What's the wobbling thing ?

[SharpeXB]

I dont think so!

 

Well many if not most of the FM complaints aren't due to players comparisons with their real life warbirds they fly. Their complaints are due to comparing how these planes fly in another game. Edited December 16, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Sparviero_ITA]

Well many if not most of the FM complaints aren't due to players comparisons with their real life warbirds they fly. Their complaints are due to comparing how these planes fly in another game.

 

When a person takes a discussion referring to a fact ,commonly, he "must" take a reference as example of reference...right?

Before you told me that, unfortunately, this is not real life but just a PC game, and it's not possible make a comparison about real world,and we are become accustomed to old model games,when instead BoS get the enchanted about last generation physics.

 

Unfortunately we aren't talking about real flying here, we're talking about computer games. .

 

Therefore i am  bringing examples of other games of the same kind of last generation,as the new DCS 2.0 engine physics, and now you reply that I have spoken to other games such as comparison and therefore not valid for the purpose of a judgment.

Now, tell me what you would like as reliable terms of comparison about BF 109 in BoS,and let me see what I can do to satisfy your request,but dont ask me to exume Von Erich Alfred Hartmann for a interview about ...how it should behave that plane because it is not possible!.... And even if it were possible,if i know you,it's  probably that you will replay that he is not more reliable because he is too old...and he does not remember anything! :D

 

I am not here to convince anyone my friend, i'm just saying what I feel from my own personal experience,as so many users here,and just like you, about their own beliefs, there is nothing that can make change my mind,if not the actual facts relatively speaking in terms of a SIM.

 

BoS would have all the credentials to become something superlative,just if the developers found a way for mutual cooperation whit us,to make it grow in step by step...but if they wont go straight as bull after it seen the red cloth (...commercial interests ?)...the countdown for the simmer users it's behind the corner, in primis in MP.

 

My 2 Cent.

Over and out.

 

..just in case about my peripherals flight :

 

http://s1.postimg.org/3yuksm70u/Postazione.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/lvhpxljkc/Pedaliera_Front.jpg

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[EAF_51_FOX]

When a person takes a discussion referring to a fact ,commonly, he "must" take a reference as example of reference...right?

Before you told me that, unfortunately, this is not real life but just a PC game, and it's not possible make a comparison about real world,and we are become accustomed to old model games,when instead BoS get the enchanted about last generation physics.

 

 

Therefore i am  bringing examples of other games of the same kind of last generation,as the new DCS 2.0 engine physics, and now you reply that I have spoken to other games such as comparison and therefore not valid for the purpose of a judgment.

Now, tell me what you would like as reliable terms of comparison about BF 109 in BoS,and let me see what I can do to satisfy your request,but dont ask me to exume Von Erich Alfred Hartmann for a interview about ...how it should behave that plane because it is not possible!  :D

 

I am not here to convince anyone my friend, i'm just saying what I feel from my own personal experience,and just like you, on my beliefs, there is nothing that can make change my mind,if not the actual facts relatively speaking in terms of a SIM.

 

BoS would have all the credentials to become something superlative if there was a mutual cooperation in making it grow,but going just in one way is not a successful tactic for anyone.

 

 

Over and out.

 

+ 1 !!...

[Guest deleted@50488]

I play BoS with the mouse from now on, when I play it...

 

The mouse turns out to give less wobbling, at least in pitch, for any aircraft....

 

Even landing is a lot less bouncing...

 

So... it appears to me that this mouse FBW approach implemented in IL-2 BoS gives us very precise inputs, that iron out the oscillations we see when using controllers...

Edited December 16, 2015 by JCOMM

[Nonolem]

I am not a pilot IRL, but I think this "rubber band" effect is due to inertia and your joystick's capacities.

For inertia, here is a small drawing about what I think about it :

 

 

(Sorry, I am not good at drawing).

 

If you push back slowly your joystick untill the two directions coincide (your flying direction and your sight), you won't have any "rubber band" effect. I think it is what is happening almost naturally IRL. But if your joystick has a big neutral zone, or a non linear response around the neutral zone, you will see this effect, because at some point your rudders will brutally go back to the neutral position (which is almost impossible IRL, I think).

