Wind behaviour

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I've used forum search and found any previous comments about the subject.

 

 

So, I've seen in game winds doesn't make a great difference while flying, it's still pretty easy to take off and land even with a high cross wind (windsocks moving like a tornado's coming) and taking off downwind. Ok 777, that's your point, but I've witnessed  a completely wrong behaviour, while you have lets say right wind of course your aircraft is "pushed" (we all know that's not true, but for instance) left, and that's fine, but also your nose is pushed to the left making your crab landings face the opposite direction it should. Also we all know a plane "faces" the wind because wind pushes more the vertical fin surface while engine keeps its traction so left wind means left displacement but aeroplane facing to the right, and I haven't found that in game.

 

So my question is straightforward, does 777 consider that behaviour right? May be I've seen exceptional behaviour because whatever reason and also the opposite (and right) behaviour occurs? If not, is there any plans to fix this basic flight principles behaviour (same as flaps lowers AoA...)?

 

 

Cheers!

[Turban]

 

so left wind means left displacement but aeroplane facing to the right, and I haven't found that in game.

 

Pretty sure if you have wind coming from your left you'll have drift to the right and the nose pointing left, into the wind , no?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Pretty sure last time I flew IRL, may be RL changed since my last flight  .

 

S!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Pretty sure if you have wind coming from your left you'll have drift to the right and the nose pointing left, into the wind , no?

Correct. Glider pilots use that to figure out from which direction the wind is coming if weather conditions are not clear/changed.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Wind effects are very well modeled indeed in this sim, including turbulence effects.

 

Ala_13, please re-check your observations ;-)  Make the test again... It's actually very realistic in il-2 BoS ... ( btw, meteo man here ... )

 

Further writing on the subject :

 

- il2 correctly models, depending on aircracft and due to various factor but mainly to tail area, aircraft weathervane tendency, and when landing or taking off the nose really wants to point upwind, and we have to use opposite rudder ( downwind ) and upwind aileron to stay on track and try to counter the tendency of the upwind wing to rise;

 

- I'm not at my SIM PC, but I believe wind strenght can go up to 12 m/s which is aproximatelly 24 knot, pretty much above the x-wind limits for most of the aircraft in the sim, so, a wide range of usable and plausible wind strenghts is available;

 

- contrarily to most other combat sims, il2 models turbulence effects very well, and those can really add some good addituional thrill to our takeoffs and specially our landings. When turbulence is set we get not only shar but also up and down drafts.

 

So, overall I really see no problem here, and would just like to have it this way in some of my civil sims...

 

AND:  Since il-2 BoS really has a remarkable flight dynamics model, from the ground to the air, it's great to see in this video tutorial by Requiem on taxing under strong wind, how accurate it's simulation of the use of controls under rw windy conditions works just that way in our sim!

Edited March 5, 2016 by jcomm

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Hi Jcomm!! Glad to see you around here.

 

Of course I'll check again over different wind conditions. Thanks mate.

 

Cheers!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Sorry mate I thought as a matter of fact you were some another person because that very same avatar picture, are you?

 

 

Ok, I further checked and you're right to some point, but still wind behaviour is weird, nothing to do with RL and/or other simulators. The opposed to wind nose behaviour is possible into mild winds (absolutely weird and unreal), that was what I first saw. Yes in strong winds you can get nose into the wind, but you have to force it and aircraft doesn't get there naturally as it does IRL. Gusts are also weird as aircraft just tumbles and bumps uncontrolled (controls also behaves weird in there), I can understand it's a way they try to show there is gusts and wind shear, but nothing to do with real behaviour were you just feel in your ass the bumps but aircraft is quite stable, not to mention controls are quite steady while you hold them firmly. Indeed as you say, the most well known and venerable civil flight simulator out there shows a correct wind behaviour, nose pointing into wind naturally and correct gusts even though physics are way old and surpassed.

 

 

AND:  Since il-2 BoS really has a remarkable flight dynamics model, from the ground to the air ...

Well, about the "remarkable flight dynamics" of BoS we could open a whole new thread and talk through thousands of pages, but BoS flight dynamics are quite cheesy, mate. Scripted everything instead of real physics doesn't tricks me, I don't like ground behaviour and it's quite unreal (but I understand why people thinks that's quite real and challenging), torque is just simplified to aircraft turns left (or right) and that's just false, scripted stalls and spins are awkward, rough, and barely real, not to mention the long talked flaps behaviour meaning a poor principles of flight understanding. We could talk a lot but I don't see any remarkable flight dynamics further than the old Il-2 or RoF with a tiny (very tiny) twist in scripts. Of course there's good things I'm glad they got correctly, but still I have some, lets say, 'amateur' feeling with BoS rather than a real and deep simulator. As a game it's fine of course.

