Question - why is taxiing so difficult?

[JtD]

What do you need this rule for? Rules like that are last resort measure, and should be as limited as possible. In particular as they inhibit freedom of speech. It's totally possible to respectfully discuss something with other people who have a different opinion, even about certain aspects of flight simulation games.

[Hoots]

Yup, kind of my point as I was arguing against having another rule. As we have seen however, it is not really possible for flight sim discussions to remain civil. Too many opposing views, look through his thread as an example, we have real world pilots who say it's good and some who say it's bad. And another comment saying that unless you have real world experience keep out of it. So, rather than add another rule simply apply the existing one and some common sense.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Here we go with the data crap. It's always the guys with NO real life experience in an aircraft that want to bring up data and tell people they are "bellyaching". The ground handling here from taxi, takeoff to landing is a complete joke. You can go play with your paperwork, it means nothing. Get in a plane, learn to fly and get back to us.

 

It's always the guys who are terrible at computer games that tell people to learn to fly. 

See what I did there

[Hoots]

I rest my case.....

[SharpeXB]

After 7 pages of arguments, I'll set this to rest with some worthwhile advice and as a flying noob who has never sat in the cockpit of a real plane. But I can manage to taxi in BoS. How did I do it?

 

Follow these easy steps:

 

Step 1. Read the Manual. Understand how the brakes and tail wheel work in all the different aircraft.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17572-il2-user-manual/?p=276431

 

Step 2. Watch this film.

 

Step 3. Practice a lot.

 

Repeat the above until you can taxi without mishaps. Problem solved.

[1./ZG1_ElHadji]

Regardless wether we live in our moms basement or if we fly 109's for a living we can agree on one thing: planes behave differently on the Stalingrad map compared to on the Moscow map. The devs have said that the Moscow map was made using improved tech and that they hope to be able to bring the Stalingrad map up to the same standard. In my book that means there is room for improvement regarding the Stalingrad map which probably includes ground handling.

 

Personally I can't understand why every bleeping thread on FM's, performance and similar always boils down to a piddling contest in every bleeping flight sim forum I've visited over the years. FACT: We play games. We are all nerds. None of us are WWII aces. So why can't we accept other peoples opinions regarding this nerdery we all enjoy? I mean winning a forum argument is like sitting at the "cool people table" in the cafeteria at a mental institution. At the end of the day we are all retards.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Regardless wether we live in our moms basement or if we fly 109's for a living we can agree on one thing: planes behave differently on the Stalingrad map compared to on the Moscow map. The devs have said that the Moscow map was made using improved tech and that they hope to be able to bring the Stalingrad map up to the same standard. In my book that means there is room for improvement regarding the Stalingrad map which probably includes ground handling.

 

 

I don't think many people are saying that it's the same on both maps and for sure Moscow is different. For me the actions I have to do to taxi feel realistic and are modelled better than most sims but the bouncing tail for example is something that needs looking at. Also the main argument seems to be centred round whether the ground should be so rough and not whether it is possible that some ground can feel so bad i.e. a ploughed field that has dried hard which would probably be imposable to taxi over.

Edited May 9, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Personally I can't understand why every bleeping thread on FM's, performance and similar always boils down to a piddling contest in every bleeping flight sim forum I've visited over the years. FACT: We play games. We are all nerds. None of us are WWII aces. So why can't we accept other peoples opinions regarding this nerdery we all enjoy? I mean winning a forum argument is like sitting at the "cool people table" in the cafeteria at a mental institution. At the end of the day we are all retards.

Well thats simple, it's because of the people that jump in an partake a discussion without any basement to judge from. Opinions are fine and eople shall have them, even if they're clearly different, but they should not be forced upon others as some people try to do when stepping into a discussion from either side.

 

It's also due to fact not everybody understands the differnece between realism and playability confusing "I can do fine with that ingame" with "it's realistic and how it physically/historicly should be". Unless we get a locked board for true fM enthusiats who refrain from derailing FM related threads with any posts of this kind or personal attacks, this will likely not change and dump the reputation of FM discussions further down.

