Jump to content
Con

The ground physics agree or disagree

Recommended Posts

This.

 

This has been the root of my dissatisfaction with all the physics modeling in this title from the beginning.  It's why the ground handling is off, and why the planes all wobble about in the air.

 

And I still firmly believe it has everything to do with the fact that the game engine was developed for WW1 kites, and not for heavy by comparison WW2 aircraft.

 

I now await Luke FF's disparaging comments.

 

The trouble is, while I agree that there are certainly room for improvements, your claim that DN engine because it was used for WW1 aircraft is somehow flawed and not capable of simulating a WW2 aircraft is a bit daft.

The only logical conclusion, if your claim were to have any truth is that weight is not a parameter taken into account in the FM, it has as much logic as saying DCS can never simulate WW2 aircraft because it was designed for jets, or saying that RoF because it was designed for FM for small  fighters can not portray a heavier bomber.

You are basically saying that the DN engine is so flawed it will never be able to simulate an aircraft due to some basic fault 'under

the hood'

When you make repeated claims like that, it is not really surprising that you may expect some disparaging remarks

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit the boucing is way over done but the solution is to not taxi in the unprepared part of the airport. It's only when you go off the runway or taxiway that you get in ruff spots. So I'm having a hard time seeing the issue, as for how the planes taxi and take off while on stable ground I think is quite realistic. The 109 in game is hard to land because the real 109 was aswell as many as half of the 109 lost in ww2 were destroyed in ground accidents either taking off or landing. These aren't Piper Cubs they are high performance fighters so one can not expect the ground handling to be docile like a Cub's.

I've never understood this logic.

 

"It's a high performance fighter...(insert phase of flight here) MUST be difficult."

 

"High performance" and "difficult" don't always go hand in hand. The T-6 (original) is much harder to taxi than a Mustang, yet its in-flight performance isn't that impressive compared to a "high performance" fighter like the Mustang.

 

Other examples can be seen in pilot accounts. The 190 -- and most other wide track gear aircraft -- were known for having good ground manners.

 

Just because you have a powerful engine in front of you doesn't mean that during taxi -- where your throttle isn't that far from idle once you get moving -- the aircraft should always be a handful. Ease of taxi (or lack thereof) is aircraft dependent.

 

PS -- not sure what you're talking about, but the 109 is easy to land in this game.

Edited by Go_Pre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood this logic.

 

"It's a high performance fighter...(insert phase of flight here) MUST be difficult."

 

"High performance" and "difficult" don't always go hand in hand. The T-6 (original) is much harder to taxi than a Mustang, yet its in-flight performance isn't that impressive compared to a "high performance" fighter like the Mustang.

 

Other examples can be seen in pilot accounts. The 190 -- and most other wide track gear aircraft -- were known for having good ground manners.

 

Just because you have a powerful engine in front of you doesn't mean that during taxi -- where your throttle isn't that far from idle once you get moving -- the aircraft should always be a handful. Ease of taxi (or lack thereof) is aircraft dependent.

 

PS -- not sure what you're talking about, but the 109 is easy to land in this game.

 

I think maybe you are over analyzing the comment, it is a fair generalisation, the vast majority of peoples real life experience will be of GA Cessna's, Piper's and the like

 

quite simply in all aspects of taxiing and flight an 1000Hp  ME-109 etc. will be harder to manage, and should not be expected to handle and be mastered as easy as a Cherokee 140 is designed to be

 

I think that is the logic from where this statement/opinion comes. high performance 1940's taildragger does not = modern GA/training aircraft, so therefore expect a bit of  learning curve 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit the boucing is way over done but the solution is to not taxi in the unprepared part of the airport. It's only when you go off the runway or taxiway that you get in ruff spots. So I'm having a hard time seeing the issue, as for how the planes taxi and take off while on stable ground I think is quite realistic. The 109 in game is hard to land because the real 109 was aswell as many as half of the 109 lost in ww2 were destroyed in ground accidents either taking off or landing. These aren't Piper Cubs they are high performance fighters so one can not expect the ground handling to be docile like a Cub's.