 

S!

[ACG_pezman]

Sorry mate I thought as a matter of fact you were some another person because that very same avatar picture, are you?

 

 

Ok, I further checked and you're right to some point, but still wind behaviour is weird, nothing to do with RL and/or other simulators. The opposed to wind nose behaviour is possible into mild winds (absolutely weird and unreal), that was what I first saw. Yes in strong winds you can get nose into the wind, but you have to force it and aircraft doesn't get there naturally as it does IRL. Gusts are also weird as aircraft just tumbles and bumps uncontrolled (controls also behaves weird in there), I can understand it's a way they try to show there is gusts and wind shear, but nothing to do with real behaviour were you just feel in your ass the bumps but aircraft is quite stable, not to mention controls are quite steady while you hold them firmly. Indeed as you say, the most well known and venerable civil flight simulator out there shows a correct wind behaviour, nose pointing into wind naturally and correct gusts even though physics are way old and surpassed.

 

 

Well, about the "remarkable flight dynamics" of BoS we could open a whole new thread and talk through thousands of pages, but BoS flight dynamics are quite cheesy, mate. Scripted everything instead of real physics doesn't tricks me, I don't like ground behaviour and it's quite unreal (but I understand why people thinks that's quite real and challenging), torque is just simplified to aircraft turns left (or right) and that's just false, scripted stalls and spins are awkward, rough, and barely real, not to mention the long talked flaps behaviour meaning a poor principles of flight understanding. We could talk a lot but I don't see any remarkable flight dynamics further than the old Il-2 or RoF with a tiny (very tiny) twist in scripts. Of course there's good things I'm glad they got correctly, but still I have some, lets say, 'amateur' feeling with BoS rather than a real and deep simulator. As a game it's fine of course.

 

S!

Guy, trolling the devs about their understanding of flight dynamics is the wrong way to get your problem addressed. It's not just you, there have been many who approach things from this way, but all they have really gotten from it is a forum ban.

 

All I'm saying is that you can address your concerns without being condescending to people who share their skill with us. All it's going to do is lead to a flame war, bearcat banning people for being dumbasses, the thread being locked, and then claims that the devs shut down anyone who says they're wrong. It's counter-productive.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes it's me Ala13  :-)

 

Just changed tag name to better reflect my main characteristic as a simmer :-)

 

I'll send you a PM, since, as a RW pilot, I do find it very consistent with reallity contrarily to what you mention ...

 

Hasta luego!

Edited March 11, 2016 by The-UNINSTALLER

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It's you? So hi again mate .

 

 

Guy, trolling the devs about their understanding of flight dynamics is the wrong way to get your problem addressed. It's not just you, there have been many who approach things from this way, but all they have really gotten from it is a forum ban.

All I'm saying is that you can address your concerns without being condescending to people who share their skill with us. All it's going to do is lead to a flame war, bearcat banning people for being dumbasses, the thread being locked, and then claims that the devs shut down anyone who says they're wrong. It's counter-productive.

Trolling devs... wow, I expected telling things some people don't like would be get by somebody as trolling, but not so fast . Whatever mate, I'll try speaking different but at the bottom of all my point will be the very same, is this a simulator or an "advanced arcade"? I would like to clearly know because it's my money what I expend, it's not like you nor anyone here bought me a thing .

 

S!

[ACG_pezman]

All I'm saying is that when you refer to someone's work, and not bad work, on a sim as "advanced arcade" and insult the devs understanding of flight models and dynamics - it might be misconstrued as trolling.

 

Now it might be that English is not your native language and the words you are using don't necessarily convey the meaning you wish, and if that's the case I'm just trying to help. Now if you fully understand what you're saying then there is no excuse for it.

 

We all paid good money to fly this sim and there are still issues with it that are getting worked out. There is a small team of devs servicing this game for us and they are doing a great job at fixing, updating, and expanding the game all at the same time. You can't get large companies like EA to give that kind of support for any single game they produce, with their deep pockets and giant staffs/dev teams like the BOS/BOM team has.

 

TL;DR - Just be nice.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

No problem mate. And no, English isn't my native language but I would like to think I understand what I write...    Anyway I would like to know how can I possibly say in English a thing I don't like without somebody considering it rude.

