her on the edge of her enveloppe. You cruise with her. So for the most part, many FMs are *very* correct as they give you realistic speed at given throttle settings, altitude and temperature. Here in BoS, thread wars are fought on how planes supposedly deviate in their speed from the real thing (usually they mean max. speed, as other throttle configuratons are hardly used here) sometimes more than 10%. How much they deviate regarding fuel in flow for respective mixture settings, no one cares. The map is so small (even in DCS) you just fill her up and fly full rich. You'll be shot down (or go for a coffee) much sooner than yopu run out of fuel. Having that correct with its "FM", that makes your B17 being in a totally different league despite its rather simplistic stall behaviour. So each does what it is suposed to do, taking just that part. Now I only wish I could bomb stuff Adding what you (we) like to FSX would make those plane modules even more expensive. But the difference between what they would be and a DCS/BoS plane would be like a BoS plane vs what we had in "Aces ove Europe"...
Reflected Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 You are quite right. As long as you don't push these planes to the limit, they fly way more realistically than anything else. Yesterday I took the P-47 up for a ride. Man, she keeps you BUSY! Intercoolers, cowling flaps, boost control... With all the add-ons and updates it also looks better than most other sims. I can only imagine to jump in one of these on an online server just like in BoS and go for a real mission with working armament. Maybe in 10-15 years we will experience something like that And no matter how logical it would be for me to fly DCS, it just doesn't cut it for me. Not in the same leag as accu sim when it comes to details.
ZachariasX Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 You are quite right. As long as you don't push these planes to the limit, they fly way more realistically than anything else. Yesterday I took the P-47 up for a ride. Man, she keeps you BUSY! Intercoolers, cowling flaps, boost control... With all the add-ons and updates it also looks better than most other sims. I can only imagine to jump in one of these on an online server just like in BoS and go for a real mission with working armament. Maybe in 10-15 years we will experience something like that And no matter how logical it would be for me to fly DCS, it just doesn't cut it for me. Not in the same leag as accu sim when it comes to details. I feel exactly the same. Actually doing combat with the Accusim P-47 I'd find somewhat scary. (But boy, that would be fun!) As you say, just regular flight regime keeps one busy enough. For me, it was really milestone when the Stratocruiser came out. That changed everything in (regular) flight simming for me. Having had most of the sims from FS1 on, they kind of started to be boring (although somewhat convenient to keep proficient at doing pattern and instrument flight during off-season time) but it was really the old IL-2 that caught my attention again (after countless hours in Falcon4.0). It made me thinking that that was the real place where the future is. But then, with the Stratocruiser, lo and behold, one could see what you really could do with FSX. Three hours of flight, nobody shooting at you but you are well entertained! It even briefs you how good you are as a pilot. But is also gives a good impression of how much one is actually asking for when asking for "the perfect FM", containing "everything". The divergence in focus of BoS for instance and Accusim planes I find ok, and it is possibly the only way to come up with a product at all. At least in the price bracket that is acceptabel in the entertainment sector. (Prepar3D Professional Plus is about $2000!) All the planes all do look nice, that is not so much of a problem these days these days anymore. But If you look on how planes are flown, then I find it reasonable to weight some parts of the FM more than others. Here in BoS, perfect engine and systems management are not so much required. Overheating and overcooling is the only reasonable error you can make in a situation where you are pushing the plane to the edge of its flight enveloppe. In FSX/P3D, you are pushing in another direction: You're pushing it to the edge of what the systems can do: Max. economy in cruise flight and flight distance, longevity of your engine etc, navigation and following flight plans. In BoS, it hardly matters if a plane is 10% faster or slower than some reference values that one might dig out. What matters is that if you put planes against each other, good FMs will result in players using the planes as they have been used that time. Apart from being pretty, that's all we need (and basically all we pay for). In RoF for instance, there was "the patch" (1.034) that affected the speed of some planes in a rather coarse way. Lots of screming is now in that forum, because the Camel is now like 15% too slow over what was reported to be its max speed. But since you're not really practising navigation (is there anyone who ever flew so long that he used up a full tank of fuel?) to stay proficient flying the real plane, I find it to be less irrelevant. When flying the planes at the edge of the enveloppe, it matters what you can do there. And the now slowed down planes are clearly behaving more plausible now, despite being too slow (in case of the Camel or Dr.I). Speed at a given power setting is not the only metric for an FM. As speed affects ALL parameters of a FM, you can make a compromise here much more readily to get the other factors more in line. In FSX, it is more important, in BoS, I feel it is not important to that extent. In this light, I find 777 is doing a great job. The planes do what they are made for in their own little world, no more, no less. You still have to switch sims though, depending on how you want to fly. But I guess we can live with that for the time being. Z
Reflected Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 This is the feeling I'm missing from BoS. CloD and DCS are closer ,but I still don't get it. The feeling that you are operating a complex, living and breathing warbird.
