What's the wobbling thing ?

[FrankM]

Another example is the elevator. It is known that the elevator was hard to operate in the 109, when the plane flew very quickly. But it's hard to simulate. The joystick may not be difficult. Although it was difficult, it was yet not impossible! Perhaps only the German pilots were stronger. Joking aside. Any weakness of the 109 is immediately simulated as impossible.

 

The 190 was known that she was fast and agile. This is not as simulated in IL2. Again, the 190 is very sluggish and "hard" (much mass) be simulated.
Why is that? Because then maybe 190 would be too strong?
In contrast, the benefits of Russian aircraft to simulate convincingly. The disadvantages are ignored. Why is that?
 

Balancing?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Another example is the elevator. It is known that the elevator was hard to operate in the 109, when the plane flew very quickly. But it's hard to simulate. The joystick may not be difficult. Although it was difficult, it was yet not impossible! Perhaps only the German pilots were stronger. Joking aside. Any weakness of the 109 is immediately simulated as impossible.

 

The 190 was known that she was fast and agile. This is not as simulated in IL2. Again, the 190 is very sluggish and "hard" (much mass) be simulated.

Why is that? Because then maybe 190 would be too strong?

In contrast, the benefits of Russian aircraft to simulate convincingly. The disadvantages are ignored. Why is that?

 

Balancing?

 

I find the Fw190 A-3, as well as the whole family of 109s, which are actually some of the models I use the most, very maneuverable and a true  charm to fly.

 

When I pick the Russian fighters, or the P40-E, I have also a great experience, but have no chance against trained opponents on Axis fighters while when I pick the Axis side, and enter online servers where players I know as being very good, sometimes I can score on them.

 

So, IMO, I can't find any "unfair balance", at least in as far as my piloting skills go...

[Monostripezebra]

There is no perfect flight sim, and likely there never will be one...  while I always think it is good to discuss flightmodels to make improvements in theory, the practical side of the discussions often get´s a bit out of hand.. BoS models a lot of physical influences and that is great and definatly a strongpoint, but it doesn´t do that allways "correctly". To me, the overall flightfeeling in "normal" flight feels quite good, except for a few parameters like very uneven energyretention/drag and snap-rolls. 

 

Some planes like Stuka and Il2 for instance keeps energy extremly well which really allows for long engine-off glides and flaps (which on most planes are larger surfaces in the airstream then the airbrakes of Pe2 and Stuka) do not nearly produce as much as drag as they give lift. At full down, they are essentially airbrakes but not in BoS. Snap-rolling planes seems quite hard, as somehow the one-wing stall seems to have a bit of a delay.

 

Overall, it definatly feels "wobblier" then most planes I´ve flown in real life, but then again I´ve never flown a high horspower fighter or anything like it.

But "wobbly feeling" is a very unusefull feedback.. so it needs breaking up into motion-over-time-per-axis data, to me one of the most "wobbly" things is that most planes have a certain instability around the Z-axis (vertical axis) that leads to a yaw-swing of the nose. And while a yaw on aileron input (adverse yaw) is superb realistic modeling, the backswing and yaw-moments without aileron input feel weird to me. Just try that: push the stick with NO aileron whatsoever and watch how much the ball of the libellula wanders to the extremes. Together with the delay-swingback it is easy to create a pilot-induced-oscilation with very minimal stick inputs, so to me the main "wobble" is movement-coupling of transverse-axis inputs (elevator) and (delayed) vertical axis output

 

and yes, i know what a dutch roll is and so on. i´m no hero pilot but I have some flight time and some theoretical education.. as well as fun with BoS, regardless of all critique

[SharpeXB]

Everyone see this in DD120?

 

9. Correct 'jumpy' behavior of Bf 109 F4, G2 and F2 to resemble E7 behavior and check other planes;

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=326490

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Dear dr. Zebra you have good inputs. You wrote about adverse yaw. I see the ball moving but in contrary i think there is enough adverse yaw. I heard from pilots that they do not use rudder when turning. Planes do not skid or slip without rudder input. hard to judge without guts feel but its look like.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats wrong and every pilot saying so has just not learned it better.

 

Only one reason why somee people tend to call glider pilots the better. Coordinated turns is one key element every glider rooky learns in basic flight trainng.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thats wrong and every pilot saying so has just not learned it better.

