Jump to content
[ASOR]Pharoah

Question - why is taxiing so difficult?

Recommended Posts

calm down boys...lets stick to the question. things do get lost in translation.

 

anyway I believe the answer to my original question (which has been answered a few times over) is: practice, practice, practice!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You're going to use the "learn to fly n00b" argument? Oh yes, well played BSR!

;)

Because it's valid. Taxiing Taildraggers takes time and training, why should it be any better in the Sim? It's actually to easy right now still, since the Prop Effects are modelled only very moderatly. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You're going to use the "learn to fly n00b" argument? Oh yes, well played BSR!

;)

 

Is it any less valid than the "lots of RL pilots say it's realistic, but they're wrong" argument that the OP is making?

 

Personally, I think taxiing in DCS is a LOT more difficult than BoS, and I hear that that game is super duper realistic.  

 

Bottom line, get some practice.  Just like the rest of us.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are just as many real life pilots that say it's bollox.

 

I can taxi any plane in the sim just fine, however, that does not make it correct, nor does it make it easy for new players to access this dying genre.

 

A simple fix would be an option for the choice of  "hard core simmer ground handling" or "realistic ground handling"  (call them what you want), it would be a simple fix that would make everyone happy.

 

Oh, but then we would have options.

 

Can't have that you know, it would pollute the purity of essence of simulation, or some such nonsense...

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A simple fix would be an option for the choice of  "hard core simmer ground handling" or "realistic ground handling"  

 

An even simpler fix is for you to practice.  Just like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You yourself say you have no idea how the aircraft flew, but are totally willing to accept that what we currently have is correct.

I'm not the one claiming anything is wrong. The burden of proof in these matters is on the challenger.

I assume you're familiar with Rule #18?

 

 A simple fix would be an option for the choice of  "hard core simmer ground handling" or "realistic ground handling"  (call them what you want), it would be a simple fix that would make everyone happy.

 

There's already a difficulty option for "Simplified Physics". Whether or not that affects ground handling, I don't know. The game doesn't need more options. Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with you BlitzPig. If real planes were as skittish on the ground (including landing like some of our current stable are) I would have dreaded each real life landing and subsequent taxiing instead of anticipating a greaser.

 

I have found (in game) I have much better control taxiing if I leave the tail wheel locked.

 

In real life taxiing takes no more thought than driving a car, it's just something you do without thinking about it - not so in game.

 

There is a reason why modern jets have powered nosewheels.

 

Wheel friction is a lot worse than you think. I know I use to fly combat jets and trainer turboprops. I remember on those rare occasions someone taxiing off the runway at night and would need to get towed. Mainly to avoid potential FOD damage but in any case, it's game over if you ever got off the taxiway. Based on my experience tail draggers had to be a real pain to steer since they had no powered steering.

I am amazed at how realistic the taxiing is in this game. It's more challenging than real life only because you don't have the seat of the pants feel and no 3d spatial to help with the SA. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and no 3d spatial to help with the SA. 

There`s plenty of 3D spatial awareness in this game, especially if you use Trackir. The only limit is on the person. And it shouldn`t be a problem for men in general. I don`t think SA is the problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An even simpler fix is for you to practice.  Just like the rest of us.

 

Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit I see.

 

Please note that I said I can taxi any aircraft in the sim.

 

SharpeXB, limiting options never is good.  I don't expect you to understand this basic concept of success in business, but there you go.

 

I'm out, you uber sim pilots can enjoy your victory in derailing another thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just on that point though (ie. that taxiing ingame is as difficult as IRL), we have to remember that this is a game, not a sim or real life but a game. Its like the whole 'I want it to be as realistic as possible....and yet be able to hand-fly a Heinkel H111 as well as working the bomb aiming apparatus at the same time'. That's b/s.

 

There's got to be some sort of middle ground - most if not all players in IL2 are more interested in getting in the air and dogfighting or ground pounding, not stuffing around in circles because we haven't practiced enough in mastering something that we'd have mastered had we actually been through military flying school plus gotten our rating on the specific a/c. if we wanted a more indepth experience, there's DCS. I have all the DCS modules but I prefer IL2 - why? because it has immersion and isn't too focused on the detail of managing your machine, but on how you employ your machine and its weaponry.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got into flight sim nearly 20 years ago.