 

The thing that is not plausible about boucing is what has been shown on the videos of the 109 : At low speed, be it on dirt taxiways or runways the tail wheel just bounces in a very very regular maner like a californian lowrider. And this for every single plane. It doesn't feel like the ground is uneven but rather had a regular waving pattern on it that makes the tailwheel bounce at a precise frequency.

 

A few tweaks of how shocks absorbtion behaves may well solve this.

 

Other than that, ground handling is very pleasant, it take practice to get it right but I don't find it especially difficult (except on iced taxiways with a good crosswind), and pretty convinving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  It is however a very good explanation for the handling issues that the sim has had since day one, and frankly the only one that makes any sense,

 

 

By the way, this makes no sense at all.  There are RoF aircraft that are heavier than any of the BoS fighters.  The DN physics engine can model tanks, trains, and many other objects that are heavier than WW2 fighters.  A physics model that does not simulate weight would be completely useless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know as many real pilots with tail dragger and high horsepower experience who think that things are amiss, as there are here that claim all is well.

That's all good and well, but what is your piloting experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that is not plausible about boucing is what has been shown on the videos of the 109 : At low speed, be it on dirt taxiways or runways the tail wheel just bounces in a very very regular maner like a californian lowrider. And this for every single plane. It doesn't feel like the ground is uneven but rather had a regular waving pattern on it that makes the tailwheel bounce at a precise frequency.

 

A few tweaks of how shocks absorbtion behaves may well solve this.

 

Other than that, ground handling is very pleasant, it take practice to get it right but I don't find it especially difficult (except on iced taxiways with a good crosswind), and pretty convinving. 

 

 

Tend to agree.

 

If I were to take a wild stab at it I would say that the centre of mass doesn't transfer backwards on the aircraft when on the ground.  This results in the tail being to light and thus doesn't give enough authority to the tailwheel. Has anyone noticed any difference to ground handling if the elevator is up or down, or from different load outs, such as full fuel, bombs etc verses minimum loading ?  The pivot point of the main gear is usually fairly well forward, near the leading edge of the wing, and thus a not insignificant proportion of the aircraft weight is moved back towards the teeny weeny tail wheel when on the ground.  Roll controllability of the tailwheel should be more manageable and feel different depending on aircraft all up weight.  I hardly dare mention DCS, but both 109 and 190 are more manageable, even on tarmac, and if anything the DCS 190 should be more problematic than the A3 in IL2 because of it's longer nose.  I don't think this problem arose in RoF because the tail skids had more stickiness and stopped when you told them too.  It was noticeable however that elevator position had a large influence on turn controllability when on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anyone noticed any difference to ground handling if the elevator is up or down,

 

I usually tend to do full stick back on taxi, which may be wrong for certain planes, but I saw a video of a (real) pilot explaining how he taxi's in a p40e, which was part of the video, and he said he uses full stick back... However, doing this in game does not keep the tail down, it's still just as bouncy.

 

 

 And I don't know why people are sitting here still posting "show the proof" comments when I show multiple videos clearly of REAL bf109s in rough grass NOT having their tail wheel bouncing off the ground, then a comparison video of in game bouncing....

 

 The proof has been given to you... Accept it. Ground handling is nice, but the wheel bounce is over done. Accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mikeypro83' timestamp='1454968000' post='331222'] Accept it. Ground handling is nice, but the wheel bounce is over done. Accept it.

 

Some people will tell you the sky is red before they accept anything.   :lol:   It's really quite entertaining to read their post.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people will tell you the sky is red before they accept anything.   :lol:   It's really quite entertaining to read their post.   