Also, what was mentioned above about the trim modifying the stick neutral position IRL, and not in any sims makes a lot of sense. But I think that what I wrote above is the main effect...

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nonolem

[dburne]

I play BoS with the mouse from now on, when I play it...

 

The mouse turns out to give less wobbling, at least in pitch, for any aircraft....

 

[SharpeXB]

 BoS would have all the credentials to become something superlative,just if the developers found a way for mutual cooperation whit us,to make it grow in step by step...

There are plenty of examples of the devs incorporating community feedback for improving the game and even adjusting physics and models etc. But as stated previously this feedback of the FM has to be more specific than "wobbling" and has to be correct with sources. They can't change the game constantly based upon the personal whim of one player or another.

[Sparviero_ITA]

I am not a pilot IRL, but I think this "rubber band" effect is due to inertia and your joystick's capacities.

 

For inertia, here is a small drawing about what I think about it :

 

Rubber.jpg

 

(Sorry, I am not good at drawing).

 

If you push back slowly your joystick untill the two directions coincide (your flying direction and your sight), you won't have any "rubber band" effect. I think it is what is happening almost naturally IRL. But if your joystick has a big neutral zone, or a non linear response around the neutral zone, you will see this effect, because at some point your rudders will brutally go back to the neutral position (which is almost impossible IRL, I think).

 

Also, what was mentioned above about the trim modifying the stick neutral position IRL, and not in any sims makes a lot of sense. But I think that what I wrote above is the main effect...

 

Hi

 

I would add one thing to your intresting speech.

 

If you try to test the setting axis in the game, you'll see that when you feel the stroke of the pitch axis, it's practically impossible not to enable also the roll axis,even if you think instead of making a straight line movement of joystick to 100%.

 

This means that it's not important how precise we can believe to enabled a perfect straight line whit on a nose up or swoop,it's will always operated a rolling effect, and vice versa when you will operate to the roll axis respect to the pitch axis.

 

I'm saying this simply because a setting filtered ,as for example 70% sensibilty in pitch, and default setting in Roll ,the pitch axis will also bring an impediment in the action of the roll from his center of the joystick,whit a feeling too smooth to the center, and  when you will move away a little bit more, in one fell swoop, the roll effect come out very sudden.

In other world.....the axis Y-X dosent work independently, but whit a slightest movement of the opposite axis which can vary from 3% to 8%..which is not little!

 

The only way to eliminate that effect could be to enable a great dead zone center to Y-X axis like 6-8%...this however at the expense of a good reactivity of the aircraft...of course!

 

regard

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[Potenz]

funny is that some of us doesn't experience "the wobbling" so, it's more of some people 

that fly pushing the stick all over than more to do with a in game Bug.

[Sparviero_ITA]

funny is that some of us doesn't experience "the wobbling" so, it's more of some people 

that fly pushing the stick all over than more to do with a in game Bug.

 

????????

 

If you play whit the YAK 1, for example,you will fly like a sweet dream = no Woobling = very stable.

Infact the woobling experience it's very pronounced just for German fighters....that's the problem !

And who are that...some of us?...you and ?

 

PS.

 

I use the cloche with movements very soft ,plus i get the extension stick about 12 cm on my Warthog....and if you check my profile around SIM you should know that i'm not a rookie!

 

Anyway...Hasta luego hermano!

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[Nonolem]

????????

 

If you play whit the YAK 1, for example,you will fly like a sweet dream = no Woobling = very stable.

Infact the woobling experience it's very pronounced just for German fighters....that's the problem !

And who is that...some of us?...you and ?

 

I use the cloche with movements very soft ,plus i get the extension stick about 12 cm on my Warthog.

 

 

Because I disagree, to be sure, I just launch the game and made some tests with the Yak and the F4. What I feel is that the Yak wobbles even more than the F4 on pitch axis ("rubber band" effect). The 109 is less stable than the Yak on the vertical axis (which is historical, as far as I know), that's all.

 

This "rubber band" effect doesn't affect me because I think it's rather accurate, due to the inertia of those heavy planes, as I have posted just above. It's easy to deal with it, also.

 

But this just illustrate how all these discussions are subjective... and endless...

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nonolem

[dburne]

funny is that some of us doesn't experience "the wobbling" so, it's more of some people 

that fly pushing the stick all over than more to do with a in game Bug.