 

Started with FS95 then 2000, 2002, F16MRF... I had at first trouble to taxi a bit, practiced and then it got better

Then I stepped into real cockpits and had to learn it from the beginning because it was so different. Now I'm fine with the planes I'm using and their tricycle gear.

Then I started on IL2 FB and had to learn again to master taxiing with all these taildraggers. I find it too easy now. 

Then came BoS and I spent again hours spinning around with the G2 and others. But I practiced and now I can taxi fine with all german planes and it's been months since I crashed on take off for the last time.

Last week I made my first flight on a real taildragger and was happy to have an instructor to help me because I couldn't control the left-right weaving of the damn plane on take off (taxi was perfectly fine at turtle speed though).

 

 

What I mean is that every experience is a different one and that no matter how "good" a sim actually is, it will be different from real life experience nonetheless because of the airplane own behavior and because of the different feedback of their control and your perception of acceleration you don't have in front of your screen. 

 

Just keep calm and practice until you get used to the mechanics, because at some point you will. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I think we can all agree on though.

 

Internet WW2 flight sims are serious bizness!

 

Lets face it, most of us all ready are or will be soon crotchety old men with strong opinions.

 

Men wearing bifocals with bad joints duking it out on the internet!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit I see.

 

 

I'm out, you uber sim pilots can enjoy your victory in derailing another thread.

 

Perhaps if you started with less emotive, and fairly easy to comprehend opinions stated as facts the thread would not have been derailed quite so much

 

"Real world pilots have commented several times that this is in no way correct"

 

"real world pilots with tail dragger experience find the ground handling to be laughable at best"

 

"It is flat out wrong.  End of story."

 

"Whom are we to believe?  Simmers in their basements or men who have actually flown real high performance aircraft?"

 
These are fairly easy to comprehend statements, had you said that options to make it more accessible would be a good idea, things may have gone differently  ;)
 
The ground handling is far from easy, but in RL it also requires understanding of the physics and experience in practice, something that all WWII pilots would have a thorough understanding of through their training in general and on specific types
 
Handling a 1000hp+ taildragger is harder in the 'game/sim' than in RL due to lack of "feel/inertia" and outside references, even in RL you will have to start countering a rudder input before any real feeling of swing is felt, smaller input control movement and lack of feedback make this even harder to judge in game.
 
personally I find the ground handling very believable (always room for improvement) and sufficiently challenging, maybe an easier option could be a good idea for learning, but actually I don't think it would work because it would teach you little, and not prepare for what was to ultimately come in harder realism settings which are enforced on all servers......but as said options are always good
 
Powerful aircraft require a lot of respect, I remember in my early days blowing the tin roof right off a regional Civil Aviation office with propwash  :cool: from a powerful engine (5300hp) while taxiing! ...now that took some explaining  :huh:
 
Cheers Dakpilot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lets face it, most of us all ready are or will be soon crotchety old men with strong opinions.

 

Men wearing bifocals with bad joints duking it out on the internet!

Hey! I resemble that remark...except I have trifocals... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As awesome as it is, this sim is already easy mode in many ways, if they modelled torque to be realistic half the people flying would quit.

 

Personally I think the ground handling is one of the best things about BOM/BOS. On the Stalingrad if you go off the taxiway it really feels like you are on a hard baked and rutted field, I love the way you have to ditch with wheels up and the snow feels perfectly realistic. BOM is much easier on both maps though. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Emil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am amazed at how realistic the taxiing is in this game. It's more challenging than real life only because you don't have the seat of the pants feel and no 3d spatial to help with the SA.

 

My fairly modest RL flying has been a  mixture of tricycle and tail-draggers, none of which [low-powered] aircraft were difficult to taxi but you did need to think ahead and respond quickly to the sense of the aircraft moving. Lacking that feedback - together with a tendency to over-control using our simple, small, plastic controllers - is what I find makes sims sometimes more difficult than real aircraft.

 

That being said, I am sometimes a bit surprised that full left break and rudder will not stop an aircraft rotating to the right...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As awesome as it is, this sim is already easy mode in many ways, if they modelled torque to be realistic half the people flying would quit.