 

This game has seen some substential FM improvements with the help of comunity efforts which clearly shows such discussions, no matter how many times they end in personal debates or rubbish talking, are good and should not be left notorious.

[neofightr2]

Bouncing upon landing is also the result of bad technique and lack of practice. Once again. Watch the 1940s training films linked on the forum here to understand the correct procedure.

I agree to a certain extent. I find when I hit my landing speed numbers and transition correctly I have no bouncing but I am sensing no ground effect which throws me off every time because I am use to that in real life. Normally I don't notice it in flight sims because the flight models aren't that great to begin with but this sim is so good that it makes it very noticeable.

The bouncing you see online is your server lag. Taxi around in SP and look at your external view. No bouncing. Also try increasing your connection speed in the multiplayer settings. This visual used to really bug me too until I realized what it was.

I disagree, I play offline all the time and I see exaggerated bouncing. The devs need to tone that down a bit with their physics calculations.

[neofightr2]

Agree with everything you say except the part I have made bold. When you look at a simple line drawing of a cube, for instance, the brain is interpreting this into a 3D shape. That is why certain illusions work: eg that allow drawings to look as though a cube has first one corner, then then the other, nearer to the viewer. Same when looking at a screen image - the brain "knows" this is a 3D environment, and does its best to create a 3D interpretation.

 

That is one good reason not to use on screen HUDs, icons etc if you can do without them - they can undermine the 3D interpretation.

We just have different interpretations. 3d to me is depth of field that allows for easy sense of closure (closing in) and expansion (going away). With a stereoscopic display it is a hell of a lot easier to sense speed, scale and closure rate. There are now dozens of youtube testimonials on the impact that this brings with VR. It's like night and day to a lot of elite dangerous players and warthunder players. I can't wait to see this terrific flight sim get VR support. You want to talk about breathtaking. When you get a high fidelity sim like this combined with stereoscopic vision and tracking it will be a whole new world and I can't wait!  Warthunder will have to do while I wait for the support in this game.

 

Already this game is giving me flashbacks to my T-34C turboprop training days. There are so many nuances that's been nailed in this flight model that it brings smile to my face. I can't stop playing it sometimes and I haven't even tried the combat yet. It's all been takeoff, landings and zooming around. Terrific stuff.

After 7 pages of arguments, I'll set this to rest with some worthwhile advice and as a flying noob who has never sat in the cockpit of a real plane. But I can manage to taxi in BoS. How did I do it?

 

Follow these easy steps:

 

Step 1. Read the Manual. Understand how the brakes and tail wheel work in all the different aircraft.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17572-il2-user-manual/?p=276431

 

Step 2. Watch this film.

 

Step 3. Practice a lot.

 

Repeat the above until you can taxi without mishaps. Problem solved.

I have been scouring the net looking for these type of training videos. Nice find!   I think a lot of people have been saying the same thing as you. Without a doubt the key is knowing when to lock the tailwheel and not to and constantly using rudder and brakes. And of course practice. I am not having issues at all with any of the planes since I put in some decent practice.

I find I have to unlock the tail wheel to get any control (as expected). I have been focused on the russian planes so I will check out the 109.

After about an hour of practice, I am not having issues at all with taxiiing/takeoff (other than it being tedious at times) with the russian planes. I am using lots of brake and rudder input to make it work but it makes sense to me based on my real-life experience with planes in general.

I have now done extensive takeoff and landing with the german planes and they were much easier because I have more practice time in the game. The 109 felt really easy compared to the laGG which is the hardest plane for me since I can't lock the tailewheel which of course makes it very unstable after landing. I was doing spins for the first few landings. I finally have the beast under control.

