What's the wobbling thing ?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thx a lot for taking the time to record it 5tuka.

 

It's exactly what I was planing to do.

 

Maybe you could try to record the same now using DCS's K4 and D9, and I am sure it'll be evident that the rate at which the return occurs is a lot softer, as well as there being not so much effects on the other axis too, as in BoS....  Even more, if we take the p51d in DCS, then and since under a wide range of CoGs it exhibits neutral pitch stability for positive pitch inputs, it'll be possible to see the Mustang "wanting" to maintain "pitch attitude" when perturbed by pitch up inputs when the stick is returned to neutral trimmed position, and will initiate a phugoid for negative pitch inputs because it has positive pitch stability in that case.

 

In the heat of a dogfight, flying next to high CL values, the wobbling and instability of aircraft like the G2, or even the F4 and the D9, but also the Russian fighters make aiming more difficult than I would expect from what I read about them being very stable gun platforms.

Edited December 9, 2015 by JCOMM

[Alkyan]

Ok, I launched the game and I see what you mean. The very quick movement in the other direction when you put the stick back to neutral.

 

I never tried to do that in a plane

 

But a movement of the gouvern back to neutrality will naturally have a force action bringing back the plane a bit to neutral. Is it too much, no idea but doesn't look that wrong to me. Especially with plane flying as fast as WW2 birds.

 

I work at Airbus and while I'm in the space branch, I have a lot of collegues who worked in the plane part of the compagny before. Notably one of them worked on the Airbus A320 simulators, I guess we could have a FM/ dynamic fluid talk tomorrow :D 

[Guest deleted@50488]

 

 

I work at Airbus and while I'm in the space branch, I have a lot of collegues who worked in the plane part of the compagny before. Notably one of them worked on the Airbus A320 simulators, I guess we could have a FM/ dynamic fluid talk tomorrow :D 

 

Ahhh forget it... those Bus guys are all wired.... :-)

[Tomsk]

Maybe you could try to record the same now using DCS's K4 and D9, and I am sure it'll be evident that the rate at which the return occurs is a lot softer, as well as there being so much effects on the other axis too, as in BoS....  

 

Would be interesting to see in DCS for comparison.

 

Another question I couldn't tell from Stuka's BoS video is whether the plane initiated a phugoid motion (can't try it myself at the moment, no internet connection on my home computer). Because to me it looked like it did the "rubberbanding" after he released the pull, but then no phugoid. Hard to tell because the pulls were in such quick succession, but certainly looked that way. That to me would be *really* odd, as it's so easy to understand why plane's exhibit that slow period oscillation (pitch up reduces airspeed, which causes the nose to fall, causes airspeed to rise, which causes nose to pitch up) and every plane will do it (just with different periods).

[Alkyan]

Ahhh forget it... those Bus guys are all wired.... :-)

 

haha ! But you still need to completely understand the physic and the fluid dynamic to develop good algorithms to fly the plane

 

Its a airbus pilot who would have no clue !

[Alkyan]

Also, this behavior can be a sort of glitch from the fact that there is no force on our joystick.

 

1) Your plane is trimmed, you fly level.

 

2) You pull the stick, plane to 4 degrees AoA. 

 

3)a You release the stick in real life : stick go back, but pressure forces on the control surfaces are different than during level flight and it wont go at the exact same position as during level flight

3)b You release the stick ingame : joystick will go back to its neutral position. Its neutral position on your computer table. The neutral position of level flight. But the neutral position of a real stick in a airplane at 4 degree AoA might be different, and this joystick position/ingame stick position might actually be in a position where you would have need to push on the stick to reach in an real airplane. Hence creating this stronger force of rudderbanding.

 

Ok that's a bit of speculation here

 

I work on spaceships me, I don't care about all this airdrag.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Also, this behavior can be a sort of glitch from the fact that there is no force on our joystick.

 

1) Your plane is trimmed, you fly level.

