Surprised to see Cliffs of Dover FMs very good considering the age

[ACG_Invictus]

I did not take your statement as against BoS. As said, opinions and tastes differ.

 

It`s just richness that we have these two games. There`s not going to be Battle of Britain in BoS. I`m glad that is covered in Clod. Both are good already and will be better in future.

Exactly.

 

Nor should my post be taken as a BoS bash (it wasn't) or a CLoD is better post (it wasn't that either). I really enjoy both games and wish both great success. Neither is perfect nor ever will be.... perfection is simply not attainable and also somewhat subjective. The "BoS / CLoD / 1946 is da bestist EVAH" posts are a waste of time and electrons. S!

Edited July 2, 2016 by ATAG_Invictus

[SharpeXB]

Overall, I didn't bother to load CoD on my new PC. Just an observation.

I enjoyed CoD a lot, even the vanilla version and especially the Desastersoft Campaigns.

 

But when I refurbished my PC I made the same decision. CoD just didn't make the cut compared to the others and I never reinstalled it.

[Lusekofte]

If I got a new rig I probably awaited a new install of COD to TF 5 came. The only reason for installing BOS is FNBF. Neither of them are bad, just got quite enough of public servers and such. I fly DCS mostly offline myself.

[Original_Uwe]

We are actually moving back to it.

Battle of France, Britain, and soon(ish) med. can't beat it.

[EG14_Marcast]

I've been flying CoD for 4 years and BoS/BoM for 3 months, and I must say that, all in all, I still prefer CoD. Yes it has some bugs, but Team Fusion did a really great job fixing the worst ones, and the rest are fully acceptable to me. I find especially the clickable cockpit concept far ahead, and more in line with the future use of Oculus Rift. But what mostly surprised me is that I also find graphics better in CoD. I only fly bombers and I think that ground details are much more visible from high altitude in CoD than in BoS, and also cockpits have a  more realistic feeling in CoD. Regarding FM, I find bombers in BoS too responsive on commands, and sometimes unrealistically unsteady; I like more CoD's heavyness. The "leveller" AP on every plane looks a bit arcadish. The real great advantage of BoS is that it will have regular updates from releasers, while CoD will depend on the good will of Team Fusion. 

 

Still, in my opinion, once you accept every game's limits both are fully enjoyable. As Lusekofte, at the moment I'm playing much more BoS as it's something new after 4 years of the same map, I just started to play online and I have great fun with it. I think there's still room for both sims....and for IL2-1946 too   

[LLv24_Zami]

I only fly bombers and I think that ground details are much more visible from high altitude in CoD than in BoS, and also cockpits have a  more realistic feeling in CoD. 

Check this thread out, might help a little: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/23699-make-il-2-look-stunning-improved-ground-detail-and-visibilit/

[Lusekofte]

Hi Marcast old squad mate. I have hardware problems at the moment and do not fly anything. Awaiting parts for my yoke and a new stick Regarding graphics I say it is the same myself, have no particular favorite among them, FM ? well it depends, I favor COD FM on Luftwaffe planes, but some of the Russian planes like the LAGG, PE 2 and IL 2 is simply marvelous . It will soon enough come a remark and quote saying I have stated it too many times. But I really do not care.

I prefer COD bomb aimer system and engine management, DM and a couple of things better. But flight dynamics are in my case better in BOS. Not comparable at all in many ways. I like channel map size in COD, find BOS/ Bom maps too small, but I guess that is a bomber pilot attitude. I will eventually return to COD I think. Overall I do like it better

[LeRocket]

Jane's WWII Fighters is where it's at...

[URUAker]

Here is a very good reason to keep Cliffs of Dover on your PC:

http://www.ghostskies.com/

 

Ghost Skies is an Online Dynamic Campaign with great features 

[Guest deleted@30725]

Nah, just for the pits. They look so amazing! I wish the world looked as good.

 

Whoever says about 5 years old. The DCS a10 is 5 years old (released in 2011) and do we see better version yet from another dev.  Just because 5 years old don't make something trash. 

 

But people learn from old games, improve. Theoretically every future game trying to make a better fm of the same thing should theoretically better unless the one being copied from was perfection to start with. Also perhaps the passage of time the more knowledge available to model from, just as easily be less accurate information. Technically from stats only makes the best fm for feel the challenge is real. The fm is more than the stats of the numbers. 