 

Probably from all these years I have been flying LOL.

Strange it does not happen to me in other sims... but certainly is interesting that some apparently do not see this affect on the Y axis.

 

Pretty sure this is a debate that would never end, and probably is no right or wrong answer to it either.

[Sparviero_ITA]

There are plenty of examples of the devs incorporating community feedback for improving the game and even adjusting physics and models etc. But as stated previously this feedback of the FM has to be more specific than "wobbling" and has to be correct with sources. They can't change the game constantly based upon the personal whim of one player or another.

 

 

 

Ok....You convinced me ....it's just my imagination,a poor attitude to flight simulator, and a huge waste of time to be here to explain what somebody does not want to understand.

Happy Chritmas and happy New Year for the...2017!

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Because I disagree, to be sure, I just launch the game and made some tests with the Yak and the F4. What I feel is that the Yak wobbles even more than the F4 on pitch axis ("rubber band" effect). The 109 is less stable than the Yak on the vertical axis (which is historical, as far as I know), that's all.

 

This "rubber band" effect doesn't affect me because I think it's rather accurate, due to the inertia of those heavy planes, as I have posted just above. It's easy to deal with it, also.

 

But this just illustrate how all these discussions are subjective... and endless...

First of all you need to make sure your settings are natural, means 0% sensetivity and no noise filter. Otherwise a comparison doesnt make sense.

 

Second, what you described above in your graphic, even though in unscientific terms, is quite correct. However, you seem to have a different understanding of the word "inertia".

 

Inertia is mass related and acts as a damping factor for accelerations and decellerations. Incase of pitch movements this means when initiating your stick input the nose will slowly accelerate to it's full travel speed due to mass inertia of the aircraft. When centering your stick after for example pulling the aircraft into a climb, mass inertia dampens.the decelleration of the nose from full travel speed to 0. You can say it helps pushing the nose further than you actually pulled.

 

Mass inertia has nothing to do with trim or airspeed. It's related to accelerations = mass * force.

 

Also, what seems to not be clear to everyone, increasing the pitch angle of the airfoil results in increased lift. If you pull the aircraft into a climb from 300 km/h trimmed level flight and keep your airspeed steady the nose should not drop due to increased ammounts of lift (only accounts for aircraft with CoL infront of the CoM). It should rather have a pitch up tendency.

 

The behaviour ingame can be observed in an extreme on Canard wing aircraft like the Eurofighter. They're very manouvreable because their aerodynamics allow them to pull the nose way ahaead of theirn actual flight path.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

First of all you need to make sure your settings are natural, means 0% sensetivity and no noise filter.

 

Also for a short spring centered joystick there is no natural setting. The only realistic way to test something like this would be a full length FFB stick.

 

And on the subject of inertia. When you pull the plane into a climb, all the inertia is not in the direction of the nose. Much of it is going forward with your velocity, which is of course why you're pushed down in the seat with Gs. If you are pulling 2Gs in a climb and let go of the stick. Guaranteed it will pull you back down.

Edited December 16, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Guys,

 

now that I am playing IL-2 BoS using only mouse for input of stick and rudder, I checked the commands that the "fbw" logic inputs to those controls in the cockpit...

 

For those of you complaining about some of us using way to much the stick ( and rudder ), which is ridiculous specially when told from a non RW pilot to a RW pilot with many years and hours of flying real aircraft..., just take some time, enable mouse control, and check what your artificial pilot's inputs are... They look like coming from a Break Dance class :-)

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Also for a short spring centered joystick there is no natural setting. The only realistic way to test something like this would be a full length FFB stick.

 

And on the subject of inertia. When you pull the plane into a climb, all the inertia is not in the direction of the nose. Much of it is going forward with your velocity, which is of course why you're pushed down in the seat with Gs. If you are pulling 2Gs in a climb and let go of the stick. Guaranteed it will pull you back down.

You have a very weird physical understanding I can not comprehend nor see relevant discussing.

 

And we don't need full lengh stick to test plane behaviour ingame. Full lengh stick = increased physical sensetivity won't make FMs different, only your sensation.

[dburne]

You have a very weird physical understanding I can not comprehend nor see relevant discussing.