 

2) You pull the stick, plane to 4 degrees AoA. 

 

3)a You release the stick in real life : stick go back, but pressure forces on the control surfaces are different than during level flight and it wont go at the exact same position as during level flight

3)b You release the stick ingame : joystick will go back to its neutral position. Its neutral position on your computer table. The neutral position of level flight. But the neutral position of a real stick in a airplane at 4 degree AoA might be different, and this joystick position/ingame stick position might actually be in a position where you would have need to push on the stick to reach in an real airplane. Hence creating this stronger force of rudderbanding.

 

Ok that's a bit of speculation here

 

I work on spaceships me, I don't care about all this airdrag.

 

Under most circumstance ( out of compressibility, elasticity  or due to turbulence ) the control surface should return to it's original position. Also, if propwash effects are to be blamed for such an asymmetry, it's worth noting that in BoS it goes the same way with or without your engine stopped...

 

The trimming, that does indeed affect the neutral position of the control, and is plausibly modeled in BoS, as far as I tested. BTW, Never made a test with strong headwind and some aileron and or rudder trim to check if there is any deflection of the stick / yoke / rudder pedals with the aircraft standing still on ground, particularly with the engine stopped, but I guess even the highest wind component at ground level would probably not be sufficient to create that effect ( ? ) 

Edited December 9, 2015 by JCOMM

[Alkyan]

Ok believe you.

 

But not especially convinced anything is wrong

 

Interesting subject

Edited December 9, 2015 by Alkyan

[Tomsk]

Ok believe you.

 

But not especially convinced anything is wrong

 

Interesting subject

 

Very interesting subject. As I say, for me personally I immediately felt that the planes in BoS just felt a bit weird somehow without really being able to say exactly why. Nice to be able to get some idea of why that might be in more concrete terms :-)

[reddog=11blueleader*]

+1 to what you wrote about the oscillations for pitch and yaw. Sums it up for me as well.

 

For myself the only time aircraft in BoS/BoM feel "light" is when trying to land (fighters in particular), and I feel that is only because the landing gear doesn't absorb enough force imo. Right now the aircraft rebound off the ground very easily, and I believe these aircraft could have firmer landings without being thrown back into the air. Hopefully the devs can look at that sometime.

I agree, however I wonder having to land a fighter with such a high airspeed to keep from stalling the AC might have something to do with it? If you bounce once the second and third bounce throws higher each time. I cannot get the AC to settle in, maybe it is just my piloting.....

[SharpeXB]

I think another reason that the "wobble" is noticeable more so on a PC than in reality is that your view on a PC screen is locked like a camera view, your real vision is not. When you look at that real cockpit footage from a fixed camera the plane looks even more wobbly than BoS. But your vision in the real world doesn't shake like that. In the game you see the wobble.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I think another reason that the "wobble" is noticeable more so on a PC than in reality is that your view on a PC screen is locked like a camera view, your real vision is not. When you look at that real cockpit footage from a fixed camera the plane looks even more wobbly than BoS. But your vision in the real world doesn't shake like that. In the game you see the wobble.

 

Then, don't look outside for references, but instead look at the AH, pretty much as we look at in the videos I posted above for some RL test flights. Also, try with head shaking enabled or disabled...

 

I tried to find all possible explanations to convince myself that it is right the way it is, but, I couldn't because my RL experience tells me the initial short period reaction should not be so abrupt, and actually disturb even the other aircraft axis.

 

I ran my tests with the aircraft in a gliding configuration, engine stopped, to clear any chances of it being due to prop effects, and again, the sudden initial return is there....

 

Again, the problem is not in the return - it is correct, well, unless a given model should show neutral pitch stability...

Edited December 9, 2015 by JCOMM

[SharpeXB]

Then, don't look outside, but instead look at the AH. also, try with head shaking enabled or disabled...