 

Yet still clod has nicer pits. I love the photo realistic style of pits when they're in high enough detail and scale for modern resolutions. M1tank platoon 2 uses photo realistic pits and the commanders station inside still looks pretty real. Just don't look at the world.

Edited July 7, 2016 by deleted@30725

[Picchio]

Careful, Bunny... the "Oh-no-way-CloD-pits-old-suck-plus-2D-sprites-boo-hoo-you-have-no-taste-no-knowledge" police might just be around the corner. Same folks that boast their 4K display resolutions while the simple reality is that in BoS, we're provided with cockpit textures that barely hold up at 1080p.

 

Needless to say, I agree with your entire comment.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Picchio

[Sunde]

Idk, i'v been flying cliffs since release, today was enough for me tho, saw a 109 circling above hawkinge, i was in my spitfire mk2, i decided to pursue him. We climbed for what must have been 30 mins, eventually we got to 10k (WTF??) and for some reason i started to gain very quickly, eventually i took a long distance snipe, only a split second press on the trigger, resulting in a pilot kill.
Game looks great, flies ancient.  

[ACG_Invictus]

Idk, i'v been flying cliffs since release, today was enough for me tho, saw a 109 circling above hawkinge, i was in my spitfire mk2, i decided to pursue him. We climbed for what must have been 30 mins, eventually we got to 10k (WTF??) and for some reason i started to gain very quickly, eventually i took a long distance snipe, only a split second press on the trigger, resulting in a pilot kill.

Game looks great, flies ancient.  

 

Err... 

 

First:  Congrats on the kill. 

 

Second:  How does your getting a long distance snipe kill relate to how CLoD "flies"?

 

Remember...no game is perfect.

[Original_Uwe]

If it was an E-4B then ya, you would gain rapidly at 3k plus.

And you got a very lucky shot, it's the exception where with the Russian cannons here it is the rule.

Edit: also remember these 109s have very little pilot armor so if you put one in the vicinity of the pilot he's toast!

Edited July 8, 2016 by II./JG53_Uwe

[Lusekofte]

my point is, both games run on old game engines. the quality is based on the level of ambitions the developers have for it. BOS developers have made this eatable for the old community , but aim at WT public. COD had huge ambitions based on expiriences made in 2006. This fact is the only "older" thing with COD compared to BOS. Its ambitions origin fro 6 years later. and aim at a public not availeable in 2006 nor 2010

[II./JG27_Rich]

Listening to Rick Volker who flew the E and now the G4 109 I'd say CODs FMs are very good

 

 

http://www.thehangardeck.com/episodes/2016/5/24/episode-32-warbirds-over-the-beach-with-bf-109g-pilot-rick-volker

Edited July 11, 2016 by II./JG27_Rich

[Crump]

The FM in CloD is not very good at all.  It simply does not represent flight very well.  The airplanes feel mushy and respond like they are on a rubber band.  They do not feel like airplanes and certainly do not feel like high performance fighters.

 

Watch the gain in airspeed when the Merlin's negative G cut out incurs....

 

Time how long it takes for the aircraft to move from the stall to the vicinity of cruise velocity.  An airplane is essentially rolling downhill from the stall.  The forces trying to slow the airplane down decrease as the airplanes gains velocity until it reaches the bottom of the drag curve and starts to increase.  The vicinity of best range speed is where this happens in a propeller aircraft.  The airplane accelerate like they are in molasses.  There is no feeling of power when you advance the throttle of the engine to take off.  

 

The roll-yaw coupling in CloD is fantasy and not at all representative of an airplane.  I have had to use top rudder turning in both directions, too.    

 

Outside of the roll-yaw coupling the stall behavior is plausible.  The buffet zone is scripted in an accelerated stall without any effect on the wings characteristics.

 

The tail dragger physics are a caricature of reality.  

 

The CEM and graphics are fantastic.  It almost covers up the flaws until the FM kicks in ruining any immersion.

 

That is one reason why I am very cautious about spending my money on these games.  IL2:46 was great given the limitations of home computers.  I expected CloD to be an improvement and not a step backwards. 

[ACG_Invictus]

The airplanes feel mushy and respond like they are on a rubber band. They do not feel like airplanes and certainly do not feel like high performance fighters.

 

Really?  You must love the BoS FM then.

 

You seem very informed and knowledgeable about flight, so I won't argue your points, but I will ask you if anything outside of a $50-100K flight simulator meets your expectations?

