9./JG52Lopp Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 The nose bounce to me is way extreme. Small control input adjustments to move the gun sight on target result in the nose jumping all around like crazy. Some guys say this is accurate and it may be, but its not much fun.
Panzerlang Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 How do they deal with cable-stretch in real planes?
DD_bongodriver Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 How do they deal with cable-stretch in real planes? If you still have control and make it back, you put an entry in the defects log and hand the aircraft over to an engineer to fix it.
Panzerlang Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 So there's no mechanism to take up the slack after some high-G moves have stretched the cables? I'm sure they use exotic alloys these days but in WW2? 1
DD_bongodriver Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Highly unlikely to stretch cables anyway, not from simply pulling G, the wings will break off before you reach a cable limit.
Panzerlang Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I guess they pre-stretched them too, now that I think about it. Thanks.
Sternjaeger Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) So there's no mechanism to take up the slack after some high-G moves have stretched the cables? I'm sure they use exotic alloys these days but in WW2? nope, and to stretch a cable you'd need to go quite beyond the designer's load factors. Cables are made of steel or carbon steel and are designed to allow for a calculated stretch (which can be induced also by thermic changes for example). There are ways to improve the aircraft cable performance though: many aircraft adopt lockclads for instance, to increase protection, reduce vibration and to allow for a more precise response. Edited December 7, 2013 by Sternjaeger
DD_bongodriver Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I guess they pre-stretched them too, now that I think about it. Thanks. Not really pre stretched but they will be tensioned to design specs. I'd like to know how many WWII designs used torque tubes instead of cable.
Matze81 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Planes wobbles and swinging like the hell. Nothing realistic here. For me it is actually the biggest issue of BOS flight model. Even AI wobbles and swinging - it is clearly noticable in dogfight against AI ( no metter of 109 or LAgg). [...] Quick movemetns in pitch or yaw make nose swinging in all direction nothing realistic here. [...] Nothing change here. Planes wobbling and swinging nose like before update. For me planes in BOS flying like they were hanging on invisible gums. Nose is swinging and wobbling with every little pitch and rudder movements. Nothing compare to real life flying. Im flying different planes IRL also taildragers and aerobatic plane ( old fashion taildrager with retractable landing gear) and never experienced such behaviour as in BOS. [...] Only ground handling is niclely done in BOS. [...] I agree with you mate. Pitch oscillation/stability in the 109 is overdone in my opinion. It was the same already last week and I did not see any comment on this besides yours in the Bug report section (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2085-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?p=58042). I'm glad more people start noticing it, now that they're trying to aim the gun sight at something. I know there's a lot of real pilots among us and we don't always agree, but from my experience in multiple aircraft and during aerobatic and more advanced maneuvering, I have to say that none of the aircraft had the tendency to snap the nose back to the original position, like it was connected to a rubber band, when slightly quicker control inputs are made. If you pitch up for example and the airspeed starts decreasing, then yes, the nose wants point downward again (provided the trim is not adjusted right away), but the way it is modelled in BoS currently is too extreme, if you ask me. It feels really awkward. I don't mean to complain too much, because the Devs are doing an outstanding job overall. I just comment on the issue, because I don't know if the Flight Model for the 109 is considered to be final yet. If it were, personally I would kindly ask for a change in FM. If it is not, I'll just hope they're going to work on this particular issue anyway, sometime down the road. Maybe we get some feedback on this. I'd definately appreciate it! The nose bounce to me is way extreme. Small control input adjustments to move the gun sight on target result in the nose jumping all around like crazy. Some guys say this is accurate and it may be, but its not much fun. Well, based on what I wrote above, it's obvious, that personally I'd say it ain't accurate at all! 1
303_Kwiatek Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I agree with you mate. Pitch oscillation/stability in the 109 is overdone in my opinion. It was the same already last week and I did not see any comment on this besides yours in the Bug report section (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2085-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?p=58042). I'm glad more people start noticing it, now that they're trying to aim the gun sight at something. I know there's a lot of real pilots among us and we don't always agree, but from my experience in multiple aircraft and during aerobatic and more advanced maneuvering, I have to say that none of the aircraft had the tendency to snap the nose back to the original position, like it was connected to a rubber band, when slightly quicker control inputs are made. If you pitch up for example and the airspeed starts decreasing, then yes, the nose wants point downward again (provided the trim is not adjusted right away), but the way it is modelled in BoS currently is too extreme, if you ask me. It feels really awkward. I don't mean to complain too much, because the Devs are doing an outstanding job overall. I just comment on the issue, because I don't know if the Flight Model for the 109 is considered to be final yet. If it were, personally I would kindly ask for a change in FM. If it is not, I'll just hope they're going to work on this particular issue anyway, sometime down the road. Maybe we get some feedback on this. I'd definately appreciate it! Well, based on what I wrote above, it's obvious, that personally I'd say it ain't accurate at all! Good to know that there is more real life pilots whos noticed these things also. 1
111_Green Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Thx Kwiatek, Blakhart and Matze for for your opinions about the BoS flight model. I had similar feelings about FM, but not being a real pilot does not want to start a discussion on the forum. Lets hope FM will be fix soon. 2
HagarTheHorrible Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Is there a balance needed in the FM between aircraft behaviour and gun sight aiming ability ? I just wonder if, because of the nature of flight simming in front of a computer screen, if you make the FM's to, stable or perfect without any individual peculiarities, it might make the shooting side too easy and allow a dominant aircraft to dominate even more ?