I did actually try it with and without head shake but didn't notice much difference. But that could be a factor as well. Probably for comparing games, turn it off. On the real plane video I can see the AH "rebounding" i.e. the pitch angle is falling back after the control is released. You can see it happening on the GoPro footage as well. But you would not perceive it the same way in person. I think that's part of the issue.

[Guest deleted@50488]

SharpeXB, please look at the AH in 5tuka's G2 video. It's probably easier for us to check it from there since there will be no head shaking involved.

[SharpeXB]

SharpeXB, please look at the AH in 5tuka's G2 video. It's probably easier for us to check it from there since there will be no head shaking involved.

I see his video. I don't think it shows anything wrong. Every other flight sim I have shows that same behavior. When people say they don't experience this IRL, it's almost certain they do. They just don't perceive it like you do in a game on a PC monitor. It would be impossible that you'd pull on the stick to pitch up and while pulling release the stick and the plane stays at the same attitude. Every video from a sim and every RL video shows otherwise. If the discussion is what degree of "rubber banding" there should be that's pretty subjective and not likely to be resolved.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I see his video. I don't think it shows anything wrong. Every other flight sim I have shows that same behavior. When people say they don't experience this IRL, it's almost certain they do. They just don't perceive it like you do in a game on a PC monitor. It would be impossible that you'd pull on the stick to pitch up and while pulling release the stick and the plane stays at the same attitude. Every video from a sim and every RL video shows otherwise. If the discussion is what degree of "rubber banding" there should be that's pretty subjective and not likely to be resolved.

This is what happens if people start to believe more whats happening on their PC than in the real world. But well maybe I can grab some DCS footage to draw a more clear comparison.

 

"FMs are always WiP" - my favourite quote, fits the topic well.

[Tomsk]

Clearly if you point the nose up its going to come down eventually but how quickly that happens is important, not really subjective and IMHO not in the slightest bit dependent on PC monitors or head shake or such like. But I suspect we're not going to agree on that ;-)

 

Incidentally, did we determine whether the planes in BoS exhibit proper phugoid motion or not? Really wish my internet was working so I could test it myself ...

 

FMs definitely are a perpetual work in progress. Like many things I'm sure it's a process of iterative refinement :-)

Edited December 9, 2015 by Tomsk

[SharpeXB]

But well maybe I can grab some DCS footage to draw a more clear comparison.

I have DCS so I can do the same thing and get similar results.

 

FMs definitely are a perpetual work in progress.

Not perpetual. Not here. At some point there will be no more changes. That's been stated very clearly with RoF so no doubt it will be the same in IL-2. Edited December 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[=LD=Penshoon]

DCS p-51 defenitly has a gentler rebound on negative pitch and hardly any on positive pitch. I can upload some footage i've got for comparison but with quite bad fps.

Edited December 9, 2015 by =LD=Penshoon

[Guest deleted@50488]

DCS p-51 defenitly has a gentler rebound on negative pitch and hardly any on positive pitch. I can upload some footage i've got for comparison but with quite bad fps.

 

Yes, that's an exact observation Penshooon that perfectly agrees with the flight characteristics of the P51d - neutral pitch stability for pitch up inputs ( trying to stay at the achieved pitch attitude once the stick is back to neutral ), and positive pitch stability for negative pitch inputs.

[SharpeXB]

DCS p-51 defenitly has a gentler rebound on negative pitch and hardly any on positive pitch. I can upload some footage i've got for comparison but with quite bad fps.

I notice the same thing with DCS Dora. It rebounds more in negative than positive. But it still rebounds.

But the DCS 190 is much less sensitive than the BoS version and even other DCS planes, I use no curve at all with it whereas I use a curve in the P-51D even in the A10

Edited December 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[=LD=Penshoon]

Here is the p51, trying to do the deflections as quick as possible to exaggerate the effect.

[Tomsk]

Yes DCS is definitely different, much stronger sense of pitch stability (I can try that one without proper Internet). Curves seem to have no real effect when I tried it, which is what you'd expect.

