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

[Lusekofte]

I use high end sim equipment and with my earlier yoke and now my floor mounted stick I see absolutely no difference in control input. I might found it differently with a desktop stick.

But in reality, how can one simulate the real thing, In a real Spitfire you had to use force on the stick depending on the speed of the plane. In some cases the whole bodyweight.

Compare that to the fingertip finesse most simmers use today and already you have a huge difference. 

Spotting planes was a huge thing before radar, many aces was became aces because they spotted enemy planes faster than others. 

I find many FM discussions more a thing about people want to show of their knowledge and not so much the actually problem ( not meaning you Crump, I think you actually got a fair and constructive way of looking at things, but your pow drown in hounders of others motif)  The main difference between me and many others are my motif of playing sim´s.

To me , if the plane behave as it should when I fly in a historical way , I can let my mind settle in this escape from reality and imagine I am flying a combat mission. I do not care what the plane can do when flying it non historical, because I do not use it that way. Same goes for some peculiar behavior on some planes in all sim´s. I just take it as a design flaw or thermic oddity.

But I do wish for improved ground handeling in both games , looking at archive films about taxiing aircraft I think COD is the most correct. I read a story about Eric Hartman having a bad day, he got his knight cross stolen and crashed a JU 87 on taxiing to runway.

He was asked to ferry a JU 87 to his airfield since he was going back to his unit, he accepted this and while taxiing one of the brakes failed and he ended up in a ditch because he could not turn the plane. 

[Sokol1]

Ahh ... the "Feel Simulator". 

 

The only thing I "feel" really bad in CloD is ground handling, specially with wind, "fell" like planes has no weight, due this the more difficult plane for do taxi is Tiger Moth.

 

I don't believe more that CLoD is "fixable" in the whole - even the propeller on bombs fuses is out of place, it has no practical use, but it is still a "bug". But the game is improvable, what TF was done nicely. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Sokol1

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Personally I enjoy the aircraft's "feel" in BoS over Clod simply because it feels more dynamic with the excellend turbulence modeling and the overall stick and rudder force modeling (which is still off for some aircraft though).

Aircraft in Clod feel more stiff and clean and the overall handling of each aircraft feels very similar with minor differences while here some like the Mig-3 or I-16 have particular characteristics that make them interesting to fly.

 

Things like the non existing ground friction, overdone head wobbling/shake during even the slightest manouvers and the jaggery stick animation in the cockpit are also bummers for me but apart from all that I think it does a reasonably solid job.

Edited August 15, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka_

[ACG_daffy_]

CLoD is a great game.  It started life as an utter disaster, and nearly caused the death of WWII Flight Sims.  (after CFS 3....then....now this??)  Actually, it literally did almost destroy the WWII Flight Simulator genre.  It's amazing how much of an impact that disappointment really had.  ...do your own research...

 

TD has done wonderful things though, and it is a great game now.  Tons of fun.  Always a lot of MP going on, and mostly good peeps flying.  And.  It's still FUN!  FMs FMs FMs...bla bla bla.  Nobody here is a WWII pilot.  It's fun.  Thats all that matters.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

CLoD is a great game.  It started life as an utter disaster, and nearly caused the death of WWII Flight Sims.  (after CFS 3....then....now this??)  Actually, it literally did almost destroy the WWII Flight Simulator genre.  It's amazing how much of an impact that disappointment really had.  ...do your own research...

 

TD has done wonderful things though, and it is a great game now.  Tons of fun.  Always a lot of MP going on, and mostly good peeps flying.  And.  It's still FUN!  FMs FMs FMs...bla bla bla.  Nobody here is a WWII pilot.  It's fun.  Thats all that matters.

 

For you.

[Lusekofte]

For you.

 

 

You are priceless, you buy combat flight simulators and expect them to be true to all aspects of the real thing. I hate to disappoint you you will never find it. Not much imagination required to get the feeling of the rea thing. Like me you would not recognize your favorite topic real FM (FW 190)  if it was placed  right under your nose. And even if you did you would need a real environment to fly it in. 

Wake up, get real. Not even professional simulators would meet your expectations

 

 

Personally I enjoy the aircraft's "feel" in BoS over Clod simply because it feels more dynamic with the excellend turbulence modeling and the overall stick and rudder force modeling (which is still off for some aircraft though).

 

So true, there is no way around it. There are other reasons for me liking COD, and you mention the reason I like BOS 

Edited August 18, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Crump]

 

 

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.