Dakpilot Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I am quite sure the BoS Dev's could inject that feeling.... But is anyone going to be able to pay for twenty + (and counting) BoS/BoM/Bo? aircraft modelled to that level, notwithstanding the time to build/research issue And actually have a viable and continual business model would be great if it were possible One way to cut the cost to users would be to release individual advanced FM/systems A/C that merge with the basic game so you would only need to buy the advanced A/C that you want, however I doubt that there would be enough revenue to warrant that method Cheers Dakpilot
Sokol1 Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 They don't add a "complex engine management" not because the cost (this is in some way done - automatically - in the game), but because their "new players" (and many "old") will refuse the game as "complicated".
ZachariasX Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 They don't add a "complex engine management" not because the cost (this is in some way done - automatically - in the game), but because their "new players" (and many "old") will refuse the game as "complicated". Believe me, there is a big difference between "complex engine management" in BoS/DCS and "complex engine management" in Accu-Sim planes. What is missing in the BoS flavor of "complex engine management", as I stated before, is something no-one is really looking for (even the "pros") as planes are used and flown in a rather different way. It would be a waste of time and funds to add it to BoS in an Accu-Sim way.
Sokol1 Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, your are right. But some extend control of planes functions will be well received specially for bomber pilots, to have something to do in their "boring" flights.
ZachariasX Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, your are right. But some extend control of planes functions will be well received specially for bomber pilots, to have something to do in their "boring" flights. That will be cool!
Feathered_IV Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Yes, your are right. But some extend control of planes functions will be well received specially for bomber pilots, to have something to do in their "boring" flights. A proper virtual crew who do everything from oxygen checks to navigation and chatter would be much more interesting than fussing about with little knobs and levers.
ZachariasX Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 A proper virtual crew who do everything from oxygen checks to navigation and chatter would be much more interesting than fussing about with little knobs and levers. Welcome then to the A2A Stratocruiser and the B17...
Sokol1 Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 A proper virtual crew who do everything from oxygen checks to navigation and chatter would be much more interesting than fussing about with little knobs and levers. Well, a kind of B17 II crew I bet that we never will see again in CFS*. So I hope (very little) for some levers/knobs to fiddle. * Perhaps this come in this "spacial games" in fashion.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Ok, inspired by this thread I decided to re-install FSX:SE, get my A2A installers back, and... apply the latest Accusim version over it. My tests so far reveal a very decent p51d, in many aspects, and I acknowledge some important and welcomed changes to the prop physics and feel of flight under various regimes, not only in the p51d Civil but also on both the C172 and the C182. I am very satisfied with it ! Next will be the 377, and seriously considering buying the Comanche
9./JG27golani79 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Next will be the 377, and seriously considering buying the Comanche The Comanche is a really nice module - wasn´t sure about it in the beginning because it´s a GA aircraft, but I really like it! You wont regret it
Reflected Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Welcome to the club My favorite Accu Sim aircraft is the B-17, because of the crew simulation. (I guess you get the same with the Stratocruiser). The talk to you, help you, comment, complain, find you radio broadcasts, etc...very immersive!
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Yes, the b17 has long been in my A2A 2 buy list
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 @ZachariasX a big THANK YOU for having called my attention again into FSX and A2A... I reinstalled it, installed the latest Accusim for the C172, C182 and P51dCivil, and was very positively surprised by the overall feel. It had been a long time since I last tried an Accusim model, and things have evolved a LOT in terms not only of prop effects but even, now, some additional aero calculations being brought into Accusim .
indiaciki Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) this is my A2A accu-sinm 172...raped flyght dynamics, well... I have de-installed fsx systems are great, though - not like the DCS MIG21. The carenado seneca for x-plane beats her as does the beaver and as the x-plane piper tomahawk the fsx A2A 172 trainer was adverized for its capacity to spin. they don't Edited October 17, 2015 by indiaciki
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 What's wrong with it indiaciki ? Also, you should really try the latest Accusim module. Believe me, I am a picky guy, with any sim, including XP10 ( where the torque bug has finally been isolated by Murmur !!! and Austin will fix that for 10.50... ), but Accusim's last module really convinced me. Of course I also have il2 BoS installed, as per my signature :-), and presently gave up on DCS...