 

No one is disputing the tail wheel hop, the proof that was asked is about an entirely different subject, you obviously have not read the thread properly if you think that funny

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where so many of you are getting that the ground handling in this sim is good or realistic. In my opinion, it is the worst I've ever seen, anywhere. In thousands of real flight hours, flying many different types of aircraft for work and pleasure, I've yet to have the problems I have in here. Taxiing an aircraft is not difficult. It's not just me. As I've stated before I fly with other guys that fly for a living as I do and we're also just laughing and saying WTF on teamspeak when we're taxiing in here. One of our guys who flies 737's started his career flying DC3's and has quite a lot of hours in tail draggers and is baffled, as we all are, why a plane is spinning in circles after we've already been moving straight down a taxiway. We love the game and have almost completely moved over to this sim but the ground handling in here needs a lot of work and I'd really be interested to know how or why the devs think it's correct. No offense to you guys that don't actually fly in real life, but how can you say anything is realistic when you have nothing to compare it to other than other sims? I hope this gets a rework.

 

Things that are wrong include, but not limited to; planes spinning when they shouldn't be, the tremendous bounce during a taxi, as if you're in a 4WD going cross country and the balloon effect of bouncing and floating 50' back into the air if you're even just slightly over what the game recognizes as a touchdown speed.

 

I've operated on grass fields, dirt, concrete and asphalt. Grass and dirt runways almost universally soak up a lot of "impact" and dampen the landing and made what would be a hard landing on concrete or asphalt, nice and soft.

Edited by BSS_Sniper
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to have wider paths for taxiing.    

 

This is overlooked a lot, the taxiways are too small for larger planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it's funny. Just hilarious. It's like watching the little monkeys at the zoo jump up and down. So darn entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where so many of you are getting that the ground handling in this sim is good or realistic. In my opinion, it is the worst I've ever seen, anywhere. In thousands of real flight hours, flying many different types of aircraft for work and pleasure, I've yet to have the problems I have in here. Taxiing an aircraft is not difficult. It's not just me. As I've stated before I fly with other guys that fly for a living as I do and we're also just laughing and saying WTF on teamspeak when we're taxiing in here. One of our guys who flies 737's started his career flying DC3's and has quite a lot of hours in tail draggers and is baffled, as we all are, why a plane is spinning in circles after we've already been moving straight down a taxiway. We love the game and have almost completely moved over to this sim but the ground handling in here needs a lot of work and I'd really be interested to know how or why the devs think it's correct. No offense to you guys that don't actually fly in real life, but how can you say anything is realistic when you have nothing to compare it to other than other sims? I hope this gets a rework.

 

Things that are wrong include, but not limited to; planes spinning when they shouldn't be, the tremendous bounce during a taxi, as if you're in a 4WD going cross country and the balloon effect of bouncing and floating 50' back into the air if you're even just slightly over what the game recognizes as a touchdown speed.

 

I've operated on grass fields, dirt, concrete and asphalt. Grass and dirt runways almost universally soak up a lot of "impact" and dampen the landing and made what would be a hard landing on concrete or asphalt, nice and soft.

Dude. Exactly. This is another one of those topics that people like Dakpilot will insist is just fine when in reality there are some severe inconsistencies. I laugh when people say things like "a 109 has 1000 horsepower, it's going to be more difficult than a Cessna" and then don't say anything about the current ability to slam the throttle full open and maintain complete control during the takeoff. Hell, a few patches ago, that was the easiest way to take off.

 

I've been battling other "real pilots" for over a year about certain aircraft exhibiting excessive instability (read: wobbling). I've been told over and over again that I was wrong. And guess what now? The team is looking into the pitch behavior of the 109F2, F4, and G2. It just really cracks me up, and highlights those who *think* they have the real life experience to weigh in on these issues versus those who actually do.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where so many of you are getting that the ground handling in this sim is good or realistic. In my opinion, it is the worst I've ever seen, anywhere. In thousands of real flight hours, flying many different types of aircraft for work and pleasure, I've yet to have the problems I have in here. Taxiing an aircraft is not difficult. It's not just me. As I've stated before I fly with other guys that fly for a living as I do and we're also just laughing and saying WTF on teamspeak when we're taxiing in here. One of our guys who flies 737's started his career flying DC3's and has quite a lot of hours in tail draggers and is baffled, as we all are, why a plane is spinning in circles after we've already been moving straight down a taxiway. We love the game and have almost completely moved over to this sim but the ground handling in here needs a lot of work and I'd really be interested to know how or why the devs think it's correct. No offense to you guys that don't actually fly in real life, but how can you say anything is realistic when you have nothing to compare it to other than other sims? I hope this gets a rework.