'

 

I respect your experience and contribution.

 

Of course it is enjoyable but that does not mean "FM are very Good in CloD".  That specifically speaks to the unrealistic aircraft behaviors and performance I have noted earlier in the thread.

 

 

 

( not meaning you Crump, I think you actually got a fair and constructive way of looking at things, but your pow drown in hounders of others motif)

 

Thank you.  I agree and think several issues in your game would have been identified and fixed.  Instead, the "let me show off my knowledge" crowd comes along and the issue gets drowned out.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

You are priceless, you buy combat flight simulators and expect them to be true to all aspects of the real thing. I hate to disappoint you you will never find it. Not much imagination required to get the feeling of the rea thing. Like me you would not recognize your favorite topic real FM (FW 190)  if it was placed  right under your nose. And even if you did you would need a real environment to fly it in. 

Wake up, get real. Not even professional simulators would meet your expectations

 

You can't simply accept the fact that i can't find the "fun" side of a sim if its FMs are all broken ?

 

Wow... I hope you're aware that there are flight sims that possess all fighters you have in BoS [Edited].

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

 

Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following:

 

30 days ban on entry

Edited August 18, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin
Rule 18

[Crump]

 

 

Ahh ... the "Feel Simulator". 

 

It is not really a feeling when the control inputs are just wrong. 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Wow... I hope you're aware that there are flight sims that possess all fighters you have in BoS

 

I am really interested in what planes and witch simulator you have accepted, because I own all modules in DCS, old IL 2 with all mods, COD BOS BOM X plane and a old FSX and all MScfs . I consider P3D next year when I buy a new rig.

I am not stirring the pot here, I really like to hear a constructive and honest opinion on what you think is good and why, I used to read all your post , because at one point you really had a constructive way of expressing yourself, you showed great knowledge and I learned something.

 now your comment do not bring wisdom anymore, just hint of a dimension where us mortals can not walk 

[Crump]

 

 

I have absolutely no idea what you talking about 

 

 

 

 

would be very curious at what you are referring to because for me noting is a game breaker in CloD.

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

[Sokol1]

Of course it is enjoyable but that does not mean "FM are very Good in CloD".  

 

BTW - "FM are very Good in CloD" is option of this guy, with very little participation there, but with focus in "feel" - what maybe explain their words... bad choice. 

 

As seem he are no longer there, you guys "wordfight" will not change their option. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Sokol1

[Lusekofte]

Flew BR 20 and JU 87 in cod today, again I have difficulties determine best FM for the stuka in this game and the B2 in COD. All I know I like the COD version best, a known over performing feature , I know. But it "feels " better and more realistic and its cockpit is a work of art. Possible the best visual damage model too. Despite its over performing power and ability to turn fight a spit, I still find it a realistic plane 

[Mysticpuma]

All FM and DM are being re-written for v5.00, we have also discovered and corrected the atmospheric density bug which will (using newly developed tools) allow us to input official aircraft data directly into the SIM

 

Lots still to do but all coming together nicely

[Crump]

Look forward to it Mystic.

[Urra]

All FM and DM are being re-written for v5.00, we have also discovered and corrected the atmospheric density bug which will (using newly developed tools) allow us to input official aircraft data directly into the SIM

 

Lots still to do but all coming together nicely

For version 6, please include slider to increase/decrease number of bugs on my windshield.

Kidding of course.

Edited August 21, 2016 by roaming_gnome

[dburne]

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.

 

Amen to that, I am still getting many hours of enjoyment out of TF Cliffs despite any flaws and really looking forward to what TF5 brings as well. It is still my preferred WWII combat flight sim to date.

Edited August 20, 2016 by dburne

[ACG_daffy_]

For you.

It really is, for me.  Fun is all that matters.  You, me, or any other person here wouldn't know the first thing about driving the real thing and we would all more than likely not survive....given the statistics...our first combat encounter.  If, of course we survived flight training, and then didn't have some malfunction on a take off or landing, or some kind of catastrophic failure while on another boring CAP.  Of course, we would probably have been bombed shortly after arrival to the unit...in our barracks before we could even brag about our first successful mission survival.  