 

For the record, I don't mean "advanced arcade" as any bad thing, if anybody wants to think that's bad that's his/her problem. But IMHO it defines what the devs goal is with this game (is game also any offence? ), and so I would like to know. My point is quite simple, if devs goal is a hardcore simulation BoS is quite far yet and so I pointed (asked) details I would like to know if would be further developed in the future, but if the devs goal isn't a hardcore simulator (advanced arcade then) it's fine, just I'll know now and for the future what I should expect so act in consequence buying or not further DLCs and not asking an "advanced arcade" for features it won't ever have because they aren't devs goal. I'm not saying that's good or bad, its a matter of what BoS is and what is not and I just would like to know. Have I explained myself better now?

 

 

S!

[FuriousMeow]

I remember when the old Il-2 series was a hardcore simulator. Then came DCS and that became hardcore, because it has clickpits. Clickpits aren't the definition of simulator over "arcade."

 

A game can have clickpits and still have aircraft land 3 point missing a wing, including the landing gear on that side, and their entire rear fuselage but some will still swear its a hardcore simulator.

Edited March 11, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[SqwkHappy]

Ala13_ManOWar,

 

    Don't think you have to walk on eggshells for all of us, only the jumpy sensitive ones who need to switch to decaf for a day.

 

    The rest of us are over here nodding our heads in agreement, simply ignoring it, or open for discussion.

 

    My goal of this post is to let you know the devs have stated that once BoM is out, they will be back with 100% focus on the engine and flight dynamics. Until then all major changes are on the back burner.

Edited March 11, 2016 by [MYK]Mikeypro83

[FuriousMeow]

What's the need to call one advanced arcade, another hardcore sim (especially when the difference is something as silly as clickpits), especially when simply trying to understand the behavior, that has been proven correct, that the simulator is simulating.

 

it's almost as if those who so hastily denigrate are so insecure that they must be "hardcore simmers" or else they are inadequate. If calling yourself and the preferred game you play a "hardcore" sim and "hardcore" simmer helps you get through the day - okay, if that's how you must perceive yourself to be but that is still your own opinion and others may not see it that way.

Edited March 11, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[ACG_pezman]

Clickpits are fun until you mess up takeoff, get shot down, or otherwise have to start again, then you have to repeat the same process again. The mustang's clickpit is relatively fast for a startup sequence, especially when compared to the A-10C's, waiting for you nav/gps to sync takes forever.

 

However, since SP mode isn't at the point where you can start at the ramp with a NPC flight, taxi, and takeoff - I am speaking from a multiplayer perspective. Otherwise I would like clickpits too.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well, about the "remarkable flight dynamics" of BoS we could open a whole new thread and talk through thousands of pages, but BoS flight dynamics are quite cheesy, mate. Scripted everything instead of real physics doesn't tricks me, I don't like ground behaviour and it's quite unreal (but I understand why people thinks that's quite real and challenging), torque is just simplified to aircraft turns left (or right) and that's just false, scripted stalls and spins are awkward, rough, and barely real, not to mention the long talked flaps behaviour meaning a poor principles of flight understanding. We could talk a lot but I don't see any remarkable flight dynamics further than the old Il-2 or RoF with a tiny (very tiny) twist in scripts. Of course there's good things I'm glad they got correctly, but still I have some, lets say, 'amateur' feeling with BoS rather than a real and deep simulator. As a game it's fine of course.

 

S!

I don't know where you get that idea from or if you even know how flight dynamics work in a game. Never really understood people complaining about "scripted stalls" yet never explaining how that was actually done.

 

To make it short, no, stalls are not scripted. Whats scripted is the aerodynamics properties of the wing and basic aircraft specs, however those are only basic parameters that the flight engine uses to calculate the appearances of a stall based on those parameters, weather conditions and of course pilot input.

 

Turbulences are also implemented very plausible according to my flying expirience. Flying threw turbulent weather means you have to work constantly to keep the course and pitch steady. Besides, I've yet to fly a sim that has a better implementation of turbulences.

[LizLemon]

What's the need to call one advanced arcade, another hardcore sim (especially when the difference is something as silly as clickpits), especially when simply trying to understand the behavior, that has been proven correct, that the simulator is simulating.

 

it's almost as if those who so hastily denigrate are so insecure that they must be "hardcore simmers" or else they are inadequate. If calling yourself and the preferred game you play a "hardcore" sim and "hardcore" simmer helps you get through the day - okay, if that's how you must perceive yourself to be but that is still your own opinion and others may not see it that way.