[unreasonable]

We just have different interpretations. 3d to me is depth of field that allows for easy sense of closure (closing in) and expansion (going away). With a stereoscopic display it is a hell of a lot easier to sense speed, scale and closure rate. There are now dozens of youtube testimonials on the impact that this brings with VR. It's like night and day to a lot of elite dangerous players and warthunder players. I can't wait to see this terrific flight sim get VR support. You want to talk about breathtaking. When you get a high fidelity sim like this combined with stereoscopic vision and tracking it will be a whole new world and I can't wait!  Warthunder will have to do while I wait for the support in this game.

 

 

Well I am sceptical, but will just have to wait and see, so to speak. Reason being, that for far away objects, the binocular effect is tiny: just a matter of geometry. Depth perception for distant objects is mostly about knowing their relative size. I would think that our eyes are just not far enough apart to create a binocular effect on a plane a kilometer away.

 

I can see how VR would work in depicting a room in a FPS but unless the programmers are "cheating" by exaggerating the difference between the two screens I am surprised that it would improve depth perception of anything much outside the cockpit. (Leaving aside the "wow" factor of the illusion of having the game world all around you).

[BraveSirRobin]

What on earth are you on about?

 

Am I to gather that you really don't care how these aircraft are supposed to handle?  Because yours, and SharpeXB's comments in this thread seem to point in that direction.

 

Some RL pilots think the ground handling is realistic, some don't.  When I see stuff like that, and it happens a lot, I usually don't care how it's supposed to work, since the people who should know don't agree on how it's supposed to work.  

 

Also, opinions about how ground handling should work from people who don't play BoS are completely and utterly useless. 

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

Just to add to the topic, my story with BOS. I have RL experience with taildraggers and I am able taxi them IRL. However when I begun with Il2-BOS I couldn't land the LAGG-3 without ground looping, each of my landings ended in ground loop and I also had big problems taxiing. However I didn't create a topic that ground handling is wrong in the sim, but I analysed what I was doing wrong and after I found out, I could taxi/land any aircraft without problems.

 

The main difference for me compared to IRL was indeed the lack of feel for the aircraft. IRL when the aircraft just starts to move somewhere I don't want it, I immediately counter with rudder without thinking about it. But in BOS/BOM you need to get this feeling/feedback not from your vestibular system, but from your sight. The moment I realized I need to train my feet to react on my sight I can do taxiing and roll outs just as I can do it IRL with very similar amount of feetwork. I think that ground handling is modeled very well apart from few quirks like sometimes totally unstoppable ground loop.

[wtornado]

Just to add to the topic, my story with BOS. I have RL experience with taildraggers and I am able taxi them IRL. However when I begun with Il2-BOS I couldn't land the LAGG-3 without ground looping, each of my landings ended in ground loop and I also had big problems taxiing. However I didn't create a topic that ground handling is wrong in the sim, but I analysed what I was doing wrong and after I found out, I could taxi/land any aircraft without problems.

 

The main difference for me compared to IRL was indeed the lack of feel for the aircraft. IRL when the aircraft just starts to move somewhere I don't want it, I immediately counter with rudder without thinking about it. But in BOS/BOM you need to get this feeling/feedback not from your vestibular system, but from your sight. The moment I realized I need to train my feet to react on my sight I can do taxiing and roll outs just as I can do it IRL with very similar amount of feetwork. I think that ground handling is modeled very well apart from few quirks like sometimes totally unstoppable ground loop.

''totally unstoppable''

[6./ZG26_Emil]

As you go into a ground loop pile on the power and apply opposite rubber and brake

 

They're not "totally unstoppable"

[Dakpilot]

There is a reason 99% of all aircraft these days are nosewheel configuration, it's not like groundloops did not happen, even to very experienced pilots 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[No.42_Wholehawg]

I have a theory that there are folks that like to fly strictly fighters and those that fly strictly bombers and some folks that do both, I fall into that last odd category. The thing I have noticed is taxing fighters is A LOT easier than any of the twins in this game.   

 

Some of the differences in opinion may come from the people that have only taxied one type of AC or the other.   