 

And we don't need full lengh stick to test plane behaviour ingame. Full lengh stick = increased physical sensetivity won't make FMs different, only your sensation.

 

Whew, glad I am not the only one.

[216th_Jordan]

Well, the best way to continue with this problem is a physical explanation that can be looked at and calculated. You say its a damping issue: Can you draw a picture of all the forces that apply to a plane durning a manouver and the damping coefficients translated into counter-forces to make all this mess a little bit more understandable? As I see it now everybody talks into empty space trying to convince the opposing view with little to no effect.

[dburne]

 As I see it now everybody talks into empty space trying to convince the opposing view with little to no effect.

 

Naw, I think everyone here understands they are not going to convince the others that the behavior exists or not. Just that they are seeing the behavior or non-behavior themselves.

[Nonolem]

First of all you need to make sure your settings are natural, means 0% sensetivity and no noise filter. Otherwise a comparison doesnt make sense.

 

Second, what you described above in your graphic, even though in unscientific terms, is quite correct. However, you seem to have a different understanding of the word "inertia"...

 

 

I am teaching physics.   I know perfectly what inertia is.

 

 

And on the subject of inertia. When you pull the plane into a climb, all the inertia is not in the direction of the nose. Much of it is going forward with your velocity, which is of course why you're pushed down in the seat with Gs. If you are pulling 2Gs in a climb and let go of the stick. Guaranteed it will pull you back down.

 

Exactly. What is modestly explained with my crappy drawing.

 

 

You have a very weird physical understanding I can not comprehend nor see relevant discussing.

 

And we don't need full lengh stick to test plane behaviour ingame. Full lengh stick = increased physical sensetivity won't make FMs different, only your sensation.

 

No, you have not understood what we are talking about. You forgot the first newton law, also called "Law of Inertia" : a massive mobile object has a tendancy to going on on a straight line. This applies very well to a heavy airplane flying at high speed. So well that you can perform a "belly crash", when your plane hit the ground whereas your nose is already pointing horizontaly, when you try to pull out of a dive.

 

But what you wrote about inertia is also true. For me, it explains some oscillations on our simulated planes.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nonolem

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well you are talking about a different thing than. Inertia effects in the vertical do not interferr with ones on the horizontal plane.

 

As soon as you accelerate an object inertia comes into play, no matter how fast it is and where it's going. But something about directional stability caused by mass inertia is indeed relevant, namely when completeing the change in pitch and releasing the pressure. Which causes "nose-banding" ingame unless you keep pulling slightly for at least another second after completeing the pitch change. Ang again, that does totally not go along with what I expirienced.

 

Sry if you felt offended, I coudln't quite see what you meant exactly.

[SharpeXB]

And we don't need full lengh stick to test plane behaviour ingame. Full lengh stick = increased physical sensetivity won't make FMs different, only your sensation.

If you want to reduce the sensitivity to the controls that you feel in the game, realistically. Yes you need an full length stick.

And in order to simulate the correct effect of a neutral control position you would need FFB

you're right, all the stick extension does is change the sensitivity. But part of this problem is the ability of a player with a small stick to put too much force on the controls in a way they'd be unable or unlikely to do in reality.

[Nonolem]

Well you are talking about a different thing than. Inertia effects in the vertical do not interferr with ones on the horizontal plane.

 

As soon as you accelerate an object inertia comes into play, no matter how fast it is and where it's going. But something about directional stability caused by mass inertia is indeed relevant, namely when completeing the change in pitch and releasing the pressure. Which causes "nose-banding" ingame unless you keep pulling slightly for at least another second after completeing the pitch change. Ang again, that does totally not go along with what I expirienced.

 

Sry if you felt offended, I coudln't quite see what you meant exactly.

 

I was not offended.

 

OK, let's talk about physics and maths :

 

You are talking about the Newton's second law of motion, I was talking about the first :

 

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

 

Second law: The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma. (Bold letters are vectors).

 

In these two laws, inertia plays a significant role. The first is also called in French "Principe d'inertie", which doesn't need any translation. The first is in fact included in the second, and I was writing about it because it is simplier and sufficient for what I meant. So let's talk about the second, because you were referring to it :

 

F = ma, where a is a vector, if you want to change its direction, you need to apply a force. To be more precise, a force perpendicular to the direction of the motion will change the direction of the motion, a force collinear to this direction will change object's velocity. So, if you apply a force in any direction, you can decompose it in two perpendicular directions : one tangential which changes object velocity, one perpendicular which changes direction of the motion.