 

And what is the purpose of bringing up clickable cockpits in a thread that has nothing to do with it?

 

Why not address what the thread is about? Why try to steer the thread off topic?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Ala13_ManOWar,

 

    Don't think you have to walk on eggshells for all of us, only the jumpy sensitive ones who need to switch to decaf for a day.

 

    The rest of us are over here nodding our heads in agreement, simply ignoring it, or open for discussion.

 

    My goal of this post is to let you know the devs have stated that once BoM is out, they will be back with 100% focus on the engine and flight dynamics. Until then all major changes are on the back burner.

 

Exactly what I mean and what I wanted to know, thanks mate!!!

 

 

The other people. Well, if I have to explain why a clickable cockpit doesn't make it hardcore (not only at least) or why an "animated" (scripted) stalls, groundloops/flight bump, or an oversimplified torque isn't real at all I won't do it. My aim wasn't forum discussions.

 

 

S!

Edited March 11, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[SYN_Haashashin]

The other people. Well, if I have to explain why a clickable cockpit doesn't make it hardcore (not only at least) or why an "animated" (scripted) stalls, groundloops/flight bump, or an oversimplified torque isn't real at all I won't do it. My aim wasn't forum discussions.

ManOwar, That part right here is given false statements about BoS/BoM (please read rule 17. Tambien las tienes en el foro en castellano.)

 

Now, there is no scripted stalls or ground loops/ flight bumps whatsoever, physics engine is an adaptation of a proven one (RoF) and this is the first time, that I saw,that someone says such a thing. please take a look at YouTube videos about the Physics engine.

 

If you post a topic on a forum you should expect forum discussions.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Forum discussion of course, but the very first response was about "trolling" and "bans", if that's how it works here that's not my taste nor how I discuss anything.

 

 

About BoS Physics, well if you say that's not scripted at all even though it's the very same behaviour for all aeroplanes and quite similar to that in old Il-2 and CloD... Ok, I believe you, that's a physics engine behind, but being so and after what I've seen in-game you don't want to listen what I can guess after BoS physics engine... right? 

 

S!

Edited March 12, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[SYN_Haashashin]

Forum discussion of course, but the very first response was about "trolling" and "bans", if that's how it works here that's not my taste nor how I discuss anything.

 

Those respond are not of good taste I agree but your first posts were not of good taste neither.

 

 

About BoS Physics, Ok, I believe you, that's a physics engine behind.

 

Its not about believing me or not, you can see it yourself. The BoS engine is based on this one on the videos, not il2 or CloD engine. This 2 videos are like 7 or 8 years old so the engine has been developed since then.

 

 

 

You have and opinion about the engine and I have another, lets agree on disagree.

 

Cheers

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You have and opinion about the engine and I have another, lets agree on disagree.

 

 

Of course mate  .

Edited March 12, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[216th_Jordan]

Forum discussion of course, but the very first response was about "trolling" and "bans", if that's how it works here that's not my taste nor how I discuss anything.

 

 

About BoS Physics, well if you say that's not scripted at all even though it's the very same behaviour for all aeroplanes and quite similar to that in old Il-2 and CloD... Ok, I believe you, that's a physics engine behind, but being so and after what I've seen in-game you don't want to listen what I can guess after BoS physics engine... right?

 

S!

I'd really like to know what you mean by scripted? how does it show? Physics seem very plausable to me, maybe some parameters are a bit off, but thats no wonder, regarding how many parts work together.

I'd appreciate an answer with examples of ingame behaviour of what you mean.

 

cheers

 

Jordan

[LukeFF]

Let's make this simple: Han explains here what is scripted and what is not:

 

Developer Diary #33

[Brano]

Supply of "FM experts" is inexhaustible...It is most probably naturally renewable resource.

[bzc3lk]

Supply of "FM experts" is inexhaustible...It is most probably naturally renewable resource.

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, my licence says I'm an FM expert, but it's easy, you go there, pay, and get your own licence    .