 

Do the planes in BoS exhibit the same behaviour in roll as in pitch? I can't remember ... I.e. When you release left or right stick does it roll you back the other way a little?

Edited December 9, 2015 by Tomsk

[Guest deleted@50488]

Regarding the phugoids, BoS models it very plausibly IMO. I actually prefer the results to that of similar aircraft in DCS.

[SharpeXB]

Here is the p51, trying to do the deflections as quick as possible to exaggerate the effect.

 

Ok so that's the same response you get in BoS. A bit different to a degree but basically the same effect. It's not flying on rails. Edited December 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well,

 

just tried a suggestion I saw in a youtube - something I wouldn't dare trying.... but it sort of works, at lest for me and for now - setting pitch and yaw curves to 100% filter !

 

I set it that way, went online and tested a few dogfights. I believe the overall behavior turned into something very acceptable, and in fact better than what I experience, for instance with the 109 in the other sim.

 

Tomorrow I'll try the Yak and the LagG3 with these settings.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Ok so that's the same response you get in BoS. A bit different to a degree but basically the same effect. It's not flying on rails.

No it's not. Look at the aircrafts reaction when Penshoon pitches up. No "wobbling" whatsoever, it settles at the pulled AoA rockstable. That's pretty much what I can confirm from my expirience.

Sure, when pushing this effect occurs to a slight degree. That is not nearly as exegerated as in BoS though.

 

Not saying which one is better but which one matches my expirience more.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

It's the same effect in both, one is a bit more pronounced.

But the difference between those doesn't mean the sky is falling.

It's worth pointing out these are both PC games, neither I'm sure is 100% correct. And the effect in both cases is when the player is deliberately causing the wobble. It's possible to have quite steady control in both games.

Edited December 10, 2015 by SharpeXB

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Rewatch it and reread what I wrote. Nobody claimed 100% accurancy for either of both.

 

I think I wasted enough time trying to convince you. Take it as you wish.

[andyw248]

Thanks 5tuka and Penshoon for your recordings, this makes it clear what the term "rubberbanding" is referring to.

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Rewatch it and reread what I wrote. Nobody claimed 100% accurancy for either of both.

 

I think I wasted enough time trying to convince you. Take it as you wish.

I believe you Stuka, anyone not believing you or JCOMM for that matter, should allow themselves an hour in a powered plane or a glider lesson and kick rudders or pitch up and down and come back here and do the same thing in a P-40 or 110.

The 40 feels like an Ls-4 I once had too tail heavy at 82 km/h soaring, as you yourself did, what was it an Ls-7?

Real planes are easier to fly than BOS planes, way easier actually. Flying is an easy business, actually easier than driving a car, adding wobbling just makes it more difficult and unrealistic. I added BOM just recently to help support the ongoing development (I hope). Hope it helps :-

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, I guess thx to 5tuka and Penshoon, now everyone can understand  what we were calling "wobbiling".

 

I did manage, though, to iron out most of it's effect using a 100% pitch curve for pitch and yaw axis. Is it good, 100% good ? Of course not, but no sim is perfect, for many reasons, even if we all keep waiting for the perfect flight dynamics...

 

Yesterday, for instance, as I was again testing the phugoids in BoS ( which overall I find better in either of the 109s than what we get with the k4 in the other sim... ) I smashed at the weird flight dynamics of that other k4, where at 1,0 ATA, and trying to coordinate in level flight, full pitch down trim, in order to get to a stable state and from there start a phugoid test, I was taken almost into a looping, simply because I kept pressing the right rudder pedal to "center the ball". It's a well known and IMO totally unplausible feature of that k4... it stars pitching up, until it falls on it's back, supposedly due to fancy p.-factor modeling ... If we use higher power settings we will always have to push the elevator even at full nose heavy trim... That's another one I really find a lot more plausible in BoS, where the various trim settings are there to be used, and can and have to be used under different flight conditions more consistently IMO...