 

All simulators have flaws and they have their positives as well.  BoS, CLoD, DCS, old IL2...doesn't matter.  I enjoy them all to varying degrees. 

 

I will say I still prefer CLoD to BoS for a few reasons, but mainly because of this:  The BoS FM appears in many ways to be better than CLoDs, but the visibility model is horrible....at least for me.  I simply cannot see contacts half the time, and it is a source of personal frustration getting bounced from a direction I literally scanned not more than a few seconds previously.  I don't have that problem with CLoD.  That isn't to say I don't get bounced in CLoD...I do.  But its rare and its ALWAYS due to carelessness on my part.  While I can chalk up a few of the bounces in BoS to carelessness, some I simply cannot...if anything I do more in BoS to keep SA than I do in any other game and I still end up reacting far to late far too often.   

 

I've tried just about every solution I've seen out there and they have helped to a degree but not enough to make a significant difference.  I hope the situation improves with the move to DX11 as I really want to like BoS more than I do now.

Edited August 8, 2016 by ATAG_Invictus

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

The BoS FM appears in many ways to be better than CLoDs, but the visibility model is horrible...

 

-snip-

 

 

I can get behind this.

[Crump]

 

 

if anything outside of a $50-100K flight simulator meets your expectations?

 

DCS actually did a great a job for a while....then they decided to change it.  In fact I was very impressed with it until those changes.  The roll-yaw coupling got screwed up at the same time I got an the explanation of propellers doing a "trick" from the devs suddenly losing over 20% efficiency and some 350hp out of the FM.

 

I would bet that CloD could be improved.  The math is out there, LOL!!

 

 

 

All simulators have flaws and they have their positives as well.

 

Very True.  The importance is how those flaws are handled.  Some can be improved but when a developer will not admit basic physics are flawed and instead resorts to insults....then there is an issue that cannot be fixed! 

[ACG_Invictus]

DCS actually did a great a job for a while....then they decided to change it. In fact I was very impressed with it until those changes. The roll-yaw coupling got screwed up at the same time I got an the explanation of propellers doing a "trick" from the devs suddenly losing over 20% efficiency and some 350hp out of the FM.

 

I would bet that CloD could be improved. The math is out there, LOL!!

 

 

Very True. The importance is how those flaws are handled. Some can be improved but when a developer will not admit basic physics are flawed and instead resorts to insults....then there is an issue that cannot be fixed!

 

I am sure the math is out there, but keep in mind the TF guys are doing the best they can without the original source code. Given CLoD was for all practical purposes an unfinished product, it is amazing what TF has been able to accomplish thus far. Edited August 9, 2016 by ATAG_Invictus

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

well be glad, we have something other than War Thunder... 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

well be glad, we have something other than War Thunder... 

 

Options aside from WT always existed so that's a bit of a moot point.

[Lusekofte]

There is many things I like better in BOS compared to COD, but in my opinion when all things add up. If I had to choose between these two I would choose COD. Mostly because I like the way the servers are played out, it is a bit less arcadish, the actual flying demands more knowledge and experience , it is a longer learning curve. It got the right amount of complexity that sort of do not exclude most cfs players. 

But then again, in my opinion the feel of flight and the feeling of actually being in the plane is unmatched in BOS. I am when thinking about it in trouble if I got to choose. 

I fly DCS also because it got the best helicopter FM. Man I am pretty happy we still got a choice, for a time this genre looked like it would die

[Crump]

 

 

I am sure the math is out there, but keep in mind the TF guys are doing the best they can without the original source code. Given CLoD was for all practical purposes an unfinished product, it is amazing what TF has been able to accomplish thus far.

 

They have made it playable.  I tried online last night.  I took a Spitfire Mk Ia out of Lymphe.  I had to restart several times because the engine stopped message appeared instead of engine starting when I hit the button.  The cure for that was exiting and re-selecting the plane.

 

First sortie I got the open/closed lever on the Spits radiator backwards and flew around with the lever back.  I did not get far from the airfield before my radiator burst and I had to land back at Lymphe.  The next sortie I took off and found a Bf-109 on my tail.  That turned out ok as I stayed defensive until help arrived and the Bf-109 got shot down.  I then replanned for an Escort Mission.

 

Escorted some Wellingtons to Boulogne-sur-Mer.  I loved the realistic navigation and the graphics are beautiful. 