 

The 110 is one of my favorite plane to fly these days but getting it to the runway has been the bane of my existence on line.  I think it could be fixed by simply making the brakes a little more effective at taxi speeds.   The way it is now its almost like there don't work at all at low speed.  With aircraft equipped with differential braking a slight tap of the brakes to one side or the other should have some noticeable effect on the direction the aircraft is going  and it does at higher speeds but when the speed drops down to around what you would call taxi speed, about that of a brisk walk or slow jog the brakes seem to do little or nothing.

[SharpeXB]

As you go into a ground loop pile on the power and apply opposite rubber and brake

 

They're not "totally unstoppable"

Right. Watch the film above. And follow the advice there. As soon as you start into a turn, start stopping it.

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

Right. Watch the film above. And follow the advice there. As soon as you start into a turn, start stopping it.

I know this very well as I have RL experience with taildraggers and have no problem at all taxiing landing or anything in the game. I wanted to point out that you can develop a ground loop where you can keep the aircraft looping endlessly with fully opposite rudder and brake the aircraft does not decelerate at all, it is not a problem for me, it just seems strange and a minor quirk. I consider the ground handling model superior to any other sim and I have flown them all.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Rudolph

[sport02]

in external view it's a pleasure to see the plane wriggles on its shoks absorber when I full brake .

also some planes have less performant brakes but to say if it's needs more brakes   requires many knowledge of the plane , developpers can also to ask themselves the same question as players , and perhaps it's a good reason to make some planes differents on this point , with computers it could be easy to change that and make an uberplane .

it's necessary to be accord of what we want ? " realism " or gameplay .

Edited May 10, 2016 by sport02

[Eagle-OnePirabee]

It must be obvious from the ebb and flow of the argument here that ground handling in BOS is a toughie. There's no doubt about that now. However, whatever one may say about the landing roll out or the appropriate taxi speeds, the one thing I know for certain shouldn't be part of this lovely sim modeling is the "uncontrollable spin". And, by God, it is uncontrollable cos no amount of counter rudder or opposite brake can serve to avert or interrupt it. If that can be tamped down somewhat, hey, I don't think we'll have much to complain about whether we are RL tin pushers or just basement bound keyboard thumpers.

 

Pirabee.

[sport02]

" uncontrollable spin " not only in Bos , then games make the same error ?

Edited May 10, 2016 by sport02

[Capt_Stubing]

I know this very well as I have RL experience with taildraggers and have no problem at all taxiing landing or anything in the game. I wanted to point out that you can develop a ground loop where you can keep the aircraft looping endlessly with fully opposite rudder and brake the aircraft does not decelerate at all, it is not a problem for me, it just seems strange and a minor quirk. I consider the ground handling model superior to any other sim and I have flown them all.

 

Exactly my problem as well.  I too have RL experience in tail draggers.   The endless spins are silly... Not the end of the world but it should be addressed

[EAF19_Marsh]

Reading Fw190 v2, it noted that - despite the good ground-handling characteristics - even that aircraft on rough EF strips had a tendency to catch a wheel and spin endlessly until freed by ground-crew.

 

Still personally think that the game problem is lack of feedback that acerbates the tricky handling, rather than a deficiency in the modelling itself.

Edited May 11, 2016 by EAF19_Marsh

[JtD]

Still personally think that the game problem is lack of feedback that acerbates the tricky handling, rather than a deficiency in the modelling itself.

I agree, but imho it is the same thing. If the current taxiing was cycling instead, half the users would fall over after 10m, and 95% of them within 50m. And even with a lot of training the distances would increase by factor ten at best. You can blame physics, or the interface, the net result is just far, far from reality.

Edited May 11, 2016 by JtD

[BlitzPig_EL]

Exactly JtD.

 

Trying to model "full reality" while the vast majority of users have off the shelf joysticks, no matter the brand, and no way to actually "feel" anything, is a formula for economic failure in the long run.

 

Software has to be developed with the equipment that the target audience uses factored in the equation.