 

So... actually no sim is perfect and that's why I keep using both. As I keep saying, I like my two combat sims like I never liked any other flight simulator. They're both superb, each on it's own, even if they both show us problems and limitations here and there, they are both under continuous development.

 

Honestly, and I just don't write this at the other forum because it's not welcomed there to make comparisons with other sims, something which in here at least we can make, the overall feel of flight in these ww2 birds is still superior in BoS, to any other sim, that other sim included. There is something really special about IL-2 BoS, and even with it's quirks... it is so good....

 

Let's hope the Dev teams, on both sims, can keep giving us updates... Perfection would probably be reached easier if we had something like an ED1C777 :-)

 

P.S.: Just a final note because I wrote this at that other thread talking about the use of exponential throw for the pitch and yaw axis... The recently released E7 feels to me, by far, as the more harmonious 109 in BoS/ BoM. Even when it comes to the wobbling effect, it is a joy to fly, and responds to controls the closest I believe we are to what I read about RW 109 pilot comments on the flight characteristics of the 109s...

Edited December 10, 2015 by JCOMM

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

 

 

P.S.: Just a final note because I wrote this at that other thread talking about the use of exponential throw for the pitch and yaw axis... The recently released E7 feels to me, by far, as the more harmonious 109 in BoS/ BoM. Even when it comes to the wobbling effect, it is a joy to fly, and responds to controls the closest I believe we are to what I read about RW 109 pilot comments on the flight characteristics of the 109s...

 

Agree the 109E is so much better as is the Yak1, it's like they are actually flying :-)

[Dakpilot]

E series much closer to original pure design, F and G mods/hacks to keep up with 'arms race' 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[GP*]

Wow, lots of action since I last read this thread. Both sides are holding firm in their argument -- classic internet!

 

 

So the slower the plane travels the stiffer the stick gets? That doesn't sound right?

 

Absolutely not. If that were the case, flight control locks wouldn't be necessary, because parked aircraft's sticks would act as if they were stuck in concrete. Who told you that?

 

 

Sure but I maintain that when your plane is level at 120 knots, changing its aoa to let's says 4 degrees is easy. But as the plane decelerate, keeping the 4 degrees ask more and more force. Once you plane stop decelerating the force remain constant and is maximum.

 

NO.

 

Maintaining 4 deg AoA isn't harder. What's harder is keeping the plane level. As speed falls off and you try to maintain level flight, the AoA will increase. If you hold 4 AoA and reduce power below what's required for 0 VVI flight, you'll just start to descend.

 

No kidding. That's because it's replicating a WWII fighter plane and not a Cessna.

I'm no real pilot but you guys crack me up with this stuff comparing modern GA planes with Warbirds. That's like comparing your family sedan with an F-1 race car.

 

Ok, you admit you aren't a "real" pilot. Any "real" pilot worth listening to should at least recognize that you must have a strong love of flying, so we aren't so different. But shouldn't you, as well, at least keep an open mind with regard to what we're discussing? If you are keeping an open mind, and I'm simply mis-interpreting your posts, my apologies.

 

With that being said, private pilots who have only flown GA probably don't have much more of a clue than you do on this topic (sorry guys, and no offense intended). But you've got someone here who has been there, done that, telling you that there's something worth looking into here. Someone who has more hours fighting BFM than some PPL holders have flying hours at all; someone who has actually shot a gun from an aircraft, both at the ground and at moving aerial targets; and someone who has been fortunate enough to fly a wide variety of aircraft. So maybe, just maybe, reconsider being (what appears to me) to be so inflexible on the matter.

 

Ok ! I got a little scared.
I still don't understand your problem, just that I misunderstood it. Video will help indeed.

Just to add fuel on the fire, is it normal that trimmed plane in BoS barely turn ?
In reality to turn I roll to 30 degree, plane turns.
In BoS I roll to 30 degree then I have to pull on the stick to turn.