We are all joystick pilots, with more technology in our throttle quadrants than there was in the entire aircraft of the time we are simulating.  There is no "real" here.  It's ridiculous to suggest there is, and probably offensive to the Men and Women that actually served and fought in the machines of the WWII Air Campaigns.  They did it.  They broke the barriers.  They survived...or died in the real world....and we bitch because the simulator doesn't have a roll-rate according to how the specs suggest the real one did.  So, for me...Fun is all that matters because it's all we got.

[Crump]

 

 

Fun is all that matters.

 

I agree.  It complete ruins the fun when you input controls and it does not act like an airplane.

[Lusekofte]

I agree.  It complete ruins the fun when you input controls and it does not act like an airplane.

 

 

I find the control interface very good in COD, I trust you on your word , but for me there is no difference in COD and BOS. I have since flying COD and now BOS used a high end Yoke and now a floor mounted stick. it might have to do something with that. My squadron mates started together with me in BOS but left after a week never being able to control the FW 190. Their joystick movements simply could not get that airplane off the tarmac, and they crashed. They went back to fly COD because of what you say about COD. 

But I had no problems, In my experience both COD and BOS favor sticks that simulate 1 to 1 in real stick movements in reality and virtually, this might be the reason I am satisfied with both simulators in this regard.

Another great thing about COD interface is you can tweak the controls for all airplanes and save them. There is absolutely no limit on how to tweak the axis and you can make them different for every plane, this is very good for realism. Fighters need sharp and speedy movements and bombers need stable flight

[CisTer-dB-]

I agree.  It complete ruins the fun when you input controls and it does not act like an airplane.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

I have a floor mounted stick also but the FW190 is nigh to impossible to fly. I have stopped using it at all du to the fact that even with a very gentle input it immediately snapstalls.

All my controls are calibrated and fully tweaked with 1:1 input but that doesn't help. CoD and DCS for me have the more plausible behaviour of the German planes.

[Lusekofte]

I have not have any problems noticed myself, I find it unstable in some situations but very fast and good. However I never tried dogfighting with it

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I might try to go for solution LuseKofte has, floor mounted stick. That way the inputs correspond more closely to RL and are less "twitchy" than with a short table mounted stick. Pedals are anyway closer to RL input with their movement range that it is down how you tweak the input. Just my .02€ uneducated input

[Crump]

 

 

You think aircraft speed up in slip???

 

Or you need top rudder when turning either direction?

[Lusekofte]

I have seen modifications with the floor mounted Warthog and I think you will have a smoother movement. But original FW 190 KG 13 stick is not as long as mine. I sit in a normal chair while the FW cockpit chair is in the floor . I think a warthog stick with 15 cm extension is about the length of the real thing.

However a longer stick give a more authentic feel of flying and give a longer travel from center to the side

[CisTer-dB-]

You think aircraft speed up in slip???

 

Or you need top rudder when turning either direction?

It doesn't Crump nor does it accelerate during negative G's. Don't even try 

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

My stick extension is a bit too long but that will be trimmed down when I modify my seat arrangement.

Also the bungee cords will be replaced by springs, just getting the feel for the strength I want

Edited August 26, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[Crump]

 

 

It doesn't Crump nor does it accelerate during negative G's. Don't even try 

 

It most certainly does....you need a video?

[Crump]

I have a video uploading.  Spitfire Mk 1a I took up from Tangmere.  I put the nose down about 30 degrees and put a decent negative G load on the aircraft.  Watch the airspeed gauge.  It stays the same and then suddenly speeds up considerably!!

 

Surprisingly, offline the CloD FM has better behaviors and you do see some slowdown.

 

There is no disc drag due a windmilling propeller but there surely is some thrust being produced once that engine kicks back in!

 

A windmilling propeller produces a noticeable amount of drag.

 

You can watch a Drag Demo.  Anybody who has an ME rating should be familiar with this drill.

 

About 44:34 on the video...It should have a grey bar saying "Drag Demo" and the instructor plainly stating the windmilling propeller is largest component of drag.

[Crump]

In CLOD....

 

Pull some Negative G and gain 20 mph very quickly for little to no loss in altitude....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7wRK8gN8Y&feature=youtu.be

[Lusekofte]

Still really wanted to hear from ze hairy about the sim with a better fw 190 A3.

Because if he meant the DCS Dora I can pick its fm to pieces with videos, and I can do it to every virtual plane.

There is no problem at all looking for problems, you will find them.

Most of all , what kind of choices do we have?

DCS cannot be regarded as a ww2 sim for foreseeable future, then you only got old IL2 left with a fw 190.

I like old IL 2, but hey.....

As is we got only cod and bos, let us take care of them

[taildraggernut]

In CLOD....

 

Pull some Negative G and gain 20 mph very quickly for little to no loss in altitude....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7wRK8gN8Y&feature=youtu.be

 

at zero g the wings do not produce lift, therefore all induced drag is eliminated, suddenly losing a major portion of drag sounds like a recipe for rapid acceleration to me. you don't have to do much of a pushover to get under 1 g so no major loss of altitude should be expected.

[Crump]

As is we got only cod and bos, let us take care of them

 

That is actually what I am trying to do.  

at zero g the wings do not produce lift, therefore all induced drag is eliminated, suddenly losing a major portion of drag sounds like a recipe for rapid acceleration to me. you don't have to do much of a pushover to get under 1 g so no major loss of altitude should be expected.

 

 

The windmilling propeller more than makes up for it.....

You certainly do not hear the RAF putting out instructions to their pilots during the BoB to use Neg G cut out to accelerate....

Edited August 26, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

Big rabbit hole, btw taildraggernut.

 

At zero G it still produces all forms of drag not due to lift.  At negative 1 G, the wing is producing lift....the vector has changed though!

 

There is no reason it should gain 20 mph.....

[taildraggernut]

 

 

The windmilling propeller more than makes up for it.....

You certainly do not hear the RAF putting out instructions to their pilots during the BoB to use Neg G cut out to accelerate....

 

well that makes no sense at all, windmilling propellers don't suddenly increase drag the moment induced drag is lost, there 'will' be an acceleration needed for the prop disc to produce increased drag.

 

No the RAF did not put out those instructions but if you think about it that's exactly why the DB engines fuel injection was an advantage, it allowed the Germans to do a pushover to accelerate away by benefitting from the reduced drag.

Big rabbit hole, btw taildraggernut.

 

At zero G it still produces all forms of drag not due to lift.  At negative 1 G, the wing is producing lift....the vector has changed though!

 

There is no reason it should gain 20 mph.....

 

at zero g 'no' lift is produced and induced drag is a product purely of lift, form drag will increase but again only in the case of increased speed, yes at 1 neg g the wing will produce negative lift and therefore drag but not at zero g.

 

maybe someone has a graph to show how much drag reduction is required for a 20mph increase.

[Crump]

at zero g 'no' lift is produced

 

totally off topic but I did not say zero G....

 

 

 

well that makes no sense at all, windmilling propellers don't suddenly increase drag the moment induced drag is lost, there 'will' be an acceleration needed for the prop disc to produce increased drag.

 

 

A windmilling propeller produces drag and lots of it......

 

The entire disc area essentially acts as a flat plate.

 

 

 

maybe someone has a graph to show how much drag reduction is required for a 20mph increase.

 

Power requirements roughly follow velocity cubed... 

 

 

he RAF did not put out those instructions but if you think about it that's exactly why the DB engines fuel injection was an advantage,

 

The fuel injected engines never lost power and had a windmilling propeller.... 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

What you should see taildraggernut, is the airspeed reducing from that propeller drag as the engine cuts out.  When the engine fires back up THEN the airplane should accelerate again.  The fact the airspeed stays the same while the propeller is windmilling is telling.

[Lusekofte]

That is actually what I am trying to do.....

I know, passion for this hobby you show.

 

But in all this, there are people like me, not very helpful when it comes to developments and bug reports, we fly the planes ,and if they behave in the manner you read it should do, or close enough , we fly it and enjoy it. To date I haven't tested one plane outside historical parameters.

We are the players behaving like ai in campaign, we do what we suppose to do, we bomb the objectives, and 1 out of 5 times we get to shoot someone out of the sky, 3 out of 6 times we get blown out of the skies.

I am far more sensitive about fm in DCS, because I bought it for chopper flying in other words bought it because of realistic fm in all aspects,

Edited August 27, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Crump]

 

 

But in all this, there are people like me, not very helpful when it comes to developments and bug reports, we fly the planes ,and if they behave in the manner you read it should do, or close enough , we fly it and enjoy it.

 

I admit, ignorance can be bliss.  It absolutely ruins the immersion for me when the "aircraft" being modeled does not behave like an aircraft or the physics is not right.  Little things that are beyond the scope of a home computer are excusable and easily overlooked.

 

 

Basic's are not that easily overlooked.