 

Personally I think the ground handling is one of the best things about BOM/BOS. On the Stalingrad if you go off the taxiway it really feels like you are on a hard baked and rutted field, I love the way you have to ditch with wheels up and the snow feels perfectly realistic. BOM is much easier on both maps though. 

You mean torque as DCS is modelled, right? I see many people there despite torque :lol:. Funny thing is people there usually talks about how rewarding is learn to master and tame those beasts, with only a few complains. Here I see the complains but I don't see people talking about how rewarding is to tame the sim. May be users age range? Dunno.

 

RL experience here. No, in my own experience BoS ground handling isn't real at all. Have you tried DCS? That's real world, and also no, it's real but IMHO it isn't harder to taxi than BoS at all (may be knowing the real thing helps, Ok, but). Anyway also IMO BoS taxi, even though I don't like very much how it works and I don't find it to be quite real, isn't so tough to master. People just needs to get used to it. The big problem is most people have no experience in going ahead the aircraft and that's what you need, you have to make things in advance forwarding the aircraft reactions. Once you know the behaviour you can easily foreseen what the aircraft needs and act in consequence. So practice, that's all.

 

S!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean torque as DCS is modelled, right? I see many people there despite torque :lol:. Funny thing is people there usually talks about how rewarding is learn to master and tame those beasts, with only a few complains. Here I see the complains but I don't see people talking about how rewarding is to tame the sim. May be users age range? Dunno.

 

RL experience here. No, in my own experience BoS ground handling isn't real at all. Have you tried DCS? That's real world, and also no, it's real but IMHO it isn't harder to taxi than BoS at all (may be knowing the real thing helps, Ok, but). Anyway also IMO BoS taxi, even though I don't like very much how it works and I don't find it to be quite real, isn't so tough to master. People just needs to get used to it. The big problem is most people have no experience in going ahead the aircraft and that's what you need, you have to make things in advance forwarding the aircraft reactions. Once you know the behaviour you can easily foreseen what the aircraft needs and act in consequence. So practice, that's all.

 

S!

 

I haven't flown the P-51 in DCS but the customers of DCS and IL2 are quite different. IL2 was always a combat flight simulator even back in 2002, it focused on simulating air combat and not on systems. CLOD departed from that a little but not much.

 

There was a simulator called Target Rabaul or something similar which did torque very well but without peddles you couldn't get off the ground  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know I am not a real pilot but when I fly Clod and I thought logically lowering the prop pitch

to taxi would help and it did.power management was easier with less revs a gentler throttle response

and easier movement.

 

In this game the prop pitch on the ground does not seem to have any real significant effect like

in Cliffs of Dover.

 

I get the flight sim fanatics and they want it real as possible.

 

But if the devs make us have to check the oil and clean the spark plugs then the sim will be in extreme mod :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But if the devs make us have to check the oil and clean the spark plugs then the sim will be in extreme mod :lol:

 

Be thankful there is not that mode, and we had a Pratt & Whitney R4360, cleaning all 56 plugs in one engine after a bad start would really be a chore  :biggrin:

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't flown the P-51 in DCS but the customers of DCS and IL2 are quite different. IL2 was always a combat flight simulator even back in 2002, it focused on simulating air combat and not on systems. CLOD departed from that a little but not much.

 

There was a simulator called Target Rabaul or something similar which did torque very well but without peddles you couldn't get off the ground  :biggrin:

You can give a try, DCSW base is free and you get a TF-51  ;) . Anyway I don't fully agree, you know DCS comes from LOMAC and they were and still are quite focussed in combat, just jet combat until few time ago, and now they are able to enhance the realism with current PCs they are doing so also going into prop combat (and we agree still lacks some points but they are on it). People seems to forget we asked for that realism all the time since old Il-2, of course with Oleg ignoring us  :lol: , but that was the reason behind CloD try (and they failed miserably :( ). Yes, Targetware was quite nice, it's really a pity it's over now. I would like to give a try again to Targetware, shame I didn't saved the files, but now having something like DCS I think it was probably still far away, may be something like BoS is, just BoS and Targetware were focussed in different realism point of view, so they look for it in a different way IMO. Still Targetware were a community project, we can't compare with a professional dev.