 

 

I'd really like to know what you mean by scripted? how does it show? Physics seem very plausable to me, maybe some parameters are a bit off, but thats no wonder, regarding how many parts work together.
I'd appreciate an answer with examples of ingame behaviour of what you mean.

cheers

Jordan

As I said I believe Haashashin if he says there's no canned behaviours, still I think there are because those looks so strangely close in every aircraft. You can easily check yourself, for instance ground loops are the very same in every aircraft. Aren't aircraft different? Does all aircraft have the very same CoG, weight distribution, ground contact points (so drag), etc? ans still all ground loops are the very same in every aircraft, even for narrow gear as 109 or wide gear as Russian ones? I can't affirm it's canned (scripted) because I don't know BoS guts, but feels canned. And the same feels spins, wind (weird) behaviour, aircraft bumps in flight, and so on.

 

And also as I already said, by saying that I'm not trying to demote BoS or something like that (not to say bother anyone) all of that is fine with me as far as we know what the goal is. You can say, "mate we aren't aiming for a professional pilots training simulator, this is still a game", and I'll say all right, so lets play and enjoy the game. But some people, and sometimes devs, say this is a hardcore (but light?) simulator, and since that happens I'm confused. Is this a hardcore simulator or a game? And I just would like to know so it's clear what I should expect (and ask devs for the future as I pay the game) and what I shouldn't.

 

S!

[Hoots]

Yeah, my licence says I'm an FM expert, but it's easy, you go there, pay, and get your own licence    .

 

 

 

As I said I believe Haashashin if he says there's no canned behaviours, still I think there are because those looks so strangely close in every aircraft. You can easily check yourself, for instance ground loops are the very same in every aircraft. Aren't aircraft different? Does all aircraft have the very same CoG, weight distribution, ground contact points (so drag), etc? ans still all ground loops are the very same in every aircraft, even for narrow gear as 109 or wide gear as Russian ones? I can't affirm it's canned (scripted) because I don't know BoS guts, but feels canned. And the same feels spins, wind (weird) behaviour, aircraft bumps in flight, and so on.

 

And also as I already said, by saying that I'm not trying to demote BoS or something like that (not to say bother anyone) all of that is fine with me as far as we know what the goal is. You can say, "mate we aren't aiming for a professional pilots training simulator, this is still a game", and I'll say all right, so lets play and enjoy the game. But some people, and sometimes devs, say this is a hardcore (but light?) simulator, and since that happens I'm confused. Is this a hardcore simulator or a game? And I just would like to know so it's clear what I should expect (and ask devs for the future as I pay the game) and what I shouldn't.

 

S!

So you believe haashashin but then say in the next sentence that you don't?

 

It's probably best to remember that you are sitting in front of a computer playing a game. This is true for ALL flight sims whatever they say in the marketing words. Home computers can't compete against dedicated professional flight simulators so if that's what you're looking for when people say it's "hardcore" then you are always going to be disappointed. However in the realms of home computing I would say this sim does a pretty believable job of interpreting flight, where people say it is "lite" is probably due to the lack of a clickable cockpit. Never really bothered me as I don't click in a real cockpit. I push buttons and move levers.

 

So yeah, if you want a super realistic hardcore sim to go with your real world experience then it's best to start saving lots of money, or better yet, give up on home flight sims and spend the money on the real thing

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As I said I believe Haashashin if he says there's no canned behaviours, still I think there are because those looks so strangely close in every aircraft. You can easily check yourself, for instance ground loops are the very same in every aircraft. Aren't aircraft different? Does all aircraft have the very same CoG, weight distribution, ground contact points (so drag), etc? ans still all ground loops are the very same in every aircraft, even for narrow gear as 109 or wide gear as Russian ones? I can't affirm it's canned (scripted) because I don't know BoS guts, but feels canned. And the same feels spins, wind (weird) behaviour, aircraft bumps in flight, and so on.

Yes, aircraft do indeed behave differently ingame. Try coparing the 109 to the Fw-190 and Ju-87 and you'll figure all three handle completely different each with it's own quircks.

 

Weight also plays an important role. Try taxiing with an overloaded aircraft and than with lightweigt loadout and you'll notice significant differences.

 

That is not to say all aircraft taxi properly, ie. 100% realistic ingame - infact my tail dragger expirience is close to 0 and wouldn't allow me to make such a bold statement. I'm only saying that aircraft ingame do indeed behave differently and don't use copy & paste parameters.

 

There're also many FM changes coming after the final release of Battle of Moskow like elementary rudder changes that eventually will effect aircraft in many ways including taxiing.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[LukeFF]

 

 

And I just would like to know so it's clear what I should expect (and ask devs for the future as I pay the game) and what I shouldn't.

 

Apparently you didn't click on the link I supplied up above, or else you would have saved yourself from typing so much...stuff. 