[216th_Jordan]

I agree, but imho it is the same thing. If the current taxiing was cycling instead, half the users would fall over after 10m, and 95% of them within 50m. And even with a lot of training the distances would increase by factor ten at best. You can blame physics, or the interface, the net result is just far, far from reality.

 A bicycle has a steerable frontwheel and a fixed 'tailwheel' and as a system that is relatively stable, now you really don't want to have a bicycle with a fixed front wheel and a steerable tailwheel

I'm partly on your side regarding implementation but it's weird that I have absolutely no problem taxiing even with unlocked tailwheel on a yak if sidewind is not too heavy. So then it would rather look like a hardware problem. But then again I'd rather have this implementation than an implementation like in CloD or '46.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

A bicycle has a steerable frontwheel and a fixed 'tailwheel' and as a system that is relatively stable, now you really don't want to have a bicycle with a fixed front wheel and a steerable tailwheel

 

A bicycle would also be extremely difficult to control if 'ridden' virtually, as it depends on rapid, small control inputs based on feedback from different senses. Possibly the same problem with have with virtual taxying   

[SharpeXB]

A bicycle would also be extremely difficult to control if 'ridden' virtually, as it depends on rapid, small control inputs based on feedback from different senses. Possibly the same problem with have with virtual taxying

Exactly right. Imagine a bicycle sim game that you control with small plastic handlebars on your PC

 

And the only feedback you receive in order to control the bike is what you see on your screen.

 

I dare say such a game would be impossible. Or very very difficult. That's what we have in flight sims. But in a flight sim what you learn to do is just anticipate reactions, not wait till you actually see it on your screen because then it's too late.

 

Forget taxiing as an order of difficulty magnitude. Try air-to-air refueling :-D

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Feedback is important but not the predominent factor. Some actions happen so fast that even with feedback it would be impossible to prevent sth.

 

A simple test I made a while back when the Fw tailwheel was more twitchy was to take a 109 g with unlocked tailwgeel and a fw190, taxi them to 30 kph in a straight line, cut throttle and let go of any stick/pedal input. Tge 109 usually went along a gentle curve while tge 190 even without any pilot input spinned nearly instantly from the point of release.

 

Now as the chabge for the 190 tailwheel back than as well as the recebt chabges for the Lag fughters showed devs are reworking taxiing mechanics to some extent, so feedback is indeed valid.

 

Not sure about the "endless" groudloop issue. I know the Lags had this before the recent adjustments which improved this particular aspectand abd there're still some planes that have it (stuka, bf110, fw190). Its not significant on all aircraft though so no general issue.

[sport02]

also in theory a perfect sim cannot be so easy  than real  , because we have only the view to contrôle the plane and not with our body ( it was many often repeated on this post )

not to mention that we have a poor visual with our only screen , in simracing a system help the racer to know the reaction of the car before he see it on the screen .

for flight with my joystick ffb2  I can play but I think if I want to use the capacity of the game I should to modified it with an extension , it's not an expensive solution or difficult to make  .

modification of curves is not ideal and it's impossible to conciliate incompatible , but for taxiing a basic rudder pedals is suffisant and the stick is less important than in air  , also we must to give ourself the means to use correctly  the game or accept we can't entirely . or change the option of difficulty in game

Edited May 11, 2016 by sport02

[Holtzauge]

Well the strange thing is that even with the limited feedback, plastic joysticks & foot pedals we have it is still easier to taxi with tailwheel unlocked in DCS so either DCS model of this is too simple or BoS too difficult and as many have pointed out, in BoS you can induce crazy round-about groundloops that you don’t find in DCS. IMHO the BoS taxi model is not broken, it just needs a little bit of TLC that's all.