 

Depends on the wing. In many aircraft, yes. In a T-38, which has a perfectly symmetrical wing, you can roll all you want and you'll never turn. You can go as fast as you want on the runway (before overspeeding the tires) and you'll never get airborne unless you pull. And there are many airfoils in between the two.

 

It's the same effect in both, one is a bit more pronounced.
But the difference between those doesn't mean the sky is falling.
It's worth pointing out these are both PC games, neither I'm sure is 100% correct. And the effect in both cases is when the player is deliberately causing the wobble. It's possible to have quite steady control in both games.

 

The issue here isn't about flying skill, the ability to have "quite steady control," or anything else. I'm not sure how many times this has to be stated. I'll post a video later this week of me flying; if my internet ever gets updated from the first world's slowest broadband speed, I'll happy duel against anyone. Just because you can fly and shoot down bandits, doesn't mean that all aspects of this sim's flight modeling are infallible.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'll conclude with what I posted in the polls section, which sums up what *I* think is the issue we're currently experiencing, and what the root cause of it is:

 

 

Unfortunately, I can't respond to this poll.

 

While I agree there's a wobbling issue, I think stalls are handled superbly in this sim, both in the warning and the behavior of the stall itself.

 

• The pre-stall buffet is mostly accomplished through sound, given that it's a sim. There's also some additional "shaking" (not wobbling, that's not what I'm talking about here) to account for pre-stall buffet. Although I think that, with the FFB2 stick, there should be more "force feedback," I understand the limitations of programming stall indications with a very old joystick. So, while the FFB effects could be upped a bit, the warning in the game is sufficient.

 

• Stall behavior is one point where this sim excels. The "slipping on a banana peel" stalls from other sims are exaggerated IMO. With the engine at full (or near full) power, when you enter an accelerated stall, the nose stops tracking, a wing may drop (aircraft dependent), and the torque effect of the motor is felt. When entering an accelerated stall power off, the greatest indication (aside from sound) is that the nose stops tracking. In high performance aircraft, that is the greatest indication of a stall -- the nose stops tracking. That's no kidding how the USAF teaches (accelerated) stall recognition, especially when guys are first learning to fight BFM. And this doesn't just apply to jets -- same for piston-driven aircraft as well. Realize that low-performance civilian aircraft will immediately pitch forward because they're engineered for safety. Additionally, most civilian flight schools teach (power on/off) stall recovery as "get the nose down ASAP," further leading to the assumption that aircraft should always nose down and/or drop a wing -- the military, when teaching traffic pattern stalls (essentially the same thing as power on/off stalls), teaches to break the stall by getting right back to the moderate buffet and minimize altitude loss. When going through initial training, my greatest critique during the stall phase was that I wasn't aggressive enough finding the line between stall and "nearly on the verge of stall," which lead to "unnecessary altitude loss" -- even though I felt as if the aircraft was about to shake out of my hands, and that I was about to nearly stall once again!

 

 

Your comments/questions provide great insight into the issue that we're trying to define here. Again, given that much of this is based off of "feel," it's sometimes difficult to convey via the English language exactly what's going on. And, until more testing can be done, you're right -- it'll just remain another FM complaint.

 

As I stated in a previous thread, my belief is that too great of an alpha / beta is introduced during maneuvering. This is a consequence of either 1) flight controls that have too much authority at moderate speeds or 2) airflow that doesn't provide enough flight control centering force at moderate speeds. I say "moderate speeds" because, in a low-speed fight (at or near what would be defined as minimum sustained turn rate airspeed in Em charts), I would definitely expect to see/feel some of the "wobbling" that I keep going on about. Additionally, at high speeds (speeds only achievable during a dive), I think the sim behaves reasonably well -- whether or not controls "lock up" enough at high speeds is a different discussion, but as far as the feel of the nose tracking as you increase aft stick pressure, it's very believable.