 

Only one reason why somee people tend to call glider pilots the better. Coordinated turns is one key element every glider rooky learns in basic flight trainng.

 

Put that string on the ww2 fighters!!! That's it !!!

 

Ooops, can't be... they have that loud spinner in front of them :-/... Well...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Thats wrong and every pilot saying so has just not learned it better.

 

I was reffering to Virtual BoS pilots not real flying - that's what troobles me. The no need to coordinate turn with rudder in game . Edited January 25, 2016 by tomcatqw

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

There is if you want to squeez the maximum of performence out of your fighter. Also, when stallfighting, lack of rudder coordination may result in a spin.

 

With quite a few real pilots out there not knwoing how to use rudder correctly one can't expect pure sim pilots to know it better.

 

If you want to figure out how important rudder is and how much you need for coordination just do the same we do in reality, a roll exercise. Basicly you just fly straight and level rolling the aircraft left and right along it's longitudinal axis. If you use no or too less rudder the nose will begin to wander left and right. With perfect rudder coordination the nose will stay fixed on the horizon.

 

It's more difficult ingame without butt feeling but it's definetly possible to train yourself in correct rudder usage ingame.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[bivalov]

according to russian part,  it is "10. Additional research of airplane sideslip angle influence on plane roll;"

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If you want to figure out how important rudder is and how much you need for coordination just do the same we do in reality, a roll exercise. Basicly you just fly straight and level rolling the aircraft left and right along it's longitudinal axis. If you use no or too less rudder the nose will begin to wander left and right. With perfect rudder coordination the nose will stay fixed on the horizon.

.

Man read what i did wrote, i know how important it is i just think that adverse yaw is not big enought in BoS. In game nose of the plane do not wander off as i would think should. Edited January 25, 2016 by tomcatqw

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You might check, too, because that's not the message you send with your comments above.

 

Ingame adverse yaw is very noticeably on big planes like the Heinkel and I find it quite realisticly modeled on them. As for the fighters, I can't really tell since I'm used to aircraft with twice the wingspan of the 109.

[Monostripezebra]

The adverse yaw is not issue, it´s modeled fine.. neither is the yaw-roll-coupling, also excellent modeled.

 

But one-axis input on the elevator gives multi-axial time-delayed "wobble" output, especially when pushing the elevator.. where it is 10x as pronounced as on pulling the elevator.

 

I can even make some planes spin, that way, and it seems that is the problematic part: try the P40 and just push the stick medium-gently forward while look at the ball (libelula). with the right timing (and absolutly no contaminating aileron inputs whatsoever) you can make the P40 go and spin out.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

That's an old issue though and was also presented for the Bf-109 F for a long time. The explaination that came from devs:

 

4. Fw-190 and Bf-109 is very easy to be dived to negative stall, this not allows to perform "Hartman's negative G evasive".

- Yes, German planes have more negative controlability reserve, but this just means that they are achieving the same negative G loads with less negative pitch input. I've tested negative G for several planes in very fast and rought tests (can't be used for strict compare and so on) with push dive from level flight on 400 km/h IAS, 100% fuel with standart load, G achieved before stall:

Bf 109 F-4: -4g , after that it's stalls

Bf 109 G-2: -4g , after that it's stalls

Fw 190 A-3: -3g , after that it's stalls

LaGG-3 ser.29: -1g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

La-5 ser.8: -2g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

Yak-1 ser.69: -3g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

So, no any advantage of soviet fighters in negative G load is presented in the game.

False claim.

 

.. neither is the yaw-roll-coupling, also excellent modeled.

Well I respectfully disagree on that one for a great portion of aircraft ingame but I'm hopefull they'll look at it again judging by DD120.

[Guest deleted@50488]

The problem is also in the way those negative g's impact roll and yaw stability...

 

Even if they achive -3 or -4 after a stick forward aggressive input, there is no reason they should spin inverted as it happens with the 190 A-3....

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

109 entered inverted spin too when one would push her nose away (negative g). When they introduced damping patch this behavior was greatly reduced, but in my oppinion controll characteristic worsen in general.

[Guest deleted@50488]

109 entered inverted spin too when one would push her nose away (negative g). When they introduced damping patch this behavior was greatly reduced, but in my oppinion controll characteristic worsen in general.