[LLv44_Damixu]

 

For analytical discussion sake I'll try to breakdown the different issues combined potentially causing the taxiing problems in BoS:

 

1) Planes are unstable with keeping the directional vector and will steer off-course too easily (lack of enough inertia in physics terms)

 

2) Wheelbreaks lack neccessary breaking power what should be expected to have 

 

3) Engine torgue might be slightly overmodelled at least on some of the airplanes

 

4) Terrain friction might be modelled a bit to uneffective

 

I suspect some of these issues could be the root cause of wobblyness in the air experienced some of the pilots (I suspect the issues in inertia modelling with FM)

 

- - -

 

I have a additonal issue with taxiing appering time to time:

5) Sometimes rudder + wheel breaking are unresponsive to the right and the plane won't steer practically but to the left. I've checked with pedals calibration and in the BoS keymapper axis setting and ranges and the controller works perfectly but the sim sometimes refuses to steer a plane to right properly.

 

I wish we could collect the potential causes of the issues and try to find out the root-cause of the problem and get it sorted

Edited May 11, 2016 by LLv32_Damixu

[sport02]

@holtzauge

 

we can ask himself the question , for exemple test on ground and see in external view   : brake and full gaz in Dcs and Bos and move stick and rudder , in Dcs : little reaction until the tail raise brutally with full gaz  and in bos : many and progressives reactions  of the plane depending of gaz .

 for me in Dcs spin comes rapidly without possibility to contrôle in some cases , and d' ont forget to compare with the same type of ground .

Edited May 11, 2016 by sport02

[sport02]

@LLv32_Damixu :

 

for 5) the same for me ( I d' ont remenber the direction ) , perhaps the combinaison of couple and Wind ? , I forget to contrôle the wind in that case .

Edited May 11, 2016 by sport02

[neofightr2]

Just to add to the topic, my story with BOS. I have RL experience with taildraggers and I am able taxi them IRL. However when I begun with Il2-BOS I couldn't land the LAGG-3 without ground looping, each of my landings ended in ground loop and I also had big problems taxiing. However I didn't create a topic that ground handling is wrong in the sim, but I analysed what I was doing wrong and after I found out, I could taxi/land any aircraft without problems.

 

The main difference for me compared to IRL was indeed the lack of feel for the aircraft. IRL when the aircraft just starts to move somewhere I don't want it, I immediately counter with rudder without thinking about it. But in BOS/BOM you need to get this feeling/feedback not from your vestibular system, but from your sight. The moment I realized I need to train my feet to react on my sight I can do taxiing and roll outs just as I can do it IRL with very similar amount of feetwork. I think that ground handling is modeled very well apart from few quirks like sometimes totally unstoppable ground loop.

This is exactly how I see it. I don't have taildragger experience and the closest thing I have is turboprop tricycle experience. But I can easily imagine how much more difficult it would be taxiing a heavy taildragger with huge torque through bumpy dirt paths. It had to be tedious at best.

 

The technique that works for me to make up for lack of "seat of the pants" is external view. It allows me to see the second my aircraft is not responding the way it should. You can do it to a certain extent in cockpit by using visual references but it's harder.

 

The lagg3 is the hardest to land by far thanks to the fact you can't lock the tail wheel (I assume it's not there for the plane). The other planes are a cakewalk in comparison thanks to the tailwheel lock. 

Well the strange thing is that even with the limited feedback, plastic joysticks & foot pedals we have it is still easier to taxi with tailwheel unlocked in DCS so either DCS model of this is too simple or BoS too difficult and as many have pointed out, in BoS you can induce crazy round-about groundloops that you don’t find in DCS. IMHO the BoS taxi model is not broken, it just needs a little bit of TLC that's all.

I didn't see any DCS maps that had bumpy dirt paths. All the DCS taxiways were concrete to me. It's very easy to taxi on concrete for any a/c. The jets are by far the easiest thanks to nosewheel steering and even without, tricycle configs are always easier.

 

I am sure the BoS would benefit from further refinement but still to me this is the best flight model sim I have ever seen going back 30 years.