 

I dove in on a Bf-109 attacking the bombers form about 2000 feet above.  I went from cruise power into the dive.  I threw the prop in fine pitch, stepped on the high wing hard and very weird feeling skid because of the lack of roll-yaw coupling, was hold way more aileron input then you should. It then did something airplanes do not do in that configuration....

 

I absolutely did not slow down a bit or even stay at the same airspeed, in fact I accelerated so fast I rammed uncontrollably right into the Bf-109.

 

That is what I am talking about when I say the airplanes do not act like airplanes.

 

The players on the server where very nice and I had a good time.  It was not a bad time at all.

 

Liked:

 

Graphics

 

Cockpit controls

 

Players

 

Server seems set up to provide an actual dynamic combat environment.  The AI bombers spawned AI Spitfires to escort so that a small number of players could have an immersive experience.

 

Did not like:

 

FM's and general aircraft behavior. See above.

 

Ground Handling is stupid.  If you do the correct control movements required in a taildragger, IE stick back and on the rudder ahead of any swing...you wind up dinging the wingtips.  Part of that is the roll-yaw coupling is screwed up but most of it is the control inputs required are just not what you do in a taildragger.  When I did the the control motions you NEVER do in a taildragger, keep the stick neutral and stay off the rudders it seemed to help.  The power application is unnecessarily drawn out on take off too due to the wonky taildragger physics.  Power is applied smoothly not slowly in a taildragger.  Applying it slowly simply increases your ground roll and the chance things could go wrong.

 

I am not passing this on to run down the game.  I am saying there is room for improvement.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Did not like:

 

FM's and general aircraft behavior. See above.

 

Ground Handling is stupid. If you do the correct control movements required in a taildragger, IE stick back and on the rudder ahead of any swing...you wind up dinging the wingtips. Part of that is the roll-yaw coupling is screwed up but most of it is the control inputs required are just not what you do in a taildragger. When I did the the control motions you NEVER do in a taildragger, keep the stick neutral and stay off the rudders it seemed to help. The power application is unnecessarily drawn out on take off too due to the wonky taildragger physics. Power is applied smoothly not slowly in a taildragger. Applying it slowly simply increases your ground roll and the chance things could go wrong.

.

Crump you nailed it perfectly. In begining of my mp career i constantly dropped my wing and nose over during start. It is also hard to control because lack of force feedback and leamp stick in beginning -it will come back (force) after some time of flight (wired bug). Edited August 9, 2016 by 307_Tomcat

[ACG_Invictus]

They have made it playable.  I tried online last night.  I took a Spitfire Mk Ia out of Lymphe.  I had to restart several times because the engine stopped message appeared instead of engine starting when I hit the button.  The cure for that was exiting and re-selecting the plane.

 

First sortie I got the open/closed lever on the Spits radiator backwards and flew around with the lever back.  I did not get far from the airfield before my radiator burst and I had to land back at Lymphe.  The next sortie I took off and found a Bf-109 on my tail.  That turned out ok as I stayed defensive until help arrived and the Bf-109 got shot down.  I then replanned for an Escort Mission.

 

Escorted some Wellingtons to Boulogne-sur-Mer.  I loved the realistic navigation and the graphics are beautiful. 

 

I dove in on a Bf-109 attacking the bombers form about 2000 feet above.  I went from cruise power into the dive.  I threw the prop in fine pitch, stepped on the high wing hard and very weird feeling skid because of the lack of roll-yaw coupling, was hold way more aileron input then you should. It then did something airplanes do not do in that configuration....

 

I absolutely did not slow down a bit or even stay at the same airspeed, in fact I accelerated so fast I rammed uncontrollably right into the Bf-109.

 

That is what I am talking about when I say the airplanes do not act like airplanes.

 

The players on the server where very nice and I had a good time.  It was not a bad time at all.

 

Liked:

 

Graphics

 

Cockpit controls

 

Players

 

Server seems set up to provide an actual dynamic combat environment.  The AI bombers spawned AI Spitfires to escort so that a small number of players could have an immersive experience.

 

Did not like:

 

FM's and general aircraft behavior. See above.

 

Ground Handling is stupid.  If you do the correct control movements required in a taildragger, IE stick back and on the rudder ahead of any swing...you wind up dinging the wingtips.  Part of that is the roll-yaw coupling is screwed up but most of it is the control inputs required are just not what you do in a taildragger.  When I did the the control motions you NEVER do in a taildragger, keep the stick neutral and stay off the rudders it seemed to help.  The power application is unnecessarily drawn out on take off too due to the wonky taildragger physics.  Power is applied smoothly not slowly in a taildragger.  Applying it slowly simply increases your ground roll and the chance things could go wrong.