 

Things that are wrong include, but not limited to; planes spinning when they shouldn't be, the tremendous bounce during a taxi, as if you're in a 4WD going cross country and the balloon effect of bouncing and floating 50' back into the air if you're even just slightly over what the game recognizes as a touchdown speed.

 

I've operated on grass fields, dirt, concrete and asphalt. Grass and dirt runways almost universally soak up a lot of "impact" and dampen the landing and made what would be a hard landing on concrete or asphalt, nice and soft.

 

I allways believed that the groundhandling in this game cant be good or realistic, its just to unbelievable.

I watched alot of vids showing WW2 Birds taxing, taking off and landing and i never see such behavior, sure there is bouncing but it never looks like the crap in tihs game.

The taxiing looks way easyer in RL than what i ever see in tihs game, planes looking heavy on the ground,

even with tailwheel unlocked the planes dont look like they need so much rudder slamming left and right just to go in a straight line.

But in this forum, you will allways have these guys telling you, its all fine, this is like it is in RL, you have to learn blah blah blah and its often people who are real pilots so you cant say anything to them without feeling stupid.

"They have to know better" but it feels just wrong compared to RL footage in my eyes.

So thank you for your opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. Exactly. This is another one of those topics that people like Dakpilot will insist is just fine when in reality there are some severe inconsistencies. I laugh when people say things like "a 109 has 1000 horsepower, it's going to be more difficult than a Cessna" and then don't say anything about the current ability to slam the throttle full open and maintain complete control during the takeoff. Hell, a few patches ago, that was the easiest way to take off.

 

I've been battling other "real pilots" for over a year about certain aircraft exhibiting excessive instability (read: wobbling). I've been told over and over again that I was wrong. And guess what now? The team is looking into the pitch behavior of the 109F2, F4, and G2. It just really cracks me up, and highlights those who *think* they have the real life experience to weigh in on these issues versus those who actually do.

 

 

Dude I have never said there are no issues, you really need to stop putting words in my mouth,

 

I have also never said that the ground handling is perfect, but I cannot agree with the statement 

 

 In my opinion, it is the worst I've ever seen, anywhere.

 

When people make a blanket statement like that I cannot take them seriously

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think that improved dapening would probably solve most of the issues we have currently with landing & taxiing. My big guess is, that due to too low dapening planes do literally "jump" so they lose wheel traction, which in return results in less stability ad hihger tendency to spin,

 

However, I think sayig this game had worst ground physics is opver the top. Infact it's the most detailed ground physics I've yet seen and can at best be comapred to Accusim (that's not a core game thing though). It's just a little rough and could use some more fidleity here and there like finer grades of "rough terrain" around prepared runways and work areas as well as reworcked snow physics so larger aircraft like the He-111 and Bf-110 don't get totally stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think that improved dapening would probably solve most of the issues we have currently with landing & taxiing. My big guess is, that due to too low dapening planes do literally "jump" so they lose wheel traction, which in return results in less stability ad hihger tendency to spin,

 

However, I think sayig this game had worst ground physics is opver the top. Infact it's the most detailed ground physics I've yet seen and can at best be comapred to Accusim (that's not a core game thing though). It's just a little rough and could use some more fidleity here and there like finer grades of "rough terrain" around prepared runways and work areas as well as reworcked snow physics so larger aircraft like the He-111 and Bf-110 don't get totally stuck.

 

In one of the DD's they said they have found the reason for larger Aircraft getting stuck in snow, I believe it was something to do with tire diameter/rolling resistance parameters not being quite right, not totally sure I am recalling that exactly correctly, but the fix was said to be on the list to be implemented

 

Cheers dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all good and well, but what is your piloting experience?