 

 

For analytical discussion sake I'll try to breakdown the different issues combined potentially causing the taxiing problems in BoS:

 

1) Planes are unstable with keeping the directional vector and will steer off-course too easily (lack of enough inertia in physics terms)

 

2) Wheelbreaks lack neccessary breaking power what should be expected to have 

 

3) Engine torgue might be slightly overmodelled at least on some of the airplanes

 

4) Terrain friction might be modelled a bit to uneffective

 

I suspect some of these issues could be the root cause of wobblyness in the air experienced some of the pilots (I suspect the issues in inertia modelling with FM)

 

- - -

 

I have a additonal issue with taxiing appering time to time:

5) Sometimes rudder + wheel breaking are unresponsive to the right and the plane won't steer practically but to the left. I've checked with pedals calibration and in the BoS keymapper axis setting and ranges and the controller works perfectly but the sim sometimes refuses to steer a plane to right properly.

 

I wish we could collect the potential causes of the issues and try to find out the root-cause of the problem and get it sorted

 

I have faith that the devs will sort this out. I am don't know about this wobblyness in the air.

 

One thing I did notice that convinced me that the flight models are spot on is the swimming one encounters when dirty and applying power. This is exactly how it was for me when flying real-life high performance prop planes it really brought a sense of dejavu for me and convinced me the devs really know what they are doing.

[LukeFF]

Software has to be developed with the equipment that the target audience uses factored in the equation.

What makes you think 1CGS isn't using equipment everyone else uses?

[mort]

 

 

One thing I did notice that convinced me that the flight models are spot on is the swimming one encounters when dirty and applying power.

 

As a layman non-pilot, I'm curious what this is. Not the easiest set of words to Google for an answer.

[Holtzauge]

@holtzauge

 

we can ask himself the question , for exemple test on ground and see in external view   : brake and full gaz in Dcs and Bos and move stick and rudder , in Dcs : little reaction until the tail raise brutally with full gaz  and in bos : many and progressives reactions  of the plane depending of gaz .

 for me in Dcs spin comes rapidly without possibility to contrôle in some cases , and d' ont forget to compare with the same type of ground .

 

 For sure you can loose control in DCS as well it's just that I find taxiing easier there and more responsive. By that I mean sure, if I have low speed and no power then the rudder does not do much but if I combine rudder with a burst of power then I get the response I expect. However, in BoS once you get a motion going I find it hard to counter it even if I apply power.

 

I am sure the BoS would benefit from further refinement but still to me this is the best flight model sim I have ever seen going back 30 years.

 

I have faith that the devs will sort this out. I am don't know about this wobblyness in the air.

 

Agreed: All sims can be refined and this is what some of us are trying to contribute to both when it comes to DCS and BoS. And as said earlier, BoS has a lot of good points going for it like DM, WW2 units and scenery but when it comes to FM I prefer DCS so far since I have a hard time accepting the Yak low speed prop hanging controllability, Fw-190 "superstall" and Me-109 wobblyness in BoS.

 

One thing I did notice that convinced me that the flight models are spot on is the swimming one encounters when dirty and applying power. This is exactly how it was for me when flying real-life high performance prop planes it really brought a sense of dejavu for me and convinced me the devs really know what they are doing.

Interesting to hear because if you have T-34 experience then while not a taildragger, it for sure is an aerobatics capable plane that has a higher P/W ratio and higher wing loading than many of us have flown so nice if you could share some of your experiences and make comparisons to the BoS and DCS FM. Took a quick look at the specs and climbrate was quoted at 7.5 m/s which sounds low given that it seems to have a pretty good P/W ratio. Is the 7.5 m/s some sort of average and is the max climb rate higher?

[BlitzPig_EL]

What makes you think 1CGS isn't using equipment everyone else uses?

 

I didn't say that. 

 

I said that: "Software has to be developed with the equipment that the target audience uses factored in the equation".

 

That is, the equipment that is used by the vast majority of users, not the handful that modify their controllers, with extensions, etc...

 

That is all I am saying.

 

It would be interesting to know what the developers use though, and what the system specs of their PCs are.