 

S!

Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already own DCS including the WW2 fighters and most of the modern stuff I just didn't have time to do much with it and I just really like BOS/BOM. I would love to learn all the systems in the A-10 or Ka-52 one day.

 

I loved Flaming Cliffs 3 though, that was a lot of fun and I am very interested in how Radar works and how modern air combat takes place when everyone has missiles and radar etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in the Nam... I flew a tail dragger. Delivering tasty sandwiches and snacks to our brave soldiers in the field. Nothing motivates a soldier like a moon pie and a pepsi!

 

Anyways, back on track.

 

Billy, who was my co pilot in my P-47 was flying left seat when I asked him "did you remember to pack the grey poupon"

 

Long story short, Billy would back what I am saying 100%, but due to a tragic accident with a meat slicer (he sliced that Ham so thin) he is no longer with us.

 

What was I saying?

 

Oh yes,

 

I may have never fired a shot in anger but the soft serve ice cream machine on my plane was way ahead of it's time and the troops loved me for it!

 

You heard it from a real pilot folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice?   Yes we have to get used to this sim.  It doesn't mean it's actually realistic?  Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.  Yes a Spitfire is a tail dragger. 

 

It's been mentioned by some RL guys this sims ground handling is realistic.  It is to a degree because there some amount of modelling going on which I haven't really seen in other WWII sims however, It's over done IMO.  The brakes can't stop a ground loop from happening even and very low speeds say 5-10 mph and  this would be wrong.  You should be able to LOCK up a wheel with the brakes and you can't in this sim from what I can tell.  Lastly the ground loops are ridiculous regardless if you can practice to avoid them they are silly.  A JU88 weighs what 15,000 pounds?  It spins on a dime at 5 mph.  The FW can literally do endless ground loops with about 30 percent power regardless of differential braking.

 

Can folks figure it out?  Yes with some understanding of the sim.  Just because it's more difficult to taxi in some cases doesn't mean it's realistic.   

Edited by 14./JG5CaptStubing
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean torque as DCS is modelled, right? I see many people there despite torque :lol:. Funny thing is people there usually talks about how rewarding is learn to master and tame those beasts, with only a few complains. Here I see the complains but I don't see people talking about how rewarding is to tame the sim. May be users age range? Dunno.

 

RL experience here. No, in my own experience BoS ground handling isn't real at all. Have you tried DCS? That's real world, and also no, it's real but IMHO it isn't harder to taxi than BoS at all (may be knowing the real thing helps, Ok, but). Anyway also IMO BoS taxi, even though I don't like very much how it works and I don't find it to be quite real, isn't so tough to master. People just needs to get used to it. The big problem is most people have no experience in going ahead the aircraft and that's what you need, you have to make things in advance forwarding the aircraft reactions. Once you know the behaviour you can easily foreseen what the aircraft needs and act in consequence. So practice, that's all.

 

S!

 

I agree. BoS has many nice features but the ground handling is not one of them. I mean the crazy spinning you can do if you give rudder and gun the engine: It's like a merry-go-round! And then try to stop it by opposite rudder and applying throttle..... But, one can adapt and it's controllable using brakes but realistic? Not so much IMHO. And yes, the FM police can relax, it's simply an opinion so no lynching please.  ;)

 

OTOH those of us who own both DCS and BoS can compare and I find DCS ground handling much more believable. Not that that counts for much since I have not flown a lot of taildraggers and certainly not a 2000 hp one. However, in this case I lean on what IRL pilots say and AFAIK most of them think DCS has this down better....

 

I don't know what similarities there are in the BoS and DCS FM engine but it seems that at least in DCS there was a lot of tuning to get things right: I remember the early DCS Fw-190D9 renditions and that too used to spin around, have a delayed rudder reaction and even crab sideways when you took off. Gradually the ground handling changed and now it has converged to something that AFAIK most people over there are content with. So either the ground handling we have in BoS is the best the FM engine can provide or maybe it just needs a bit of TLC that's all.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in the Nam... I flew a tail dragger. Delivering tasty sandwiches and snacks to our brave soldiers in the field. Nothing motivates a soldier like a moon pie and a pepsi!

 

Anyways, back on track.