[Guest deleted@50488]

"Taxi" physics :-), ground physics as part of an integrated model for simulation that is really at the base of il-2 Battle of Stalingrad, and brings  us - I believe - the exact same modeling no matter if a train, a boat, a car, a tank or an airplane are being simulated ( and THIS IMHO makes Quite a Difference!!! ), are the best I have found so far in any flight simulator I have used until today.

 

My closest match was taxxing a Auster D-5, many many years ago, and a PA 18, both with the "roda louca" ( free castoring tailwheel ) and I remember that the rudder was effective at the power settings used for taxiing, and even more when we gave bursts of power. Differential braking was mandatory for tight turns... I find these effects extremely well reproduced in il2 BoS.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Apparently you didn't click on the link I supplied up above, or else you would have saved yourself from typing so much...stuff. 

I know that link mate, I know what it says, I knew a lot of time ago and why that came up, in a point where pre sales were about to begin IIRC? I also remember the "competence answer" to that link and how 777 shut their mouth up since that answer. But if we play that, if that link and info is correct and up to date, if that is the supposed 777 goal, I can only be even more sure about what I'm asking because I don't see the hardcore simulator they try to sell anywhere  . Even old (yes, very old) AFM from LOMAC was better detailed than BoS. Since then those FMs has changed really a lot, so is BoS FM born out of date? That's what you're saying? That would explain some things indeed. May be I'm asking too much from a game so if it's that I can stop now because I know what I'll get. Thank you  .

 

S!

Edited March 14, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Guest deleted@50488]

On a side note, and bringing yet another interesting subjetc that is more plausibly modeled in il2 BoS than in other sims, the Bf109s have their ground adjustable trim tabs set for nose heavy.

 

It can be seen looking from the outside that as propwash becomes effective, the elevator deflects down, and the stick actually can be also seen moving slightly in the cokpit.

 

This approach is, in as far as I find it, more plausible and satisfactory than having to edit / tweak stick curves in order to set a default forward deflection of the stick at it's neutral ( and ahead of it ) position, stick free of course...

 

One of the last updates by the dev team also gave us notice of their upcoming work to fix the overdone rolling moemnts due to sideslip, which will solve the problems some aircraft presently have when sidesliping...

 

Il2 BoS is progressing in the right direction, adding a respectable set of flyable aircraft including much more detailled AI than what I find in other sims of the same genre...

[SYN_Haashashin]

ManOwar,

 

FM discussion is prohibited outside of the subforum that is place for it. So all FM discussions have to be taken here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/

 

About the Physics engine...you said you believe that it's there (cus you believe me but not cus you can see it??) but at the same time you still think that there is not such an engine??

[LukeFF]

 

 

About the Physics engine...you said you believe that it's there (cus you believe me but not cus you can see it??) but at the same time you still think that there is not such an engine??

 

LOL yeah, I cannot quite understand where he's going, either, with this. It sounds to me like he's arguing just for the sake of arguing. 

[Hoots]

LOL yeah, I cannot quite understand where he's going, either, with this. It sounds to me like he's arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

On the internet? That could never happen

[Bearcat]

I know that link mate, I know what it says, I knew a lot of time ago and why that came up, in a point where pre sales were about to begin IIRC? I also remember the "competence answer" to that link and how 777 shut their mouth up since that answer. But if we play that, if that link and info is correct and up to date, if that is the supposed 777 goal, I can only be even more sure about what I'm asking because I don't see the hardcore simulator they try to sell anywhere  . Even old (yes, very old) AFM from LOMAC was better detailed than BoS. Since then those FMs has changed really a lot, so is BoS FM born out of date? That's what you're saying? That would explain some things indeed. May be I'm asking too much from a game so if it's that I can stop now because I know what I'll get. Thank you  .

 

S!

 

I think that can safely be said to be a matter of opinion.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Have not read most of this but I have found wind dynamics in this sim to be fine.

 

If wind come from right for example on take off u will drift left. Standard practice is to put aileron into wind and ease off as speed builds. I have been very happy with BOS for this effect.

 

In terms of high winds at altitude I am also very happy!!

 

One of the first missions was a cross wind landing in high winds and that all felt very good

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Well, we do not all have the experience of Manowar in RL but we all enjoy his rant  explanations about what is right and what is wrong less right in all sims. I belive Manowar has a point (he alwways has). Do not judge him severely. Nothing will ever satisfy him but real life. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Ala13_Kokakolo