Sokol1 Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Jcomm Have you seen this? http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/uploads/monthly_04_2015/post-14385-0-23056300-1428770720.jpg I do not know why , but assume that you would like.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Ehehe, I just don't know enough cyrillic... The top I can see is IL2 Sturmovik, but the 2nd line ? Ok - Battle of Stalingrad :-) I'm now a Russian officially :-) Is that your car ? Edited October 17, 2015 by jcomm
indiaciki Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) It's too linear. Like flying in a vacuum if you get what I mean. Somthing like okay i'll keep an angle of attack at 3,22 dgrees and a heading of 178,3 degrees then change to 178,6...:D Edited October 17, 2015 by indiaciki
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 That depends greatly on what kind of weather injection you'r using... Even default MSFS weather can inject good turbulence, but if you use, for instance ASN, then your ride can really become challenging. A2A is doing most of their detailed flight dynamics outside of the core of MSFS / P3D, and the engine modeling is completely independent. But of course, this is not to say I can even by far compare the final results with the degree of "feel of being there" Il2 BoS provides :-). I actually can't presently put any other sim ( well, other than Aerowinx PSX, but that's big iron... ) ahead of Il2 BoS / BoM in terms of flight dynamics...
ZachariasX Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 @ZachariasX a big THANK YOU for having called my attention again into FSX and A2A... Welcome! By now I've tried P3Dv3, and I find it another step forward. But alas, you need new installers. A2A birds (all, even WoP ones) install well into v3. You can have v2 and v3 on the same rig. this is my A2A accu-sinm 172...raped flyght dynamics, well... I have de-installed fsx What's wrong with that? Apart from the fact that you land her on the nose wheel? A2A 172 trainer was adverized for its capacity to spin. they don't Really? Mine does. Too much roll IMHO when she enters the spin, she's not directly tubling around the horizontal axis, but makes almost a full roll after the wing drops before she stably enters the spin. t's too linear. Like flying in a vacuum if you get what I mean. Somthing like okay i'll keep an angle of attack at 3,22 dgrees and a heading of 178,3 degrees then change to 178,6...:D You miss the shaking that we have in RoF and BoS? It's nothing I find very realistic. (In BoS/RoF it is convenient to make aiming hard.) If you had that kind of shaking IRL, maybe half of the people that actually do would fly airliners. For FSX etc. I find it almost better to disable turbulence, as most weather systems tend to overdo that, sometimes to an extent, where (like in the case of the A2A 172) the autopilot fails to establish a stable course. The important thing, the drift, is all there. But as said, having really some hour in sailplanes as well, seeking actually to fly there "where it is shaking", this constant rocking around like a kid in a craddle is not there. Or what is your experience jcomm? You get severe bumps when tranversing moving air masses, sometimes much more significantly than you would ever dare to have them in BoS, but once you crossed, then there is simply no such shaking. Especially the nose is not shaking that much, it is the tail (best visible inlarge planes such as airliners) that starts veering around. Go fly in the seat 1A and get a feel how much the airliner shakes when in bumpy weather, then walk to the slum in the aft of the plane and feel the shake there. A significant difference. Z
indiaciki Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 That depends greatly on what kind of weather injection you'r using... Even default MSFS weather can inject good turbulence, but if you use, for instance ASN, then your ride can really become challenging. A2A is doing most of their detailed flight dynamics outside of the core of MSFS / P3D, and the engine modeling is completely independent. But of course, this is not to say I can even by far compare the final results with the degree of "feel of being there" Il2 BoS provides :-). I actually can't presently put any other sim ( well, other than Aerowinx PSX, but that's big iron... ) ahead of Il2 BoS / BoM in terms of flight dynamics... Yes, I'm talking about the "feel". I know that you fly and I've flown as long as I remember - my father was a GA pilot and I've flown a Rockwell Commander 112 and a Beech Duchess for years myself without a PPL. To me only BOS and ROF have that - I don't know how to describe it, no matter what meteo conditions - that random "swimming" that many here on the forum call wobbling and complain about. Even DCS fails on that most of the time. Is it the flight dynamics. Maybe the planes aren't historically correct but flying itself comes very close to the real thing more than in other sims.