 

Billy, who was my co pilot in my P-47 was flying left seat when I asked him "did you remember to pack the grey poupon"

 

Long story short, Billy would back what I am saying 100%, but due to a tragic accident with a meat slicer (he sliced that Ham so thin) he is no longer with us.

 

What was I saying?

 

Oh yes,

 

I may have never fired a shot in anger but the soft serve ice cream machine on my plane was way ahead of it's time and the troops loved me for it!

 

You heard it from a real pilot folks.

Nice story by the way :biggrin: . I think you mean C-47?

 

 

Practice?   Yes we have to get used to this sim.  It doesn't mean it's actually realistic?  Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.  Yes a Spitfire is a tail dragger. 

Old argument, yes they were in a Spit in 20 hours, but no, Spit wasn't their first ride, they learnt to fly in some others aircraft and that wasn't just 20 hours. They already knew how to fly when they reached Spit, it was just too soon to go into combat with it. IRL a tail dragger is tough to handle and that's plain truth, just BoS behaviour IMO is weird and doesn't match that tough RL, BoS is tough in a different way and that's weird. But still BoS can be easily mastered IMO.

 

 

I don't know what similarities there are in the BoS and DCS FM engine but it seems that at least in DCS there was a lot of tuning to get things right: I remember the early DCS Fw-190D9 renditions and that too used to spin around, have a delayed rudder reaction and even crab sideways when you took off. Gradually the ground handling changed and now it has converged to something that AFAIK most people over there are content with. So either the ground handling we have in BoS is the best the FM engine can provide or maybe it just needs a bit of TLC that's all.....

They are incomparable at all, one a thorough study sim looking for absolute realism with the pros and cons that means, the other a more generic sim looking for playability and oriented to a wider players range. They just aim different goals and it's even unfair trying to compare. It's true there will be a problem, as time goes by they will cross each other at some point, theatres of war, aircraft models… and comparisons will come. But it's soon yet I think and even then they aim for so different kind of players they both will have their own followers.

 

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.

 

Those hours are hardly ideal and represent periods of wartime desperation, not a reasonable amount of training time. Actually I think the number got as low as 9 hrs during the Battle of Britain. WWII pilots also suffered an incredible number of accidents and fatalities in training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice?   Yes we have to get used to this sim.  It doesn't mean it's actually realistic?  Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.  Yes a Spitfire is a tail dragger. 

 

 

 

Many new pilots flying aircraft like that were killed because it was so hard. The torque from a Merlin is very powerful, if you throttle full back and then go full power in landing configuration the torque would flip the aircraft on its back. We don't even have close to that realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are incomparable at all, one a thorough study sim looking for absolute realism with the pros and cons that means, the other a more generic sim looking for playability and oriented to a wider players range. They just aim different goals and it's even unfair trying to compare. It's true there will be a problem, as time goes by they will cross each other at some point, theatres of war, aircraft models… and comparisons will come. But it's soon yet I think and even then they aim for so different kind of players they both will have their own followers.

 

Umh, this time i don't agree: While I don't claim to know what the devs are aiming for, and I think it would be presumptuous for anyone to do, my impression is rather that both DCS and Il-2 try to make as realistic a sim as possible. So I think saying that DCS is "thorough" and BoS is "looking for playability" is too simplistic. I think both aim for realism and are doing a good job at it. It's just that currently they are good at different things: For example, IMHO DCS rules when it comes to FM while BoS is way better when it comes to DM and scenery (It's not even a contest since DCS has none). IMHO ground handling is not that important though: What's important is to get the relative performance between the different aircraft right, i.e. turn, speed, climb etc. If the ground handling is a bit off is no big deal IMHO. Of course both would be good but given a choice I'd rather see the devs spend their time fixing flight performance issues than ground handling.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin Olds nearly killed himself in the P-51 exactly that way the first time he flew it. He had been in a twin engine P-38 prior and wasn't ready for the torque.

He has great descriptions in his book about being put into planes to fly with completely zero training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice?   Yes we have to get used to this sim.  It doesn't mean it's actually realistic?  Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.  Yes a Spitfire is a tail dragger. 