303_Kwiatek Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) In CLOD ir DCS P-51 planes fly in the air more realistic way (still there is some oscilations of nose expecially at slowier speeds) and belive me shoting and aiming is not so easy and quite difficult even comparing to BOS swinging planes. Edited December 7, 2013 by Kwiatek
Sternjaeger Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Can you guys explain to me what you mean when you say "more realistic" when it comes to pitch oscillation? 1
dburne Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Can you guys explain to me what you mean when you say "more realistic" when it comes to pitch oscillation? Not really worth asking the question, as " more realistic" is simply a matter of perception by the gamer... unless one really wants to see quite the lively debate .
Sternjaeger Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Not really worth asking the question, as " more realistic" is simply a matter of perception by the gamer... unless one really wants to see quite the lively debate . I guess you're right. What kinda leaves me a bit perplexed is how people blame the sim straight away and don't consider that perhaps what they've flown so far in terms of simming wasn't accurate, or that their input settings are not optimised. I'm honestly trying to understand what people expect the aircraft to behave like, since so far we've seen some misconceptions regarding the aircraft control behaviour and response. Edited December 8, 2013 by Sternjaeger 1
SKG51_robtek Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 But maybe they did consider and still blame the new, unproven, alpha-state sim.
Sternjaeger Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Maybe, but again, I still wonder what people does expect as acceptable behaviour. Edited December 8, 2013 by Sternjaeger
J4SCrisZeri Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 yes, plane bounces and wobbles like hell. it feels like a ramshackle object. I admit shooting and hitting a plane is absolutely random right now I tried CLod again, the plane once trimmed looks stable like a train on his railway I strongly hope these things will be tweaked/fixed. So far the plane is almost unflyable. Other than that, the sim is nice... 1
SeaW0lf Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I also noticed some quirkiness this week. As a matter of fact, a lot of it, but I am not sure if the sensation is because now I am trying to follow a target and aim (a precise job) or if the FM has changed. But I find it quite difficult to keep it straight, especially in a shallow dive or a turn, or climb, when the nose goes all over the place like affected by strong wind gusts (in a plane of that weight and speed? I don't know). I only have flown the 109. I'll try to use centering spring to adjust tighter the joystick to see if it gets better. I am no real pilot and I won't venture to say if there is something wrong or not, but I am interested to know what the real pilots have to say, if metal planes behaves like broncos all the time. The question is, most of the times we have different pilots saying opposite things. But the discussion is interesting. 1
III/JG11_Tiger Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Im not a pilot but Im not having much difficulty, could this be partly down to the quality of joysticks and rudder pedals? 1
jaydee Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Im not a pilot but Im not having much difficulty, could this be partly down to the quality of joysticks and rudder pedals? This + 1..When I switched from X52 Pro to TM Warthog I was flying IL2,WT and COD, I immediately noticed a vast improvement in "Smoothness" of the control column movement in the cockpit ...If you sit in the cockpit on the ground and play with the sensitivity Curves especially near the centres,you may be able to remove any twitchiness in the control column.As you are looking at the control column moving it should be smooth without jumping as you slowly move your joystick.Same goes for my pedals and brakes !.Hopes this helps ~S~
Fifi Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Okay, didn't read the long all thread, but i agree with OP and many here. Pitch response has changed in flight model (mainly noticeable in 109) as i mentioned it in other thread already burried in forum. I can even say it's quite unpleasant...way too much twitchy and sensitive, extremely noticeable when aiming at certain speed. IMO, it has nothing to do with beeing able to fly with 2 fingers on stick. Neither with stick quality. And obviously to me, the faster you fly, the harder the response is. Not the inverse. It's something occuring only with BOS using my Warthog. DCS is fine, CloD is fine, ROF is fine (yes with all different planes even Camel) So, beside the fact it seems to me unnatural/unrealistic behavior (109 was mind you known as very stable firing platform) it has to be a bug if devs didn't change it intentionally. If devs imported this twitchy behavior intentionally, i'm sorry to say it is wrong in my opinion...(yes, i know, i've never flew RL warbirds as everybody here on forum). As actual soluce, we can set a sentivity curve of course...but... Edited December 8, 2013 by Fifi