 

 

+1

 

Looking forward for the announced changes.

 

Also trim is wrong, IMO, in all of the 109 models, specially the G2, which was well know for it's tail heaviness.

 

In il-2 BoS if you correctly set trim to +1 for takeoff, even on an almost full fuel tank you will have to trim tail heavy after takeoff, while as the aircraft accelerates pretty much the opposite should be required...

 

Trim in the 190 A-3 is also weird, but I believe fine tuning of that is apparently one of the fixes mentioned on DD120 ( ? )

[PeterZvan]

Trim in 109 is joystick dependant.

Spring loaded sticks in center position on a 109 acctually allready have a significant ammount of down elevator (around 9% axsi trim externaly) bring the elevator itself to 0 positon visiually ingame (looking at the tail).

The reason for this is in non simetric deflection of the elevator in the + and  - direction.

Joystick axis is consider from full + to full - deflection.

As the acctual possible deflection to + and to - is different it means that the center is offset as welll.

So if this is trimmed with the vertical stabilizer it is than incorrect as you ajust the trim of the plane + the elevator deflection at the same time - it is therefore trimmed to fly straight but with higher drag and completly different vertical stabiliser position.

This is what I found out during my joystick axis adjustement experiments and its a very well known effect from RoF (SE5a displays this tendency very significantly).

So to have the correct trim position on the vertical stabilazor you first need to have the elevator in 0 position (meaning you need to apply elevator up for around 9% of complete axis range).

Than the 109 flys straight on 0 vertical stabiliser setting in cockpit at speeds of around 350...450km/h.

 

DN engine is not as trivial as one would think and assume. Non simetric controls are incoporated!

[Kling]

 

Adverse yaw effect in flight

[=LD=Penshoon]

Trim in 109 is joystick dependant.

Spring loaded sticks in center position on a 109 acctually allready have a significant ammount of down elevator (around 9% axsi trim externaly) bring the elevator itself to 0 positon visiually ingame (looking at the tail).

The reason for this is in non simetric deflection of the elevator in the + and  - direction.

Joystick axis is consider from full + to full - deflection.

As the acctual possible deflection to + and to - is different it means that the center is offset as welll.

So if this is trimmed with the vertical stabilizer it is than incorrect as you ajust the trim of the plane + the elevator deflection at the same time - it is therefore trimmed to fly straight but with higher drag and completly different vertical stabiliser position.

This is what I found out during my joystick axis adjustement experiments and its a very well known effect from RoF (SE5a displays this tendency very significantly).

So to have the correct trim position on the vertical stabilazor you first need to have the elevator in 0 position (meaning you need to apply elevator up for around 9% of complete axis range).

Than the 109 flys straight on 0 vertical stabiliser setting in cockpit at speeds of around 350...450km/h.

 

DN engine is not as trivial as one would think and assume. Non simetric controls are incoporated!

That's probably right, here is a video of the G2 with 90% fuel taking off at + with ffb. It's tail heavy after getting up to speed and only gets nose heavy when you trim all the way to +2. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by =LD=Penshoon

[Guest deleted@50488]

Trim in 109 is joystick dependant.

Spring loaded sticks in center position on a 109 acctually allready have a significant ammount of down elevator (around 9% axsi trim externaly) bring the elevator itself to 0 positon visiually ingame (looking at the tail).

The reason for this is in non simetric deflection of the elevator in the + and  - direction.

Joystick axis is consider from full + to full - deflection.

As the acctual possible deflection to + and to - is different it means that the center is offset as welll.

So if this is trimmed with the vertical stabilizer it is than incorrect as you ajust the trim of the plane + the elevator deflection at the same time - it is therefore trimmed to fly straight but with higher drag and completly different vertical stabiliser position.

This is what I found out during my joystick axis adjustement experiments and its a very well known effect from RoF (SE5a displays this tendency very significantly).

So to have the correct trim position on the vertical stabilazor you first need to have the elevator in 0 position (meaning you need to apply elevator up for around 9% of complete axis range).

Than the 109 flys straight on 0 vertical stabiliser setting in cockpit at speeds of around 350...450km/h.

 

DN engine is not as trivial as one would think and assume. Non simetric controls are incoporated!

 

Interesting. Had never noticed it.

 

Thx for pointing it out - I really should find a FFB :-/

[Guest deleted@50488]

Actually, PeterZVan's post made me post this at the "General" forum...

 

 

​

[Monostripezebra]

Trim in 109 is joystick dependant.

Spring loaded sticks in center position on a 109 acctually allready have a significant ammount of down elevator (around 9% axsi trim externaly) bring the elevator itself to 0 positon visiually ingame (looking at the tail).

The reason for this is in non simetric deflection of the elevator in the + and  - direction.

Joystick axis is consider from full + to full - deflection.

As the acctual possible deflection to + and to - is different it means that the center is offset as welll.

So if this is trimmed with the vertical stabilizer it is than incorrect as you ajust the trim of the plane + the elevator deflection at the same time - it is therefore trimmed to fly straight but with higher drag and completly different vertical stabiliser position.

This is what I found out during my joystick axis adjustement experiments and its a very well known effect from RoF (SE5a displays this tendency very significantly).

So to have the correct trim position on the vertical stabilazor you first need to have the elevator in 0 position (meaning you need to apply elevator up for around 9% of complete axis range).

Than the 109 flys straight on 0 vertical stabiliser setting in cockpit at speeds of around 350...450km/h.

 

DN engine is not as trivial as one would think and assume. Non simetric controls are incoporated!

 

I think you mean "horizontal stabilizer" you can´t trim the vertical one.. but it is a darn good hint to go and actually look at the plane in outside view to check for the elevator 0 position.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Guest deleted@50488]

But, IMO, this should be changed, because the users with a FFB joystick report exactly the same effect from adjusting the stabilator - their sticks in the cockpit stay put, as they actually should, and the elevator becomes disaligned with the stabilator plane.

 

Presently adjustments of the stabilator, by moving the trim wheel, create a discrepancy between it's incidence an that of the elevator, which contributes to the innacurate effects in terms of pitching moments.

Edited January 28, 2016 by jcomm

[Monostripezebra]

But, IMO, this should be changed, because the users with a FFB joystick report exactly the same effect from adjusting the stabilator - their sticks in the cockpit stay put, as they actually should, and the elevator remains aligned with the stabilator plane.

 

Presently adjustments of the stabilator, by moving the trim wheel, create a discrepancy between it's incidence an that of the elevator, which contributes to the innacurate effects in terms of pitching moments.

 

 

 

I think you need to be more precise in describing what you see as problem, because currently it isn´t that easy to get what you mean...

 

so far I would sum it up as:

 

a) there are outside-of-program issues with certain stick/control setups that make the actual control surface apear out of alignment with the fin in (physical) joystick middle postion. THAT is a setup issue, not one of BoS. A self check in F2 outside view helps to set it correctly in the controler configurations.

 

b) The 109 has a trim system in which the horizontal stabilizer is adjusted. In BoS it is modeled as:

 

if trim is applied, stabilizer fin and control surface part (elevator) both move (and while doing so, stay in the same relative postition to each other) while the stick in the 3d cockpit remains stationary ( it is in it´s middle postion for all trim settings, positive and negative) 

You think this is incorrect and may lead to different max. control surface deflections (dependent on trim setting and thus stabilizer position) ?

 

do I understand that correctly that far?

Edited January 28, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Guest deleted@50488]

Zeebra,

 

my attention to this was called by a post made by PeterZVan, where he pointed out that when you move the stabilator ( what you call stabilizer fin ), the elevator becomes unaligned with it, and to alighn  it back you have to move the stick.

 

This is what I find to be the problem.

 

In my joystcik setiing, the stick neutral position is eactly at the "0" / center of the semi-circular scale. Problem is that, from an outside view, aircraft on ground stopped, if I apply, for instance, nose heavy trim ( +1 ) looking from the outside I will be able to observe that the elevator surface is not aligned anymore ( it is only aligned when the stabilizer fin is trimmed for the "0" of the scale in the aircraft ).

 

So, if I set, as per the real thing, the trim stab to +1, the elevator will be at an even higher incidence ( deflected down ), while in the cockpit the stick stays put which is correct, meaning that as soon as I get airborne,  instead of further nose heavy trim being required, I actually have to trim tail heavy ( towards or even past "0", into the negative range!!!).