 

Like many here, some time in GA aircraft, mostly smaller Cessnas, two full IFR trips of 200+ miles in a twin Piper, some time in a Grumman American TR2 and Traveller, but the real eye opener was the half hour of seat time in a Stearman last summer.

 

No wobblies in the air, I could pick a spot off the current line of travel, then point the aircraft at it and it would just go to that new heading, No bouncing all around after neutralizing the controls, nothing.  Also, no inane ground looping (though I did not taxi the aircraft), I asked the owner how hard it was to ground loop it during taxi, so he demonstrated it.  It took very deliberate and drastic control inputs to initiate a ground loop, nothing like the nonsense we have in the game now.

 

So I do have some frame of reference other than just make believe flying of pixel planes in a pixel world.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many here, some time in GA aircraft, mostly smaller Cessnas, two full IFR trips of 200+ miles in a twin Piper, some time in a Grumman American TR2 and Traveller, but the real eye opener was the half hour of seat time in a Stearman last summer.

 

No wobblies in the air, I could pick a spot off the current line of travel, then point the aircraft at it and it would just go to that new heading, No bouncing all around after neutralizing the controls, nothing.  Also, no inane ground looping (though I did not taxi the aircraft), I asked the owner how hard it was to ground loop it during taxi, so he demonstrated it.  It took very deliberate and drastic control inputs to initiate a ground loop, nothing like the nonsense we have in the game now.

 

So I do have some frame of reference other than just make believe flying of pixel planes in a pixel world.

 

Fair enough, thank you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome.

 

We all bring different things to the sim, and all take different things away from our experience with it.

 

In the end we all want the best experience we can have with it, it's just that getting there is often a bumpy, er, wobbly, road.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, that has nothing to do with ground physics  :biggrin:

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats datapacks transfer/loss issue in multiplayer.Been here since they have invented internet  ;) Next time ask that guy in ilyusha if he really went under ground or if that yak really dipped his wing in the mud.

Edited by Brano
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeebra, don't get me wong please, but you're not landing.... you're smashing the aircraft against the runway :-)

 

How can it not bounce that way ?

 

And, some gliders also have a tail skid instead of wheel :-)

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's 'accurate' or not, but what I do know is that trying to land the La-5 without ground looping has been incredibly demoralizing. 

The solution I find to that is to add like 20-25% power so you have enough rudder authority to counteract it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many here, some time in GA aircraft, mostly smaller Cessnas, two full IFR trips of 200+ miles in a twin Piper, some time in a Grumman American TR2 and Traveller, but the real eye opener was the half hour of seat time in a Stearman last summer.

 

No wobblies in the air, I could pick a spot off the current line of travel, then point the aircraft at it and it would just go to that new heading, No bouncing all around after neutralizing the controls, nothing.  Also, no inane ground looping (though I did not taxi the aircraft), I asked the owner how hard it was to ground loop it during taxi, so he demonstrated it.  It took very deliberate and drastic control inputs to initiate a ground loop, nothing like the nonsense we have in the game now.

 

So I do have some frame of reference other than just make believe flying of pixel planes in a pixel world.

 

Nose wheel is far different from tail wheel in the way they like to ground loop. A nose wheel aircraft is actually more stable when off throttle then a tailwheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nose wheel is far different from tail wheel in the way they like to ground loop. A nose wheel aircraft is actually more stable when off throttle then a tailwheel.

A Stearman is a taildragger...

 

Short of flying a Warbird, it's one of the best aircraft to learn how 1930s and 40s aircraft actually handled. Pay close attention to EL's comments about it.

The solution I find to that is to add like 20-25% power so you have enough rudder authority to counteract it.

See, that's part of the problem. No aircraft requires you to maintain that much power on landing rollout to keep it in line. All of your TOLD assumptions go right out the window at that point.