andyw248 Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 "keeping it straight" and "the controls are too sensitive" are completely different things. The air is almost never smooth enough to keep it straight. There's always some turbulence. That's modeled well in BoS, and leads us to state it's not like on rails. As for the controls, you would expect to make large stick movements when correcting for turbulence while on final approach. You would expect small corrections while cruising at high speed. Check whether that's the case. 2
pilotpierre Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 My two bobs worth as a private pilot who mainly flew aerobatics (that is all stick and rudder work). Prior to the dog fights becoming available I didn't notice anything untoward. However I find trying to line up on an a/c that is porpoising is extremely difficult with twitchy rudder and stick control, even staying out of their slipstream. It's not so bad when lining up on moving vehicles in a 2 dimensional environment, but once the third dimension comes into play any hits on the target a/c are more good luck that good shooting in my humble opinion. Sternjaeger, I realise with your PC down you have not experienced this in the game yet. I am interested to hear your opinion after you get a chance to fly the latest iteration. 2
W1ndy Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Why would anyone start messing with the Flight Controls when everyone last week was raving how good they have it. Wouldn't that be a bit like shooting yourself in the foot? I really hope they don't start messing with things that have had very good feedback because you are asking for problems doing that. Agree 100%. Last week was like flying an aircraft, this week like flying a simulator - curves and calibration I hope they kept a file of the FM from 32% 1
Fifi Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Why would anyone start messing with the Flight Controls when everyone last week was raving how good they have it. Wouldn't that be a bit like shooting yourself in the foot? I really hope they don't start messing with things that have had very good feedback because you are asking for problems doing that. Agree 100%. Last week was like flying an aircraft, this week like flying a simulator - curves and calibration I hope they kept a file of the FM from 32% Yep, agreed. 1
W1ndy Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 BTW I took out my curves and made them straight . 0% sensitivity (except yaw which got a fat curve) It improved handling. it might be a bug in the way the curves are being applied.
J4SCrisZeri Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Agree 100%. Last week was like flying an aircraft, this week like flying a simulator - curves and calibration I hope they kept a file of the FM from 32% oh yes. and I agree, last week it felt different. now at the minimum error the plane rotates on his axis like if ti was a pivot aiming at a plane is a joke, too many shakes and you can't brush against the stick, or the plane goes crazy and I have no strange stick eh: logitech Extreme 3D, I guess the most normal popular joy of the planet ( I also own a Saiteck x52 but it's in its box, can't imagine this sim's behaviour with that iper-sensible device)
rollbear Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Yes, stick length does have something to it. I've extended my Logitech G940 by roughly 40cm, which makes for much better control. However, as @pilotpierre said, there is still something funny that you notice when pulling Gs in a fight, how the nose wobbles around a lot. At first I attributed this to turbulence from the plane in front of you, but it's very noticeable when substantially inside its curve, which rules out that explanation. Then there's the squirrely rudder. Adjusting the response curve makes it somewhat better. I've thought of mechanically modifying those too, to get my feet further apart and a longer travel. This might help, but I'm not so sure it should. While there is some validity to the argument for stick length, I don't think it applies to the rudder. The biplane I do aerobatics in (beginner) has a rather long stick, but the pedals only move as far as I can wiggle my feet with the heels on the floor, which is actually less travel than I have on the CH pedals, and this plane has a rather big rudder and stubby fuselage which makes it sensitive.