 

And here we are : if you change the direction of your plane, the motion has a tendency to go on in its original direction, because of inertia. You have changed the direction of your plane, but your plane will fly in the direction of its nose after a delay, the necessary delay for all the forces which apply on your plane, and which make it fly straight, change its direction.

 

It was I meant. I made a crappy drawing to avoid a long discourse, and I failed.

 

To sum it up : Imagine that you are driving your car on ice : you are slipping every time you are changing your direction. A plane flies this way.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nonolem

[von_Tom]

 

I had a wobbling thing today. Creme brûlée but with alcohol in it. Very nice it was too.

 

von Tom

[Potenz]

????????

 

If you play whit the YAK 1, for example,you will fly like a sweet dream = no Woobling = very stable.

Infact the woobling experience it's very pronounced just for German fighters....that's the problem !

And who are that...some of us?...you and ?

 

PS.

 

I use the cloche with movements very soft ,plus i get the extension stick about 12 cm on my Warthog....and if you check my profile around SIM you should know that i'm not a rookie!

 

Anyway...Hasta luego hermano!

I fly only german fighters and i.experience no wobbling, with a stock x52, dunno why some people has it, but many other don't

[SharpeXB]

The physics involved are easy to understand as they apply to the cars and bicycles we all drive.

Let go of the wheel of your car in a turn and watch what happens. Your car will "Rubberband"

Edited December 16, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Matt]

Actually, if you "let go" of your joystick, you're not "letting go" of the stick. The spring is effective quickly moving the elevator back to center position. You're always giving input on the stick (and elevator), as soon as it moves, doesn't matter if you move it or if you let the spring move it.

 

With a FFB, it's a bit different, but the FFB is not perfect. In any case, i use an FFB2 with maximum force setting when maneuvering with the Fw 190 (as in those videos), i barely use more than 20% of the avaliable pitch axis travel, which feels very natural with the relatively strong stick forces at higher speeds (i wish it would be a bit stronger still). I don't think you need an FFB stick to get better control, but setting a curve on the pitch axis could really help here. And iirc, the default '46 axis controls were curve shaped and not linear, unlike the default setup in BoS. Not sure how that is in CloD though. Trimming the stabilzer helps too.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Matt

[Nonolem]

I fly only german fighters and i.experience no wobbling, with a stock x52, dunno why some people has it, but many other don't

 

I think it is because you have no dead zone around the neutral position of your joystick. So when you push back your stick after you have pull it, the simulated rudders fully react linearly in real time to both movements. In short, your rudders are going back slowly to the neutral position while your plane is slowly entering in its trajectory  (because of inertia, blabla, the nose of your plane is not initially in the direction of your motion...).

 

If you have a dead zone, you pull your stick, and when you release the pressure on it, the rudder brutally goes back to neutral when it enters into the dead zone. The plane is pushed back in the direction of its motion, because there is no more stimulation to continue in its nose direction, where your sight is headed.

 

Sorry if I am not very clear, it's a bit difficult for me in English...

 

After a test with the Windows 7 tool (which you will find under "Printer and Peripherals", or something like that in your langage), I saw that my (not so good but not so bad also) Saitek Aviator has a very small dead zone, so a little of rubber band for me (nothing very annoying, as I said above, it's easy to deal with it).

 

If I am correct, those with this kind of problem will see a dead zone around neutral position when testing their stick.

[Sparviero_ITA]

I am still follow this thread ,and your intresting lesson about the aerodynamic forces..or whatever you want to call it.

 

I think you miss something really much more basic and easy to understand even for non-college graduates in this field.

How many planes have you never flown in your real life?
And how many of you have approved the feeling you get to fly in BoS?
It's not important if you have piloted a real BF 109 or Cesna 172,when you fly you can feel it...any model it to be.

 

What is lacking completely in this game is the mass of the aircraft supporting, and then the movement which is carried out on the cloche-joystick, or steering wheel, not proportionate to the speed of the aircraft.
Also they are penalized, with other mysterious forces, some aircraft, which make it even more absurd the already problematic in basic flight.