 

All aircraft are much easier to keep from ground looping than they were in EA, though. Try tapping a bit of L or R brake to keep the airplane tracking straight down the runway when rudder authority isn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww yeah, just taxi at slow speed ( slower then 10kmh) and look at how the aircraft especially the tailwheel bounces like its on a trampoline. Complete nonsense on what is supposed to be a smooth taxiway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a photo of the Stearman, and me in front of it after the flight...  Just for clarification.

 

HHcy5e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like it too.  I can understand that those who liked to gun their engine and just go belting off in any direction will be much less pleased though.  However to be truthful, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.  :biggrin:

 

 

*Raises his mug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree trhat the ground seems too bouncy/hard. it annoys me most on landings, where you have to slow way down and get a perfect touchdown to keep from bouncing, and bouncing, and bouncing, and .... some planes are worse than others - like the la5.

I watched a youtube video the other day - a Russian b&w - of the la5 and it showed landings...they came in much steeper and hardly had one small bounce.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, as in most sims, there are things that need adjusting, or are just plain wrong...

 

The other problem, is that many have found a way to cope with the faults, and then berate others who dare to stand up and highlight a perceived problem. That solves nothing... most people eventually find some sort of knack for coping with a problem in any game. That doesn't mean it's correct, only that they have 'found a way'...

 

The sad thing is, we are all enthusiasts that just want the best out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the ideal in ground handling is somewhere between what il-2 BoS and DCS World provide presently.

 

But in one of the last Developer Diaries the IL2 Team has promised some fine tuning to the flight dynamics, and even the development of internal tools which will allow for better analysis of the FDM. 
 

For example and looking only at the 109s, the tail heaviness, specially on ground, is IMO better modeled in IL2 BoS than in DCS World's K4. Then, OTOH, it appears the propwash is too effective in IL-2 BoS compared to DCS, making it possible, for instance, to takeoff with the tailwheel unlocked without any problem in any of the 109s in il-2....

 

If we taxi the 109s in il2 not using more than around 1000 RPM ( 10 on the gauge ) then it is really straightforward, and use of rudder, toe brakes and tailwheel locking are more than enough to control and properly steer the aircraft. Using higher power settings causes too much prop effects, requiring a lot of rudder to taxi straight, even with the locked tailwheel ...

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been away for awhile and came back to try the new goodies.

 

The ground handling is still bizarre, as is takeoff performance. The aircraft wallow and yaw during the medium to high speed portion of the takeoff roll, while maintaining the original directional vector, even after airborne. It's as if the aircraft has enormous mass, and no friction in the tires. Take the P40 for example- on takeoff or landing, you can apply full rudder and have the aircraft swap ends, and become essentially stable going backwards. At full rudder at 70-80 knots plus, the aircraft should yaw, but not depart lose all directional stability. I excused this when flying off of icy, winter runways, but in the summer maps? With aircraft with wide landing gear tracks?

 

The rudder doesn't seem to become more effective as the speed increases, still requiring the same displacement at it did at low speeds.

 

In the air, there is still that weird roll yaw coupling behavior at high alpha behavior. Still get pitch pumping/PIO when tracking ground targets. I have sensitivity turned all the way down in my system.

 

This, and the confusing key mapping for views that can overlap and cause unpredictable behavior have kept me from using the sim. The key mapping is operator error, but the basic joy stick hat control for moving your eyes around the cockpit is aggravating. In pitch, the view always moves opposite to the direction of the hat input first. Why this is may be due to some key conflict, but I'll be damned if I am going to spend anymore time futzing with it. IF you don't use Track IR, the frustration of views alone, from behavior to keymap labeling is massive.

 

I know it isn't easy, but the devs need to get the frustration out of the sim.  I have no issues with ground handling being challenging, but this unpredictability is at odds with reality, and is bad enough that I quit playing. I don't know what it is, but it requires techniques that don't represent flying.

 

If real airplanes flew this way, I'd have given up 20,000 hours ago and become an accountant. 

Edited by Victory205

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...