 

It's been mentioned by some RL guys this sims ground handling is realistic.  It is to a degree because there some amount of modelling going on which I haven't really seen in other WWII sims however, It's over done IMO.  The brakes can't stop a ground loop from happening even and very low speeds say 5-10 mph and  this would be wrong.  You should be able to LOCK up a wheel with the brakes and you can't in this sim from what I can tell.  Lastly the ground loops are ridiculous regardless if you can practice to avoid them they are silly.  A JU88 weighs what 15,000 pounds?  It spins on a dime at 5 mph.  The FW can literally do endless ground loops with about 30 percent power regardless of differential braking.

 

Can folks figure it out?  Yes with some understanding of the sim.  Just because it's more difficult to taxi in some cases doesn't mean it's realistic.   

Yes I agree it is a bit rough to get in the air with this sim.

 

Twenty would probably be a good average for new pilots seeing they were flying the best WWII piston fighter ever built the Spitfire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umh, this time i don't agree: While I don't claim to know what the devs are aiming for, and I think it would be presumptuous for anyone to do, my impression is rather that both DCS and Il-2 try to make as realistic a sim as possible. So I think saying that DCS is "thorough" and BoS is "looking for playability" is too simplistic. I think both aim for realism and are doing a good job at it. It's just that currently they are good at different things: For example, IMHO DCS rules when it comes to FM while BoS is way better when it comes to DM and scenery (It's not even a contest since DCS has none). IMHO ground handling is not that important though: What's important is to get the relative performance between the different aircraft right, i.e. turn, speed, climb etc. If the ground handling is a bit off is no big deal IMHO. Of course both would be good but given a choice I'd rather see the devs spend their time fixing flight performance issues than ground handling.......

Of course mate, your opinion is fine ;) . I don't try to "know" what's on devs head, but they are clearly aiming different things, isn't it? Il-2 never intended the hardcore flight simulation at all, they didn't even tried to go for the clickable cockpit and full systems resemble, that's right? So they have different goals in mind, and it's fine there are different options out there. I don't agree with you in the "better scenery", well if you mean about map theatre yes, definitely BoS and BoM have their adequate and logical maps, but if you mean how they look IMO right now DCS engine looks way better (and more realistic now we talk about realism) than the comic like graphics in BoS/BoM and that's with a 10 years old map. Of course realistic doesn't mean prettier, but RL isn't so pretty many times. I see them both quite different what doesn't means we can't use them both and get the better of everyone, but BoS isn't a hardcore simulator at all IMO nor they wanted it to be I think. And that's fine of course, just every sim has their taste and not everything has to be ultrahardcore looking for the ultimate realism.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

Il-2 never intended the hardcore flight simulation at all

 

-snip-

 

 

Wow, that's one way that you could stretch and bend his words.  :huh:

 

Go grind your ax back at the ED forums.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's one way that you could stretch and bend his words.  :huh:

 

Go grind your ax back at the ED forums.  :mellow:

Is it untrue? Was it their goal ever? Is it any bad?

 

 

Whatever, I can enjoy any sim I want the way I want like everybody here. Can't I? ;)

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice?   Yes we have to get used to this sim.  It doesn't mean it's actually realistic?  Realize Spitfire Pilots were up and flying Combat in 20 hours of training.  Yes a Spitfire is a tail dragger. 

 

It's been mentioned by some RL guys this sims ground handling is realistic.  It is to a degree because there some amount of modelling going on which I haven't really seen in other WWII sims however, It's over done IMO.  The brakes can't stop a ground loop from happening even and very low speeds say 5-10 mph and  this would be wrong.  You should be able to LOCK up a wheel with the brakes and you can't in this sim from what I can tell.  Lastly the ground loops are ridiculous regardless if you can practice to avoid them they are silly.  A JU88 weighs what 15,000 pounds?  It spins on a dime at 5 mph.  The FW can literally do endless ground loops with about 30 percent power regardless of differential braking.

 

Can folks figure it out?  Yes with some understanding of the sim.  Just because it's more difficult to taxi in some cases doesn't mean it's realistic.   

 

30 percent power....you wonder if 700hp is enough to spin an aircraft around with how much ground friction? I accurately  cant say, but 2 people can turn an aircraft weighing twice as much easily by hand...