 

I am not passing this on to run down the game.  I am saying there is room for improvement.

 

There is always room for improvement for any game.  See my statements about BoS as well.

 

I realize you are a stickler for detail and accuracy, but my point is simple:  these are volunteers who are willingly committing their free time to improve a game for the community as a whole.  There is no financial motivation or compensation, no reward other than thanks from the community.  It is also a team willing to take in additional volunteers to help improve the experience and the game.  I'm not saying you can't critique the result, but doing so in a manner that recognizes these points is appropriate and respectful.  I also highly encourage you to apply your knowledge to help improve the game by volunteering your own free time and efforts if you are able.

[DD_Arthur]

  I also highly encourage you to apply your knowledge to help improve the game by volunteering your own free time and efforts if you are able.

 

Yes, I agree completely.  An excellent suggestion ATAG_Invictus    I'm absolutely certain that Crump's knowledge, enthusiasm and input would be warmly welcomed over on the Atag forum. 

 

In the run up to TF patch 5 release I think he should start posting there as a matter of urgency.  

[Crump]

 

 

Crump you nailed it perfectly. In begining of my mp career i constantly dropped my wing and nose over during start. It is also hard to control because lack of force feedback and leamp stick in beginning -it will come back (force) after some time of flight (wired bug).

 

Yeah it is not flying an airplane, it is learning a computer representation.  Great example is I asked one guy what the best climb settings were in the Spitfire Mk Ia.  He told me some percentage power.  

 

It was totally meaningless to me and I sounded like China Air in JFK on teamspeak, "AHHHHhhhh".  I thanked him for the help but told him that was not doing me any good.  I needed the RPM, manifold pressure, and best climb speed to maintain.   It was his turn to go, "AHhhhhhh!!" on teamspeak.

 

After a few seconds he gave me some numbers but wasn't completely sure they were right.  I followed them and got up to altitude.

The correct control inputs should reward you with the correct aircraft behavior though.

I would think players would want that.

[ACG_Invictus]

 

[Crump]

LOL, I did a 16s 360 degree turn in a Spitfire Mk Ia at 16,500 ft in CLoD.  That is almost twice as fast as the real aircraft.   I have also noticed it is quite difficult to catch a Bf-109 in the Spitfire.  

 

The fights are very canned and get boring after a while.  The Bf-109 zooms and the Spitfire turns....both are caricatures.

[Mysticpuma]

Crump, FM and DM are being completely rewritten for v5.00 as you say, there's always room for improvement and we aren't conceited enough to think it's perfect. We're still having fun working through the issues.....time will tell if the community feel it was worth the effort and time

 

Cheers, MP

[Original_Uwe]

As always MP you're a class act!

[Urra]

Crump, FM and DM are being completely rewritten for v5.00 as you say, there's always room for improvement and we aren't conceited enough to think it's perfect. We're still having fun working through the issues.....time will tell if the community feel it was worth the effort and time

 

Cheers, MP

I honestly think the goal should be first and foremost to make things close enough to be considered enjoyable, fun, and convincing , not necessarily perfect. People have been known to undertake 40 plastic surgeries to look perfect, I would not consider that necessarily enjoyable. Flying In vr makes this task a little easier to convince the user as well. Edited August 14, 2016 by roaming_gnome

[Lusekofte]

I think there is no way to simulate every aspect of thermic condition and flight model. Ambitions and vision is important in the development stage, but realistically there will always be something wrong. Something deep in the code affecting something else , in the effort to make one thing better, something else get messed up. I have been living with IL 2 modding environment for such a long time, that I got an idea what TF goes through when original code is not available. Price their patience and hard work and enjoy their work I say. The game is perfectly playable in many ways like BOS is. 

[ACG_Invictus]

+1 to the above. Always important to understand that these are volunteers who are providing this. Is the FM dead on, no but what FM is? Part of this is the enjoyment factor i.e. is it fun? The answer is yes for me and many others. In many ways I prefer CLOD to BoS but each has its advantages and disadvantages and those are also affected by personal preference and point-of-view. I enjoy them both and am happy there are still combat flight sims to play...this genre isn't exactly Pokimon with millons of users we are talking about. If some feel the CLOD FM is off or bad, no problem. I invite them to try Aces High or War Thunder (both of which I still enjoy once in a while) as a comparison...all things are relative.

[Crump]

+1 to the above. Always important to understand that these are volunteers who are providing this. Is the FM dead on, no but what FM is? Part of this is the enjoyment factor i.e. is it fun? The answer is yes for me and many others. In many ways I prefer CLOD to BoS but each has its advantages and disadvantages and those are also affected by personal preference and point-of-view. I enjoy them both and am happy there are still combat flight sims to play...this genre isn't exactly Pokimon with millons of users we are talking about. If some feel the CLOD FM is off or bad, no problem. I invite them to try Aces High or War Thunder (both of which I still enjoy once in a while) as a comparison...all things are relative.

 

 

The problem is the title of this thread isn't "Team Fusion Does a Great job sacrificing realism for fun all on volunteer time".  The title is "CloD FM are very good".

 

The Team Fusion FM are not good.  In fact, you do many things that are simply the wrong control input compared to the actual control input in an aircraft and do not follow physics.

 

So, selling a bill of goods as the FM is great when it is clearly not.......

 

This is not intended to bash the volunteers or the effort.  It is playable and the graphics are beautiful.  There is a great foundation to work with and I have to wonder what it would have evolved into with someone like Oleg Maddox.

 

The problem is both Aces High and War Thunder at least get the control basics correct.  That is kind of a very big flaw CLoD.

 

 

 

I honestly think the goal should be first and foremost to make things close enough to be considered enjoyable, fun, and convincing , not necessarily perfect.

 

Very well said and I totally agree. Understand we are not nitpicking here.  These are major blemishes that most FM do get correct.  Great Example is FS10 or even FS2004.....Certainly NOT the most realistic FM in the niches but approximate enough to be very fun.  The basics are correct enough you can even use it to log sim time for certain procedure training under the supervision of an instructor for Private and Basic IFR training.

 

In CloD, when your control inputs are not what you do in an airplane.....there is no claim of getting it "approximately correct" and close enough for fun unless you just do not know how an airplane acts.  Then you could be using cars with wings, LaserJet's, or spaceships and be having the same fun!

 

 

 

Crump, FM and DM are being completely rewritten for v5.00 as you say, there's always room for improvement and we aren't conceited enough to think it's perfect. We're still having fun working through the issues.....time will tell if the community feel it was worth the effort and time

 

Cheers, MP

 

 

That sounds good.  I just saw the title of this thread and heard the record scratch.....

 

You guys have done a great job on the game.  I have played it and like much of it.  The FM and aircraft behavior are real immersion killer at times but it is playable compared to the original release which I bought only to have a new "coaster" on the computer desk.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Crump

[LTcommander]

stopped reading somewhere in the mid ,flicked my eyes on warthunder   ,

 

how about all the devs and patchers join together and sum up their knowledge ? (forget about gaijin - money is a big destroying factor from family across fun across success )

[Lusekofte]

 

 

In CloD, when your control inputs are not what you do in an airplane.....there is no claim of getting it "approximately correct" and close enough for fun unless you just do not know how an airplane acts.  Then you could be using cars with wings, LaserJet's, or spaceships and be having the same fun!

 

 

I have absolutely no idea what you talking about 

Personally I do not have this problem, but in my mind I adapt automatically to any faults a game must have. So what I am a bit surprised by is the fact that I have never heard about it before. My controls feels like in this game 1/1 movement. If I ever noticing anything it is the Stuka in this game

[CisTer-dB-]

 

 

The Team Fusion FM are not good.  In fact, you do many things that are simply the wrong control input compared to the actual control input in an aircraft and do not follow physics.

 

 

I would be very curious at what you are referring to because for me noting is a game breaker in CloD. Although I probably don't have your engineering background I can compensate it with more then thousands of hours of stick and rudder. Like I always says it is a game let's forget about the sim purist stuff. Professional Simulators are simulating systems not FM they try but even you pay 15 million for a CAE or Thales you never gonna the proper simulation especially at the edge of the envelope.

 

That being say, I do find weird or wrong stuff in all of them. BoS with it's extreme lateral instability , CloD with it's unrealistic sound , DCS spotting issue but I play those game to have fun and relax, I do not fly them with a chronometer and a chart. For me that would take the fun away     

Edited August 15, 2016 by ATAG_dB