 

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but just so we're all on the same page: alpha is similar to AoA, but is typically defined as the angle between the longitudinal axis and the aircraft's actual flight path (you can substitute in the relative wind as an opposite/negative vector for the aircraft's flight path). Keep in mind that wings typically have some sort of twist and/or a slight angular offset from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Beta is the same thing, with regard to yaw instead of pitch.

 

Anyway, with all of that out of the way, back to what's in bold in your post -- yes, the alpha and/or beta introduced during maneuvering should "zero out" once flight controls are returned to neutral (at least for maneuvers that don't induce an accelerated stall)*. The issue, then, is that if this angle is too great based upon arguments 1) and 2) above, when the flight controls are neutralized, the aircraft will experience a dramatic return to what you call "center[ing] itself aerodynamically." THIS is what I mean when I refer to "wobbling."

 

Hopefully this helps explain what I'm talking about. I'm sure many will still disagree though, or assume I'm just a bad pilot.

 

*alpha will never center-out to zero, so long as the aircraft is still flying. 0 alpha or negative alphas can only be achieved via flight control input. This statement is synonymous with stating that an aircraft has to have an AoA even while flying straight-and-level.

[Alkyan]

On the part you said NO, I was talking about what you feel in the stick when you go from level flight to a 4 degree climb at full power. Stick go from soft to hard as you're plane stabilize in his new attitude.

Decelerating is not due to a change from the throttle here

[GP*]

On the part you said NO, I was talking about what you feel in the stick when you go from level flight to a 4 degree climb at full power. Stick go from soft to hard as you're plane stabilize in his new attitude.

Decelerating is not due to a change from the throttle here

So you mean 4 degrees nose high, not 4 degrees AoA?

 

I'm still not sure what you're getting at...

[SharpeXB]

Rewatch it and reread what I wrote.

I watched it again. The DCS P-51 rebounds in both positive and negative inputs. Maybe a little less than the BoS 109. The response itself seems to be realistic enough, there's just a degree of difference between games.

So why is this degree of difference so important in the game? Learn to handle the planes and it's not such a big deal. Most of the problem players have seem to be due to untuned or defective controllers. I can post a multitude of videos from BoS to show enough accurate marksmanship to dispel the idea that wobbling handicaps the players. Far from it.

And examples of FMs from other games don't constitute anything being wrong about BoS although DCS is pretty well done in that regard. But you have to consider this difference between DCS and BoS. You're comparing a $50 flight model with a $10 one

For the price of that single plane in DCS which only gets you the plane and nothing else. Your purchase in BoS would include 8 aircraft and 3 maps and a campaign. So considering the response in both games is nearly equal, I think BoS does a good enough job. And I'll keep playing the Devil's Advocate because continual revisions of these flight models is a drain on resources. So the burden of proof is not on 1CGS. They have a whole other game to make besides continually tweaking BoS. And after BoM there will be another one. It gets prohibitively difficult to keep revisiting the FMs of 20-30 or more aircraft. This is a much different type of game than DCS, 1CGS made an entire game in the time the DCS modules just spent in Beta. They're both great products but they're not identical.

Edited December 10, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Sharpe, we, I at least, love them both - they're by far the best two flight simulators I ever used in the PC!

 

We also want both to become even better than what they are already.

 

But of course, just as BoS has this "wobbling" quirk, we can easily find in DCS other quirks, and which are IMO better modeled in BoS....

 

To each own it's own merits :-)

Edited December 10, 2015 by JCOMM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's over sharp. This is a FM discussion. If you don't like it, leave it, but don't sabotage it. Pilot skill, "marksmanship" and your emotions about how the game develops are frankly irrelevant to the topic discussed in here.

 

You can't see what you don't want to. Fine, stop saying others should either. You pretend to be enthusiastic about flight siming and yet don't give anything on what real pilots have to contribute.

 

If you feel confident playing the "Devil's Advocate", pls continue via PMs because I have no interest further distracting this topic.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka