What's the wobbling thing ?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hello all,

 

We probably shouldn't be using civilian aircraft for comparison because they are designed with stability (aerobatic aircraft notwithstanding) in mind whereas fighters need some inherent instability in order to increase maneuverability. In the old IL2 series, the 109 became quite an unstable gun platform at low speed and that it happens now in BoS should not be much of a surprise (at least to me it isn't). 

 

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

The thing is this applies to all aircraft in BoS to a certain extent. Also not all civil aircrafts are designed for stability. Aerobatic planes like the Extra 300 are way more instable than WW2 fighters.

 

If the 109 had been instable as such it would very likely be mentioned in pilot reports. The only complaint I know about was rudder effectiveness being insufficient at low speeds as well as oversensetive in high speed dives (infact sensetive enought to overstress the aircraft is pushed unconsciously).

 

Also 350 km/h is slightly lower than cruise speed. Wouldn't consider that as low.

[SharpeXB]

You do realize of course, we are talking about personal observations here?

Right. The personal observations of people, the overwhelming majority of whom who have never flown any of theses planes.

Edited December 12, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

Guys, please observe that the sudden return to the trimmed state that happens as the stick is released back to it's neutral position is demonstrative not of instability but rather of an overdone stability, or more properly, damping! I'd say aircraft appear too damped in pitch and in yaw, in BoS FDM...

 

An aircraft with high positive pitch stability will show a short circuit oscillation with this kind of effect. It "want's" to return ASAP to it's trimmed state.

 

Always interesting to read...

Edited December 12, 2015 by JCOMM

[dburne]

 the overwhelming majority of whom who have never flown any of theses planes.

 

Which has nothing to do with a discussion on how a computer flight game models pitch behavior in relation to joystick input on a particular axis.

Maybe the real flight guys who fly real planes have forums they discuss the real planes behavior on.

 

It is just a characteristic of BOS and how it models pitch behavior in relation to a joystick axis input. Some like it , some don't, and some don't really care.

Interesting discussion though.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

But that's not what we are testing here, obviously the pilot can eliminate the instability by just controlling the plane

Sure I know. But it was you who said we do not know what the pilot is doing with controls. So how do you know the pilot is eliminating anything? The video doesn't prove anything. We need to see the pilot's hands and legs in action right? We shall not pull claims out of thin air.

[=CFC=Conky]

The thing is this applies to all aircraft in BoS to a certain extent. Also not all civil aircrafts are designed for stability. Aerobatic planes like the Extra 300 are way more instable than WW2 fighters.

 

If the 109 had been instable as such it would very likely be mentioned in pilot reports. The only complaint I know about was rudder effectiveness being insufficient at low speeds as well as oversensetive in high speed dives (infact sensetive enought to overstress the aircraft is pushed unconsciously).

 

Also 350 km/h is slightly lower than cruise speed. Wouldn't consider that as low.

 

Well I did mention 'notwithstanding aerobatic aircraft'. Anyway, imo, Indiacki's video doesn't show anything particularly evil about that 109's handling characteristics at that speed. Also, that the 109 may have been an unstable gun platform at low speed doesn't mean it was uncontrollable, just that aiming was more difficult and it may have not been mentioned much in pilot reports because it was considered relatively normal at that time, I haven't read too many pilot reports so I may be off-target about it.

 

I find all the aircraft in BoS/BoM a bit longitudinally and laterally relaxed in terms of precision at times, but does that mean the fm's need adjusting or is it actually an indication of better/more sophisticated flight modelling? 

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited December 12, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[andyw248]

The problem with terms like 'squirrely', 'twitchy', 'stable', 'unstable', 'on rails', 'wobbling', 'rubberbanding', etc. is that they are not very precise. This thread has already 7 pages, and I'm glad we were able to figure out the exact meaning and presence of rubberbanding. Let's go ahead and focus on any of the other terms, but let us strive for a similar level of precision...  

[=CFC=Conky]

The problem with terms like 'squirrely', 'twitchy', 'stable', 'unstable', 'on rails', 'wobbling', 'rubberbanding', etc. is that they are not very precise. This thread has already 7 pages, and I'm glad we were able to figure out the exact meaning and presence of rubberbanding. Let's go ahead and focus on any of the other terms, but let us strive for a similar level of precision...  

 

Ok, I've edited my previous post to read 'longitudinally and laterally relaxed in terms of precision'

[GP*]

Exactly the same, no. But it rebounds back. Like if you were pitching the nose down to put the reticle on a target and then let go, the plane will rebound back upward, it won't stay fixed on the target. If you aren't trimmed in the dive then by definition your plane is going to rebound back to it's trimmed state.

 

I'm not even sure what some of you expect. Do you expect that if you did this that your gun sight would literally not move from the target, even though you release the force on the stick. That's impossible. Maybe that's what happens in Train Simulator, you know, the one with the rails ;-)

It's clear you haven't taken the time to understand anything that's been stated here.

 

Too bad, because it's an otherwise productive discussion.

[GP*]

Right. The personal observations of people, the overwhelming majority of whom who have never flown any of theses planes.

And you haven't flown anything.

 

By your own metric, everything you've said in this thread is, consequently, of zero value.

 

Thanks for playing.

[SharpeXB]

It's clear you haven't taken the time to understand anything that's been stated here.

 

I guess it's still not clear then. As far as I can understand this is what people are taking about when they say wobble and rubberband.

 

And you haven't flown anything.

I'm not claiming anything is wrong with the FM.

 

The 1CGS team has more access to the data on the aircraft than forum members do and actually has a test pilot to confer with who does handle some of these planes. So my assumption is that they're correct until proven otherwise.

 

Although the discussions are interesting. So far most of the FM challenges here are proven false.

Edited December 12, 2015 by SharpeXB

[indiaciki]

SORRY FOR THE CAPS - KEYBOARD IS BROKEN - SINCE I STILL DO NOT REALLY GET THE PROBLEM I JUST ASKED MY FATHER ABOUT PITCH INSTABILITY OF THE SOKO 522 A 600 HP TRAINER HE FLEW:SOME MINUTES AGO:

 

IF TRIMMED NEUTRAL AND AT CRUISE SPEED OR ABOVE IF YOU DIVE AND DO NOT TRIM AND DO NOT DECREASE THROTTLE YOU PUT THE STICK IN NEUTRAL SHE WILL GO INTO A CLIMB AND AT SOME TIME STABILIZE AND FLY LEVEL: IF YOU ARE SLOW SHE WILL STAY IN A DIVE - NO TRIM- SLOW FLIGHT: WHEN YOU PITCH UP - NEUTRAL TRIM - SAME POWER SETTINGS - SHE WILL DROP HER NOSE:AND DIVE IF YOU DONT INCREASE POWER AN OR TRIM YOU CANNOT CHANGE AND MAINTAIN PITCH WITHOUT CHANGING POWER SETTINGS AND TRIM: SHE WILL ROCK UP AND DOWN: ANOTHER NOTE - DIGITAL JOSTICKS CANNOT EMULATE THIS NOR TRIM AT ALL: AND YOU ALWAYS AT ANY TIME HAVE TO USE STICK AN RUDDER FOR LATERAL STABILITY AND TRIM: CHANGE OF ATTITUDE OR POWER SETTINGS

 

THIS IS NO WW2 FIGHTER BUT A HEAVY &== HP TRAINER LIKE THE T-6

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soko_522

 

• Max. takeoff weight: 2,400 kg (5,280 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 Wasp air-cooled, 441 kW (600 hp)

 

FROM ANOTHER THREAD -RUDDER SESITIVITY

 

Dakpilot, on 12 Sept 2015 - 09:49, said:

A lot of the oft reported 'superior" handling qualities of some German aircraft is lost in translation when presented in a 'sim world' due to light control input forces from joysticks. Aircraft like the Yak with their real world less effective controls become more easy to handle at the limit, then get tagged as unrealistic and advantageous in the sim. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to make excuses for any FM errors, but this is a factor that many ignore

 

+1

 

Always felt that this "issue", stick force reproduction, is one of the biggest problems of today's sim.

Edited December 12, 2015 by indiaciki

[GP*]

I'm not claiming anything is wrong with the FM.

 

Oh, but you're still making a claim. You're claiming the flight model is correct. See how that works? 

 

So, again, given that you are the main opposition to us even discussing the possibility that something might be wrong here, please state your real world experience that makes you any sort of an authority on this matter.

 

 

The 1CGS team has more access to the data on the aircraft than forum members do and actually has a test pilot to confer with who does handle some of these planes. So my assumption is that they're correct until proven otherwise.

 

Although the discussions are interesting. So far most of the FM challenges here are proven false.

 

You know what they say about assumptions...

 

I'll agree that those (myself included) who are challenging the FMs with regard to the "wobbling" haven't proven anything yet, but nothing has been proven false either. 

 

I'm glad the team has access to tons of data, but if that makes them infallible, why have FM revisions been made in the past? So really, they could have all the data in the world, but that doesn't mean everything is 100% correct. 

[indiaciki]

TRY TO MOVE YOUR AILERONS OR RUDDER AT 400 KMH: WW2 PLANES DID NOT USE FLY BY WIRE: BTW THE F4U AND THE T-6 TEXAN HAD NO PRE STALL BUFFETING AT ALL: THEY JUST DROPED A WING: ITS THE FORCES YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH YOUR CONTROLS IN RL THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE USING DIGITAL INPUT DEVICES

Edited December 12, 2015 by indiaciki

[Guest deleted@50488]

TRY TO MOVE YOUR AILERONS OR RUDDER AT 400 KMH: WW2 PLANES DID NOT USE FLY BY WIRE: BTW THE F4U AND THE T-6 TEXAN HAD NO PRE STALL BUFFETING AT ALL: THEY JUST DROPED A WING: ITS THE FORCES YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH YOUR CONTROLS IN RL THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE USING DIGITAL INPUT DEVICES

 

But you can simulate them, even when FF is not available, like Bos does, for instance as we lose authority with increasing dynamic pressure .  If you dive fast in a Bf 109 G2, F4, E7, you may not recover unlexx you ave time to use the stab trim.... Als, as speed / dynamic pressure increases your rudder and ailerons also become stiffer ... This is modeled in IL-2 BoS.

 

Anyway, while I really would like to see the Devs addressing this "damping" effect that causes the wobble, I can live with it. One of the solutions is to hold your stick and return it to it's neutral position slowly... Not very practical at first, but with time and practice we can find a way around it :-)

 

I have meanwhile decreased exponential throw of pitch to 50% and Yaw 40%, as well as set dedazones at center for roll and yaw, both of 8%

Edited December 12, 2015 by JCOMM

[indiaciki]

But you can simulate them, even when FF is not available, like Bos does, for instance as we lose authority with increasing dynamic pressure .  If you dive fast in a Bf 109 G2, F4, E7, you may not recover unlexx you ave time to use the stab trim.... Als, as speed / dynamic pressure increases your rudder and ailerons also become stiffer ... This is modeled in IL-2 BoS.

 

Anyway, while I really would like to see the Devs addressing this "damping" effect that causes the wobble, I can live with it. One of the solutions is to hold your stick and return it to it's neutral position slowly... Not very practical at first, but with time and practice we can find a way around it :-)

 

I have meanwhile decreased exponential throw of pitch to 50% and Yaw 40%, as well as set dedazones at center for roll and yaw, both of 8%

 

i WISH BOS HAD CURVES LIKE ROF HAS

[dburne]

Although the discussions are interesting. So far most of the FM challenges here are proven false.

 

And where has the rubber banding effect on the pitch axis been proven right? And they were prove wrong by who, you?

 

Can't prove right or wrong, we are talking about how a computer game performs in the y axis with a joystick controller.

Edited December 12, 2015 by dburne

[indiaciki]

NOBODY WHO HAS NOT FLOWN A 40S FIGHTER CAN PROVE US RIGHT OR WRONG: LETS CONTACT KERMIT OR ANY WARBIRD PILOT  -MESSERSCHMITT STIFTUNG MAYBE-?

Edited December 12, 2015 by indiaciki

[dburne]

i WISH BOS HAD CURVES LIKE ROF HAS

 

ROF indeed has a great controller setup menu.

[SharpeXB]

Oh, but you're still making a claim. You're claiming the flight model is correct. See how that works?

 

So, again, given that you are the main opposition to us even discussing the possibility that something might be wrong here, please state your real world experience that makes you any sort of an authority on this matter.

 

 

 

 

You know what they say about assumptions...

 

I'll agree that those (myself included) who are challenging the FMs with regard to the "wobbling" haven't proven anything yet, but nothing has been proven false either.

 

I'm glad the team has access to tons of data, but if that makes them infallible, why have FM revisions been made in the past? So really, they could have all the data in the world, but that doesn't mean everything is 100% correct.

 

Sure they could have something wrong. Nobody's perfect. But the process that been stated for considering FM revisions puts the burden of proof on the challenger. And some have been successful in the past. But you need to present something more specific than "wobbly" or "rubber banding". Especially when much of that behavior is due to PC controllers.

These kind of discussions really are interesting and that's why everyone gravitates to them. But expecting every one to result in some change to the game isn't reasonable.

 

NOBODY WHO HAS NOT FLOWN A 40S FIGHTER CAN PROVE US RIGHT OR WRONG: LETS CONTACT KERMIT OR ANY WARBIRD PILOT -MESSERSCHMITT STIFTUNG MAYBE-?

Maybe ask this guy. Test Pilot and Hero of the Soviet Union.

Edited December 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[indiaciki]

Sure they could have something wrong. Nobody's perfect. But the process that been stated for considering FM revisions puts the burden of proof on the challenger. And some have been successful in the past. But you need to present something more specific than "wobbly" or "rubber banding". Especially when much of that behavior is due to PC controllers.

These kind of discussions really are interesting and that's why everyone gravitates to them. But expecting every one to result in some change to the game isn't reasonable.

 

Maybe ask this guy. Test Pilot and Hero of the Soviet Union.

 

SO WE HAVE SOME PROOF AT LEAST 

[GP*]

SO WE HAVE SOME PROOF AT LEAST 

 

I'm sure this community has a tremendous amount of respect for him -- I know I do. But aside from the fact that he flew the game, we really have no idea what he flew in the game, what kind of profile he flew, what his actual feedback was, what version/build of the game he flew, etc...and those are just some of the questions.

 

I've never once stated that anything presented here is proof, or scientific in any sense, so I'm not sure why that fact needs to be pointed out repeatedly. As I see it, the point of this thread is just to raise awareness, and perhaps someone more clever than I am can come up with a scientific method to prove it, in some way/shape/form. 

[indiaciki]

i m not qualified either. That's why I called my dad who kind of is: Post above.50s trainers and military piston AC very less stable and flew differently. 

Edited December 13, 2015 by indiaciki

[Sokol1]

 

 Especially when much of that behavior is due to PC controllers.

 

This joystick will solve this issue:

 

http://s019.radikal.ru/i631/1512/24/8d1711b9c387.jpg

http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1512/d9/df9c7276657a.jpg

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sokol1

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In days of early access i was satisfied with 109 handling , then they introduced the damping in one patch. After that 109 felt much worst to me, i do not like it but i used to it.

[andyw248]

In days of early access i was satisfied with 109 handling , then they introduced the damping in one patch. After that 109 felt much worst to me, i do not like it but i used to it.

 

What did you like about the early preview 109 handling? Rudder/elevator/aileron sensitivity? The amount of rudder required at different airspeeds (climb/cruise/dive)? I really feel we need to be more specific when we make this kind of statements.

 

Personally I think the 109 handling improved much after members of this forum questioned it during the preview phase. Specifically, the lateral (rudder) stability was improved at that time.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'm ok with rudder too. They were improving it but in one patch they over do it. I'm referring to damping in axis.

Edited December 13, 2015 by tomcatqw

[Bando]

Hi Sokol, that first picture looks like some helo setup.

Is this available somewhere?

[Guest deleted@50488]

I managed to live with it with the 50% curve in pitch, 40% in yaw and central dedazone of 8% on the three axis.

 

Also, I don't let go of the stick. Thanksfully the spring tension in my T.16000 is minimal. If it was a Warthog I would have to start visiting the gymnasium to get in shape first :-)

 

Again, I think the word is damping, and how it is done presently for the yaw and pitch axis. They're both damped a bit too much...

 

Running "yaw-on-roll" tests between sims, it shows that both my sims exhibit the same characteristics, and the roll due to rudder deflection is about the same on my G2 and K4 models, although rudder and aileron authority with increasing dynamic pressure is considerably reduced a lot more in the K4 than in the F4, G2 or E7 

Edited December 13, 2015 by JCOMM

[KoN_]

I managed to live with it with the 50% curve in pitch, 40% in yaw and central dedazone of 8% on the three axis.

 

Also, I don't let go of the stick. Thanksfully the spring tension in my T.16000 is minimal. If it was a Warthog I would have to start visiting the gymnasium to get in shape first :-)

 

Again, I think the word is dampening, and how it is done presently for the yaw and pitch axis. They're both dampened a bit too much...

 

Running "yaw-on-roll" tests between sims, it shows that both my sims exhibit the same characteristics, and the roll due to rudder deflection is about the same on my G2 and K4 models, although rudder and aileron authority with increasing dynamic pressure is considerably reduced a lot more in the K4 than in the F4, G2 or E7 

Yep .......... i have sore hands if i fly for to long ..

Remember we have no trim Tabs on the 109 or 190 . They are not implemented . 

Plenty of WWII air shows around the world , im sure they could go up in a WWII Warbird  record the flight and stick movements maybe even take control of the stick .

Just beating a dead horse here . Out of all the aircraft i have in BOS  the 109 that is twitchy for me . But that maybe my hardware setup.

With the new gunfighter joysticks i hope that changes things .

Edited December 13, 2015 by II./JG77_Con

[GP*]

SORRY FOR THE CAPS - KEYBOARD IS BROKEN - SINCE I STILL DO NOT REALLY GET THE PROBLEM I JUST ASKED MY FATHER ABOUT PITCH INSTABILITY OF THE SOKO 522 A 600 HP TRAINER HE FLEW:SOME MINUTES AGO:

 

IF TRIMMED NEUTRAL AND AT CRUISE SPEED OR ABOVE IF YOU DIVE AND DO NOT TRIM AND DO NOT DECREASE THROTTLE YOU PUT THE STICK IN NEUTRAL SHE WILL GO INTO A CLIMB AND AT SOME TIME STABILIZE AND FLY LEVEL: IF YOU ARE SLOW SHE WILL STAY IN A DIVE - NO TRIM- SLOW FLIGHT: WHEN YOU PITCH UP - NEUTRAL TRIM - SAME POWER SETTINGS - SHE WILL DROP HER NOSE:AND DIVE IF YOU DONT INCREASE POWER AN OR TRIM YOU CANNOT CHANGE AND MAINTAIN PITCH WITHOUT CHANGING POWER SETTINGS AND TRIM: SHE WILL ROCK UP AND DOWN: ANOTHER NOTE - DIGITAL JOSTICKS CANNOT EMULATE THIS NOR TRIM AT ALL: AND YOU ALWAYS AT ANY TIME HAVE TO USE STICK AN RUDDER FOR LATERAL STABILITY AND TRIM: CHANGE OF ATTITUDE OR POWER SETTINGS

 

THIS IS NO WW2 FIGHTER BUT A HEAVY &== HP TRAINER LIKE THE T-6

 

 

 

I gotta be honest -- your description, while accurate, describes pretty much every airplane. And this aspect of it has nothing to do with the wobbling that we're talking about. What you described is perfectly normal aircraft behavior that's to be expected. 

 

I managed to live with it with the 50% curve in pitch, 40% in yaw and central dedazone of 8% on the three axis.

 

Also, I don't let go of the stick. Thanksfully the spring tension in my T.16000 is minimal. If it was a Warthog I would have to start visiting the gymnasium to get in shape first :-)

 

Again, I think the word is dampening, and how it is done presently for the yaw and pitch axis. They're both dampened a bit too much...

 

Running "yaw-on-roll" tests between sims, it shows that both my sims exhibit the same characteristics, and the roll due to rudder deflection is about the same on my G2 and K4 models, although rudder and aileron authority with increasing dynamic pressure is considerably reduced a lot more in the K4 than in the F4, G2 or E7 

 

 

Funny -- my settings are pretty much the inverse of yours! I have more of a curve for yaw than I do pitch. 

 

Also, I think the word you're looking for is damping. Why do you say there's too much? I feel like if anything we could use a bit more, which would (by definition) reduce oscillations in the yaw axis and, as a result, probably result in more overall "stability." Again, nothing scientific is being presented here, just purely conversational.

Yep .......... i have sore hands if i fly for to long ..

Remember we have no trim Tabs on the 109 or 190 . They are not implemented . 

 

That's my favorite part about the Warthog -- the stick forces. I actually wish it was a bit stronger if anything . 

[sturmkraehe]

Well after kicking rudders for several thousand hours over the years in real planes, the behaviour of the P-40 when using the rudder just slightly even at high speeds seems very unrealistic and wobbly. None of my ppl and glider hours was done on WW2 warbirds mind you but try and ask any real pilot out there and they'd tell you, you don't move the nose of a plane like the nose of the in game P-40.

 

I made the same observation with the P40 that seems to seems to have complete lack of any stability about the yaw axis (the pitch seems fine). It seems even to wobble without any rudder input. And irrespective of fuel or bomb loading. Which seems curious because the centre of gravity should have an impact on stability - for the better or the worse depending of the aircraft and the tank layout.

 

On a side note I always seem to lose any elevator authority as soon as I get some hits - but maybe I just had bad luck up to now.

Edited December 13, 2015 by sturmkraehe

[sturmkraehe]

Now if one were to say Il-2 BoS controls are more sensitive than other sims, fair enough

 

But the reference that because BoS uses DN game engine the aircraft will 'behave' like WWI aircraft is a very poor assumption and far from factual

 

When nicely trimmed the 100 ton cargo aircraft I used to fly would react responsively to two finger inputs, (not talking on stick forces in high g manoeuvres)  this has been my experience with pretty much all the aircraft I have flown in my career

 

With a little setting up of joystick responses I find I can get what feels like very reasonable feel, and great implementation of 'mass feel' when changing direction or pulling out of a dive

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I think it has less to do with some sort of "lightness of control" but rather with lazyness of the plane reaction or the lack of it. It does have a lack of feel of intertia to me too in some respect. The planes do feel a bit flimsy to me - like I would expect a ww1 plane to behave. It's a bit like graphically driving a mercedes but getting the responses of a Mini even though speeds are just like that of a mercedes.

[Guest deleted@50488]

The real p40 was known for it's directional stability problems.

 

Probably BoS magnifies itt with it's wobbling formulas :-)

Edited December 13, 2015 by JCOMM

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well, was looking fro news regarding "Vehicle Simulator" and found a video about one of the latest versions....

 

Ehehe, wobbles even a bit worst than BoS :-)

 

 

But the same happens to the A10C in DCS, as well as to the upcoming Mirage.... at least from some footage recently published ( look at the return to trimmed pitch whenever the pilot appears to pull or push the stick during a coupled approach... )

 

 

And even my preferred IFR simulator - ELITE - has it's B200 acting even more aggressively when we pull the stick and let it go.... 

 

Even Meghan Trainor has a wobbling problem 

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by JCOMM

[Sokol1]

Hi Sokol, that first picture looks like some helo setup.

Is this available somewhere?

 

 

Is a "DIY" joystick WiP: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/3611-rus-ot-judjun/

[Uriah]

part of it has to be pilot skill. I see in multiplayer those who get into nasty wobbles and those in the same plane who do not. And part has to be the controller. I have a MSFFB2 and a Thrustmaster t16000m. The Thurstmaster is so much easier to fly without wobbles. That includes not using the force feedback on the MS stick.

[dburne]

How about the mouse? Anyone know if it have the same wobbling type effect in the Y axis for anyone?

Just curious.

Edited December 13, 2015 by dburne

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

 

 

The planes do feel a bit flimsy to me - like I would expect a ww1 plane to behave

 

Agree or a deadstick 172 nose high @ 65 knots stripped from any fuel, oil nor engine, Cog in the luggage compartment behind you.

The wobbling thing is programmed to differ the planes from another, I'd wish they would find another way to simulate the individual planes from each other though, and watch the G4 video, that 109 wants to fly not like the in game G2 or F4 for that matter.

[Sokol1]

How about the mouse? Anyone know if it have the same wobbling type effect in the Y axis for anyone?

 

With mouse you are not "piloting" the plane, just determine his path.

You can circle the mouse around - what with a joystick make the plane nose try do the same movement - and nothing happen. 

The "flying computer" filter sudden movements. 

 

People can say what they want about, but this thing is very... "gamey".