Edited January 28, 2016 by jcomm

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

My assumption on this is as following:

 

If you hold the stick centered at 0° trim position the elevator is alinged flat with the stabilizer surface (neutral position). If you than move the stabilizer, some things happen:

 

1. Stick remains straight centered (via joystick)

2. With stick being centered elevator contorll rods ingame are not being moved / remain in fixed position

3. Elevator controll hinge connected to the rod is mounted off centred to the stabilizer, so it will transition over changes of stabilizer trim in °

4. As controll rods remain in fixed position (neutral joystick), the elevator will start to deflect to compensate for the hinge movement (otherwise controll rods would need be streched / squeezed)

 

The difference to real live is, that in reality the elevator would be pushed back to neutral position (regarding the stabilizer) by dynamic pressure, which as result is pushing the stick forward or backward (makes sense, as in reality trim is used to move the stick's centered position). That is not the case ingame where the stick is held fixed in neutral position due to above mentioned reason.

 

Actually, thinking about it, it's quite absurd, really. In reality stick center position is being adjusted via trim according to stick forces, ingame trim is used to adjust stick forces via trim according to the stick's neutral position.

 

Edit: Sry for the cheap mashup-pic but I guess that translates my point better than I did above...

Edit2: I know the drawing is faulty, it's only for demonstration purpose...

Edited January 28, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Monostripezebra]

Zeebra,

 

my attention to this was called by a post made by PeterZVan, where he pointed out that when you move the stabilator ( what you call stabilizer fin ), the elevator becomes unaligned with it, and to alighn  it back you have to move the stick.

 

This is what I find to be the problem.

 

In my joystcik setiing, the stick neutral position is eactly at the "0" / center of the semi-circular scale. Problem is that, from an outside view, aircraft on ground stopped, if I apply, for instance, nose heavy trim ( +1 ) looking from the outside I will be able to observe that the elevator surface is not aligned anymore ( it is only aligned when the stabilizer fin is trimmed for the "0" of the scale in the aircraft ).

 

So, if I set, as per the real thing, the trim stab to +1, the elevator will be at an even higher incidence ( deflected down ), while in the cockpit the stick stays put which is correct, meaning that as soon as I get airborne,  instead of further nose heavy trim being required, I actually have to trim tail heavy ( towards or even past "0", into the negative range!!!).

 

 

It´s not happening on my end.. So I beginn to see what Peter ment with "Stick" dependent... the joystick model (or ForceFeedback Code) influences how the control surfaces behave during trim? That´s weird...

 

that´s what is happening here, stick connected, but no inputs whatsoever.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS_rH_jS1gI

 

 

That's an old issue though and was also presented for the Bf-109 F for a long time. The explaination that came from devs:

 

Well I respectfully disagree on that one for a great portion of aircraft ingame but I'm hopefull they'll look at it again judging by DD120.

 

I wasn´t talking about negative G.. I was talking about movement around the Z-AXIS (ie: yaw) that occurs on push-input, elevator only.  The only BoS-like "wobbly" plane I´ve ever flown was a flying boat with the engine behind the cockpit and very low aspect-ratio wings with huge ailerons that had also a terrible swing around Z, but that was due to the high amount of adverse yaw on the ailerons in combination with CoG and fuselage shape. It was later fought by adding strakes to the tail. I totally fail to see what aerodynamic effect this should represent and why it is present on "push" very strong while almost absent on pull? I suspect some "engine torque" force modeling or so running amok with unloaded wings, in the P40 with no input noise filter it really seems exessive to me. Albeit, off course I´ve never flown anything like a P40. But in BoS with my settup and no further measures, it oscilates around at minimal stick inputs so much that a more finefingered heli-flying friend said: "if that was a real plane, I wouldn´t touch it", which I must say I find rather sad and maybe even the wrong message for a premium plane.. albeit it effectivly debunks all Pay-to-Win accusations ;=) 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Guest deleted@50488]

Ok, I guess I found out what my "problem" is...

 

When looking at the elevator, I am doing inflight or on the ground but with the prop turning, so, since there is also a ground adjustable trim tab in the elevator itself, this may well account for the deflection I observe, while you, in your image, got it probably from a parked, engine off or at idle, situation ?

[Crump]

 

 

that´s what is happening here, stick connected, but no inputs whatsoever.