HagarTheHorrible Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 C'mon guys it's got to be a challenge. If you removed, or improved the three things people have suggested over the last couple of days, contact spotting, nose bob and gun delay, flying and shooting would be no challenge at all when flying the 109. The aircraft dominates, and not just in the normal manner but even simply having a heavier cockpit frame is an advantage in blocking out the sun (who would have guessed that ?), if you removed it's quirks and foibles, right or wrong, the 109 would be no challenge at all.
TheCheese Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 The only difference between this week and last week that I notice is what I'm using my stick for. Didn't have to aim at stuff until now. However, when I think back/watch my flying from previous weeks, the planes seemed to act about the same way then as they do now. And this is about how they act for me in RoF as well, tbh. Regardless of how realistic you think the way the planes act is, I don't really see any evidence that it's changed. If I make slow, small inputs, I can still get smooth small responses for aiming, they just cant be hurried. It's just hard, is what I'm getting. 1
Emgy Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 oh yes. and I agree, last week it felt different. now at the minimum error the plane rotates on his axis like if ti was a pivot aiming at a plane is a joke, too many shakes and you can't brush against the stick, or the plane goes crazy and I have no strange stick eh: logitech Extreme 3D, I guess the most normal popular joy of the planet ( I also own a Saiteck x52 but it's in its box, can't imagine this sim's behaviour with that iper-sensible device) Should try your x52 imho. Potentiometer sticks like extreme 3d often end up like this after a some months: X52 is more precise (has more position steps) than extreme 3d, this should make your flying smoother, not more jerky. The x52's weak center spring could make it feel jerky, but we just need to get used to the x52.
LizLemon Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 C'mon guys it's got to be a challenge. If you removed, or improved the three things people have suggested over the last couple of days, contact spotting, nose bob and gun delay, flying and shooting would be no challenge at all when flying the 109. The aircraft dominates, and not just in the normal manner but even simply having a heavier cockpit frame is an advantage in blocking out the sun (who would have guessed that ?), if you removed it's quirks and foibles, right or wrong, the 109 would be no challenge at all. So you are saying that the FM should be "balanced" for difficulty rather then accuracy? Lets not turn this game into War Thunder. BoS is supposed to be a sim. 3
HagarTheHorrible Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 So you are saying that the FM should be "balanced" for difficulty rather then accuracy? Lets not turn this game into War Thunder. BoS is supposed to be a sim. What are you trying to simulate ? Are you trying to simulate the aircraft or the combat, which is more important ? There is only so much a computer can simulate, the aircraft is probably the easy bit, relatively, because it's all about numbers, the combat side is far more subjective and grey.
DD_bongodriver Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Not sure I get it, surely the combat is up to us the end user to simulate, the developers simply sell us an accurate simulation of the machines and environment involved. 2
LizLemon Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 What are you trying to simulate ? Are you trying to simulate the aircraft or the combat, which is more important ? There is only so much a computer can simulate, the aircraft is probably the easy bit, relatively, because it's all about numbers, the combat side is far more subjective and grey. If the FM and DM of the aircraft is accurate and the ballistics of the guns is also accurate, then the combat should end up being pretty close to "accurate" as well - save for spotting issues and AI if SP is your thing.
HagarTheHorrible Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Just ask yourselves "How difficult would it be to fly and shoot in the 109 if it didn't have these quirks ?" That's all I'm saying. Given a little practice in the 109, if it didn't have those quirks, right or wrong, shooting LaGG's wouldn't just be easy you'd be choosing which testical to shoot off the pilot (presumably an advantage for female pilots here, if they know where to look). There a whole load of things that simulators can't simulate that make a huge difference. Maybe I should try and get the other half to stand behind me with a cricket bat and belt me or the chair every time I get bounced or shot at ( then again she might enjoy it too much, I may not be able to get her to stop. Who said gaming wasn't shared family entertainment ? 1
Phat Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I made these comments last week and still stand by them. Things are no better this week. "I have hooked up my X52 Pro and Saitek rudder pedals for the first time tonight and find with default sensitivities the rudder has enormous authority. I dont know if thats normal or not for this plane, but its certainly very different to what Im used to in IL2 and CLOD and feels a little extreme. (I've beeb flying IL2 since 2001) The nose of the 109 tends to bobble around quite a lot too with minimal control input, like the centre of gravity isnt right. The plane feels very unstable to me. It may be just the increased flight fidelity of the model but it feels awfuly twitchy to me. Rolls feel ok, but any rudder or elevator input feels twitchy and bobbly. Can anyone comment on what sensitivities you find works with the X52 Pro?"
Recommended Posts