 

This Spitfire Pilot 20 hours is so much [Edited],.. sorry but it gets quoted so often it just amazes me, and each time it is not deservedly shot down straight away, the sunday tabloid journalism of the 40's is perpetuated again.

 

I am not saying that the ground handling in BoS is perfect but some of the arguments to criticize it are very way off   :ph34r:

 

not aimed specifically at you Mr Stubing but...read up a bit about RAF pilot training,  even at the most critical periods of the BoB, there were a couple of cases where a few Pilots (during an 8 week period) had limited transitional  training on the Spitfire, but do not think for one minute they dragged someone off the street and sent them off to battle with 20 hrs experience, 200 hours was more likely...all on taildraggers 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice story by the way :biggrin: . I think you mean C-47?

 

 

Old argument, yes they were in a Spit in 20 hours, but no, Spit wasn't their first ride, they learnt to fly in some others aircraft and that wasn't just 20 hours. They already knew how to fly when they reached Spit, it was just too soon to go into combat with it. IRL a tail dragger is tough to handle and that's plain truth, just BoS behaviour IMO is weird and doesn't match that tough RL, BoS is tough in a different way and that's weird. But still BoS can be easily mastered IMO.

 

 

They are incomparable at all, one a thorough study sim looking for absolute realism with the pros and cons that means, the other a more generic sim looking for playability and oriented to a wider players range. They just aim different goals and it's even unfair trying to compare. It's true there will be a problem, as time goes by they will cross each other at some point, theatres of war, aircraft models… and comparisons will come. But it's soon yet I think and even then they aim for so different kind of players they both will have their own followers.

 

 

S!

 

You're correct Spitfire Pilots trained in Tigermoths and completed training in a matter of hours before moving on to the Spit. 

 

Great Series if you have never seen it...    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tk-FtH8Zig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 percent power....you wonder if 700hp is enough to spin an aircraft around with how much ground friction? I accurately  cant say, but 2 people can turn an aircraft weighing twice as much easily by hand...

 

This Spitfire Pilot 20 hours is so much bullshit,.. sorry but it gets quoted so often it just amazes me, and each time it is not deservedly shot down straight away, the sunday tabloid journalism of the 40's is perpetuated again.

 

I am not saying that the ground handling in BoS is perfect but some of the arguments to criticize it are very way off   :ph34r:

 

not aimed specifically at you Mr Stubing but...read up a bit about RAF pilot training,  even at the most critical periods of the BoB, there were a couple of cases where a few Pilots (during an 8 week period) had limited transitional  training on the Spitfire, but do not think for one minute they dragged someone off the street and sent them off to battle with 20 hrs experience, 200 hours was more likely...all on taildraggers 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

First how do you determine 700HP?  Regardless 30 Power in a plane which is upwards of weighing 10000 pounds should be able to over come a ground loop with brakes.  It shouldn't be able to do endless ground loops.  Add in the fact we have to use something like 30-40 power to get the plane rolling again in the sim.   You should take a look at this series which was put on not too long ago.  Start at Minute 26 and get back to me...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tk-FtH8Zig

Edited by 14./JG5CaptStubing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As very interesting as that series was, the real facts are easily found without 'dramatising'  from a TV programme  ;)

 

Conceived in '39 and introduced introduced in '40 

 

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

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-pilot-training-hours-1940.25873/page-2

 

Raf training is very documented from 35' onwards it is not needed to resort to 'TV' clips, and as much as the above links do not give all the info, it is easily found with little effort

 

Whilst a single pilots letter to his parents can be a  fascinating insiight, the overall facts are more clear, all of which has little bearing on taildragger ground handling (at the time called 'conventional' landing gear) experience of the average Spitfire pilot .

 

True, 700hp was a bit of an exaggerated wild thumb suck of 30% power of the average fighter, ;)  but not too unrealistic, I have had to use 100% power to initiate taxiing from standstill on dirt/grass in a 40,000lbs aircraft with 10,000hp so 30/40% in a 10,000lbs fighter does not seem too extreme

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it untrue? Was it their goal ever? Is it any bad?

 

 

Whatever, I can enjoy any sim I want the way I want like everybody here. Can't I? ;)

 

S!

 

Can you clarify to me how that is even remotely relevant to what I said?  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...