 

Confused....

 

The stick will not move on the ground on any aircraft....there is no dynamic pressure to move the elevator position... 

[Guest deleted@50488]

In BoS, the elevator ground adjustable trim tab, which is set by default in the simulator for a given speed range, and just like in DCS not adjustable, will move the elevator relative to the stabilizer when there is propwash.

 

If the engine is not running, and one sets, say, trim +1 (or any other value), the elevator will be perfectly aligned with the stabilizer.

 

When  the engine is running, and the prop spinning, as you increase thrust, brakes holding the aircraft in place, the propwash will be sufficient to move the elevator relative to the stabilizer. From within the cockpit, as power is applied the stick will move forward too ( for a stab trim setting greater than "0" ).

 

That explains why the 109s don't feel so tail heavy in BoS.. The moment power is applied, even on ground, the elevator deflects down for a stabilizer trim setting greater than "0"  ( +1, +2... +3 on the F4 ).

Edited January 29, 2016 by jcomm

[=LD=Penshoon]

I recorded a video for comparison, both at idle and power. At idle the stick wants to fall forward and trim doesn't affect it, add power and the stick moves a tiny bit when re trimming. 

 

[Monostripezebra]

In BoS, the elevator ground adjustable trim tab, which is set by default in the simulator for a given speed range, and just like in DCS not adjustable, will move the elevator relative to the stabilizer when there is propwash.

 

If the engine is not running, and one sets, say, trim +1 (or any other value), the elevator will be perfectly aligned with the stabilizer.

 

When  the ebgine is running, as you increase thrust, brakes holding the aircraft in place, the propwash will be sufficient to move the elevator relative to the stabilizer. From within the cockpit, as power is applied the stick will move forward too ( for a stab trim setting greater than "0" ).

 

That explains why the 109s don't feel so tail heavy in BoS.. The moment power is applied, even on ground, the elevator deflects down for a stabilizer trim setting greater than "0"  ( +1, +2... +3 on the F4 ).

 

ok, that makes more sense.. I was really puzzled how it possibley could be something "sticky" ;=)

 

 

 

 

 

"The stick will not move on the ground on any aircraft....there is no dynamic pressure to move the elevator position... "

 

oh, and crump, I was talking about my Joystick beeing connected but without input.. you know troubleshooting divide-n-conquer by naming all conditions.  Unfortunatly the game isn´t real ;=)

[Crump]

Understand.

[Guest deleted@50488]

On a side note, it doesn't appear to me as inplausible that we can have the elevator, with it's trim tab adjusted for nose heavy, move when even on the ground the propwash / flow is sufficient.

 

Comparing to the other flight simulator I also use for this type of ww2 aircraft, I can't say one is more coorect than the other. Each dev team chose to not allow for ground adjustment of the elevator trim tabs, and each team det them differently - just that. Both in il2 BoS and in that other simulator the outcomes are plausible and correspond to the chosen settings, which is just OK to me.

Edited January 29, 2016 by jcomm

[Wuerger]

Last posting nearly one year ago. Any news to this topic? "Wobbling" of 109 nose was said to be fixed by the devs...

[Dakpilot]

The 109E had some changes, which seem to help a lot, but these have not been applied to the whole series

 

There will be according to dev diary an overall change to all aircraft FM to do with roll coupling and rudder input, I would guess that 109 changes will come after that because it is all related/affected

 

in the meantime there are workarounds

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wuerger]

Thanks al lot for answering, Dakpilot! The workaround has already been known but unfortunately it is not really solving the problem. Never found a comparable wobbling in other flight sims using linear joystick curve since 2002 however.

 

So I'll still be pausing with BoS until fix is done.  

 

Thanks again!

[Crump]

 

 

On topic, some people expect aircraft to fly on rails because that's what sims did 10 years ago.

 

Real aircraft do act like they fly on rails especially in a coordinated transition from level to turning flight. 

[Hoots]

Real aircraft do act like they fly on rails especially in a coordinated transition from level to turning flight.

 

You're a pilot in rl crump, at least make the statement as SOME aircraft... Granted most of my experience is gliders but they most certainly do not fly on rails, especially on a winch launch, got to be on top of them all the way up. With larger, modern ac coordinated flight is a given but take a few years away and aircraft had to be flown.