It's completely useless to take the historical archives of a model airplane if it completely misses the basis of it....ie must simulate the flight of an airplane, and not that of a kite.

Once you reach it, you can also begin to the personalization of each model of airplane, the famous historical archives, to enter its characteristics.

 

But I do not think that really interests this topic, because you're missing in a thousand speeches that are excellent in terms of preparation for a thesis, but poor in the practical field....or in this case...the virtual SIM.

At the moment i have only two hours of flight with my flight instructor, but if I had the feeling that gives me this game in real life, i would have vomited after five minutes of flight,whereas the feeling is beautiful and fulfilling.

Flying is like driving a car, it is intuitive if you have a minimum of coordination and knowledge of the vehicle, or aircraft, in question.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

To sum it up : Imagine that you are driving your car on ice : you are slipping every time you are changing your direction. A plane flies this way.

Of course you are all right about that. I don't quite think directional stability is effecting flight as you think it might be though. Anyway it's leading a bit off topic and I don't want to raise more confusion.

 

The physics involved are easy to understand as they apply to the cars and bicycles we all drive.

Let go of the wheel of your car in a turn and watch what happens. Your car will "Rubberband"

Feel free to "test" it.  And no, dircetional stability is nto the only thing involved in "rubberbanding". Comparing a car to an aircraft is nothing but a worthy comparison.

 

Anyway, I think this is enought from my side. Peshoon and me recorded videos of both BoS and DCS demonstrating the issue, andyw even recorded real footage and wrote a report about his expirience. Anybody who steps in and is interested in the original discussion may feel free to dig them up in the 1-2 pages posted before.

 

And no, nothing posted in here may change devs minds to rework all FMs. Infact, if anybody in here had the ultimate proof at hand, why should he bother sharing it in here, only to be continuously discredited by some desperate individuals (not you Nololem )?

[indiaciki]

That's why ROF has fantastic calibration curves. I really don't know why they are missing in BOS. 

[Nonolem]

Baracca,

 

I am not sure if I clearly understand you, but I think that, au contraire, the modelisation of the masses in motion (inertia, again) in both RoF and BoS is very good. There is a lot of maths behind this. For me, the feeling of flight is there in Bos, for sure. I don't know for DCS, I haven't tryed it, but I can no more play with IL2/1946 or CloD because I feel that the physic of flight is completely outdated in these sims... And, no, I haven't piloted anything, not even a model. It's only subjectivity.

[GP*]

1) If DCS can make for a realistic flying experience with the "limitations" of joysticks, why can't IL2?

 

2) All that diagram shows is that angle of attack is increased as you pull, and that angle equates to the difference between the flight path of the aircraft and the nose position (longitudinal axis) of the aircraft. I appreciate you trying to contribute to the discussion, but this is incredibly obvious to the experienced flight simmers and real life pilots who are trying to address the issue here. Of course the AoA will return to what's required for the last trimmed position once the stick is returned to a neutral position. What matters is that when controls are released back to neutral, there's unrealistic wandering/wobbling of the nose, and it's most apparent in the yaw axis. I think rubber banding is a poor word to describe it.

 

Seriously, if you don't have any real world time under your belt, you should probably read more than post to not dilute the efforts of those who are trying to come to a consensus regarding what exactly is going on here.

[SharpeXB]

Comparing a car to an aircraft is nothing but a worthy comparison.

 

A PC sim is like driving your car with a small 8" dia. steering wheel that has no force feedback and a spring that centers it when you let go.

[Sokol1]

Back in teens days people use this minimalist steering wheels to drive their ... VW Beetle, they say that improve their "turn ratio".

 

 

[Sparviero_ITA]

Baracca,

 

I am not sure if I clearly understand you, but I think that, au contraire, the modelisation of the masses in motion (inertia, again) in both RoF and BoS is very good. There is a lot of maths behind this. For me, the feeling of flight is there in Bos, for sure. I don't know for DCS, I haven't tryed it, but I can no more play with IL2/1946 or CloD because I feel that the physic of flight is completely outdated in these sims... And, no, I haven't piloted anything, not even a model. It's only subjectivity.