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 Yes, I'm talking about the "feel". I know that you fly and I've flown as long as I remember - my father was a GA pilot and I've flown a Rockwell Commander 112 and a Beech Duchess for years myself without a PPL. To me only BOS and ROF have that - I don't know how to describe it, no matter what meteo conditions - that random "swimming" that many here on the forum call wobbling and complain about. Even DCS fails on that most of the time. Is it the flight dynamics. Maybe the planes aren't historically correct but flying itself comes very close to the real thing more than in other sims. I couldn't agree more - Il2 and BoS master in this area! And also in the visuals of the clouds and sky colours! It's STILL my preferred flightsim although I keep dating all of them :-)
Blooddawn1942 Posted October 27, 2015 Author Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) That looks incredible! I guess that I need to get the Flying Fortress next, since I own all the Warbirds and two GA aircraft. But I had always kind of respect of the big birds. How does the crew management with the captain of the ship add-on actually works? Edited October 27, 2015 by Blooddawn1942
Reflected Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) There isn't much of a crew management, mainly your co-pilot only. You can tell him to handle the RPM and/or the cowl flaps and/or the intercoolers. He will talk to you, call out the speed on takeoff and landing, give you advice in different situations, point out if you're doing something wrong. The engineer will also comment on the state of the engines, the gunners confirm if the gears/ flaps are up/ down. They complain if you do crazy stunts, or do a hard landing, but they also compliment you if you do things nicely. There's some random chatter about girls they met last night, or the weather. The radioman tunes in on local radio stations, and lets you know if he finds something. It can be anything from ads, songs, speech of Churchill/ Hitler/ a crime story, etc... I'm amazed how it still hasn't gotten boring/ repetitive. You can order the gunners to occupy their positions, and you'll see the turrets moving around. So while you don't get a lot of actual help from them, you really feel like you're flying with other crewmembers, and you'll never feel alone up there. You can also give control to the bombardier on the bomb run, when the c-1 autopilot is engaged. Edited October 27, 2015 by Reflected
Blooddawn1942 Posted October 27, 2015 Author Posted October 27, 2015 That sounds really great! Thanks for briefing me about the crew features! I will get the B-17 for sure. But right now I'm so busy with other stuff. Too many good things around these days.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I wonder if, just like the b377, these B-17 requires persistent huge amount of rudder during turns to coordinate ?
Reflected Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I wonder if, just like the b377, these B-17 requires persistent huge amount of rudder during turns to coordinate ? Yes, almost full...I wonder how realistic that is.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Yes, almost full...I wonder how realistic that is. Should certainly NOT be feet on floor :-) Very realistic :-) Not easy to check from there, but watch the many cockpit footage videos of B17s flying... They really use rudder! Edited October 27, 2015 by jcomm
ZachariasX Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) She (and the other A2A birds) even works in P3Dv3: The A2A input configutrator does not work for any plane yet in v3. LM broke (again!) something. But the legacy FSX planes are not "stuck" anymore on the ground. So that is a huge improvement. But... having to download all installers again for v3... once they are ready. Some are. Z Edit: PS: I need about 3/5 of rudder for a 30 deg. banked turn. So, yes, she seems to need a lot of footwork... Edited October 27, 2015 by ZachariasX
ZachariasX Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I wonder if, just like the b377, these B-17 requires persistent huge amount of rudder during turns to coordinate ? i find the B377 is not so bad with rudder, but you fly her on the autopilot anyway, there she flies coordinated turns just by turning the lever.
Dakpilot Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Never flown a B-17 but many hours on 4 engine pistons, legs get a fair workout Cheers Dakpilot
WWChunk Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 The A2A input configutrator does not work for any plane yet in v3. LM broke (again!) something... Hmmm, the input configurator on the Jug works for me in v3. The only thing missing on that plane, that I've seen anyway, is the parking brake sound..
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now