I know what you talking about,but belivme,no one planes in real life get that inexplicable behavior, except for a weight absurd in the fuselage,and then we talk about center of gravity, or poorly designed aircraft.

 

In its simplicity, in this regard IL2 CoD, has a flight pattern that gives the more satisfaction in flight navigation, even if compared to BoS, it's lacking other factors which are instead present in the title in question....of course.

If I should choose ,i prefer something more simple, but well done, that something more advanced, but poorly developed.

 

.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[Tomsk]

I think you miss something really much more basic and easy to understand even for non-college graduates in this field.How many planes have you never flown in your real life?And how many of you have approved the feeling you get to fly in BoS?It's not important if you have piloted a real BF 109 or Cesna 172,when you fly you can feel it...any model it to be.

 

What is lacking completely in this game is the mass of the aircraft supporting, and then the movement which is carried out on the cloche-joystick, or steering wheel, not proportionate to the speed of the aircraft.Also they are penalized, with other mysterious forces, some aircraft, which make it even more absurd the already problematic in basic flight.

It's completely useless to take the historical archives of a model airplane if it completely misses the basis of it....ie must simulate the flight of an airplane, and not that of a kite

+1 !

 

This is what I'd like to hear: feedback from people who have actual flying experience, and comparing the sense of flight in BoS to other sims. I think that's a really good basis for working out whether we have a problem or not. We could argue around maths and joystick curves forever, but it gets us nowhere.

 

I have no real flight experience, but I find it really interesting you talk about lack of feeling of mass. This was exactly my sense coming from other flight sims: DCS, original IL-2, CloD and MSFS. All of these sims no doubt have their failings in terms of flight model, but for me the sense of masslessness is fairly unique to BoS. So I would be really interested whether real world pilots have the same sense that I do, or not :-)

Edited December 17, 2015 by Tomsk

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

 

 

but for me the sense of masslessness is fairly unique to BoS. So I would be really interested whether real world pilots have the same sense that I do, or not :-)

 

Exactly !

[Guest deleted@50488]

As a RL pilot, I have reaffirm that, BoS has most of it's flight modeling designed in a way that brings me the closest feel of being there in Any sim I used / use.

 

I use DCS, and that's my preferred flightsim platform ath the moment, though, because there are features in that sim in terms of interaction with aircraft systems, and even attention to aircraft performance and limitations that I do not find so accurately modeled in BoS, but then again, in DCS I have only 3 warbirds, taking each one a lot of time to go through development, then public beta, then going final, and across these cycle they receive updates. In BoS we have a lot more of aircraft models, and each one has a lot of attention to detail given the record time the dev team develops them.

 

Regarding inertia, I really don't think there is a lack of inertia in the modeling of BoS models, quite on the contrary. While I think some prop effects are done a bit too hard, creating problems during taxi that I don't believe are as realistic as for instance I experience in DCS, truth is that OTOH the feel of inertia, and weight, when taxiing for instance any of the Bf 109s in BoS is superior to that I get from taxiing the K4 in DCS.

 

In flight, and again with the Bf 109 G2 in BoS vs the K4 in DCS, there are aspects I prefer in one sim compared to the other, like for instance the fact of not having the wobble effect in DCS, but at the same time feeling the aircraft heavier and more plausibly modeled in response to overall control inputs in BoS. 

 

I can't really say one is a winner. They're both very, VERY, good. But inertia-wise, and using the K4 vs G2 as a basis for comparison, or even the A3 vs D9 ( although the comparison is probably not so valid in this case ), overall I find it very well modeled in BoS.

 

I do not pay a lot of attention to RW data vs sim data and try to fly the models as they are in the sim, but sometimes I like to read threads where knowledgeable users comment on this or that aspects of the aircraft performance, present charts /graphs, etc... What I try is to compare my RL flight experience, and my gathered experience of 25+yrs of flight simulation to help me judge what I like and do not like in each simulator.

 

The ** only ** thing I do not like in BoS is the wobbling in the form of that rather fast return ( particularly in pitch ) to the trimmed AoA when we deflect the stick and then let go of it. Just that!  Ah... and I still think the prop effects are still a bit overdone, when, for instance, taxiing over a paved rw with the G2 or F4, at 1000 RPM, tailwheel locked, I still have to use a good deal of rudder to keep the aircraft going straight...