Jump to content
jcomm-il2

Spitfire AND The upcoming New FM....

Recommended Posts

I've read at some threads that the new Spitfire is already using the new FDM.

 

Well, I honestly don't think this is possible since, based on the various Dev's Notes, this new FDM is supposed to deal with the core FDM, meaning, it would equally affect all other aircraft, which I do not think is the case.

 

The Spitfire Vb now released was fine tuned and possesses some characteristics that are unique to it's model, namely, neutral static pitch stability. 

 

Anyway, I would like to read from the Dev Team, if indeed, the FDM of the Spitfire is the "new" flight model, even if the core FDM is still the "old" one, and if so, how was that possible to accomplish  ( ? ) or if indeed, the new features / feel will only come with the upcoming / updated FDM core.

Edited by jcomm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "old" and "new" flight model. There is no "core" FM.  Every aircraft has it's own FM, which gets changed over time, either due to specific changes in input according to the data on different aircraft, or due to changes in physics calculations relating to some part of the FM behaviour. The part being highlighted for change is, especially, roll-yaw coupling. 

 

It is obvious when you fly it that the the Spitfire does not suffer from adverse yaw to anywhere near the extent that the other planes do. Presumably, after the upcoming revision, other aircraft will show a reduction too, some more, others less.

 

It seems perfectly clear to me - and testers have confirmed this and put their entire credibility on the line by saying so - that the Spitfire's FM incorporates these revised physics calculations.

 

Still, it might not be a bad idea for Jason or team to make a completely unambiguous and clear statement so that this "controversy" can be buried in an unmarked grave once and for all. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is obvious when you fly it that the the Spitfire does not suffer from adverse yaw to anywhere near the extent that the other planes do. 

 

Well, I honestly never thought adverse yaw was / is the problem, because you can actually perform your turns, on most of the aircraft in IL2, feet-on-floor... at least judging from the feedback from your turn coordinator ( ball / bar never departs that much from centreline )

 

The roll-yaw coupling, and the dynamic pitch stability initial response ( frequency ) always felt overdone to me though, and that's one of the problems I am looking fwd to see addressed.

 

This Spitfire is also pretty much "well behaved" in as far as turn coordination goes, and even in as far as prop effects go, because it flies almost coordinated without much effort from the vilot.

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Molders did say it was very simple to fly compared to the Emil, and childishly easy to take off and land.

 

(It would be interesting to take a Spitfire and take the wings off and replace them with 109 wings). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(It would be interesting to take a Spitfire and take the wings off and replace them with 109 wings).

 

I guess Klaus is the only one potentionally liking this idea... :biggrin:

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it would be only fair to take the removed Spitfire wings and put them onto the 109......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "old" and "new" flight model. There is no "core" FM.  Every aircraft has it's own FM, which gets changed over time, either due to specific changes in input according to the data on different aircraft, or due to changes in physics calculations relating to some part of the FM behaviour. The part being highlighted for change is, especially, roll-yaw coupling. 

(...)

 

hmm - actually, the FM update announcement distinctively listed a "global changes" section, which is easily read as suggesting that there is indeed a "core" upon which individual airplanes are based (makes sense that there would be, else each plane would have to redefine the same laws of physics all over again)

 

 

not that this "core" means a "default FM" that planes simply tweak around to define themselves - such a common framework most likely comprises the more basic elements of flight simulation, things such as a physics engine, to start with - and the numerical integration methods needed to evolve such physics over time (less trivial than you'd think)

 

 

still, just this manner in which the update features are listed is already a very good indication that the game has a common core for simulating flight, and that each plane then define it's unique characteristics on top of this core so that it performs the way it has to

 

however, from a programming point of view, it is all but certain that a central simulation core has to exist - else we'd be facing some extraordinarily redundant coding here.

 

no sane programmer would subject himself and his peers to such torment as coding a simulator in which each individual airplane requires it's own redundant implementation of the basics - and any insane ones who would try are quite unlikely to have made it successfully this far into development. 

 

therefore, I find it safe to say - there MUST be a common simulation core - in some form or another within the game...  it'd be rather absurd if there wasn't

 

 

just exactly how it's laid out, and how it works, remain as questions... albeit not really relevant to any user discussion anyways, save for the sake of curiosity...

 

 

 

nevertheless, none of this still denies the possibility of entertaining our madness by combining different parts of different plane's flight characteristics...

...though historically, this has been done before:

Mesrspit_a.JPG

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make no sense, programming wise, to release a new plane with an old FM and then have to revise it in a month to two months.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "old" and "new" flight model. There is no "core" FM.  Every aircraft has it's own FM, which gets changed over time, either due to specific changes in input according to the data on different aircraft, or due to changes in physics calculations relating to some part of the FM behaviour. The part being highlighted for change is, especially, roll-yaw coupling. 

 

 

That actually isn't how it works. There's a central physics or, "FM," module that individual aircraft parameters feed into to output the "flying" part or "driving" part.

 

Each plane doesn't have it's own FM module, they just have parameters that get fed into the physics module. Recreating the same physics calculations in several sections of the code for each plane would not only not be efficient but it would lead to code management issues - such as failing to update the physics for some planes or updating the physics incorrectly. It just wouldn't be smart coding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That actually isn't how it works. There's a central physics or, "FM," module that individual aircraft parameters feed into to output the "flying" part or "driving" part.

 

From where do you know that? Do you have detailed info from devs or access to the source code?

 

Each plane doesn't have it's own FM module, they just have parameters that get fed into the physics module. Recreating the same physics calculations in several sections of the code for each plane would not only not be efficient but it would lead to code management issues - such as failing to update the physics for some planes or updating the physics incorrectly. It just wouldn't be smart coding.

 
Everything would be possible, a core FM calculation where the other FMs are permanently base on it. Or the same core FM which is used only initially when a new FM is created, or complete independent FMs. 
 
As for 'smart coding', the redundant code for ~20 to 30 FMs is most probably negligible, but makes you on the other hand independent for individual changes for a certain FM, so everything has cons and pros, and both is possible. Regarding 'update failing', next weekend we distribute an update for 20.000 users, 1300 servers and 8000 PCs in my company and we expect no problems. I'm sure BoX devs are capable to update their source code without forgetting some planes as well :)

 

 

Edited by StG2_Manfred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from expirience with other games (FS series, DCS, WT) the Dynamic Flight Model consist of a core physics engine that contains all formulars and equations which is fed with input data to process it, and individual Flight Models specific to each aircraft. Flight Models contain input data that simulate the specicifc aircraft. Usually a FM looks something like this:

 

Geometry (size, weight, CoM, ect)

Aerodynamical properties (lift values, drag values, Crit. AoA, Crit. Mach, ect)

Propulsion System (power, torque, thermodynamics, ect)

Aircraft Systems (pressure, force modeling, ect)

Weaponry / Loadout (fix points, weight)

(sometimes) Damage Parameters

 

Those parameters can be gathered threw ressearch from manuals, technical descriptions, pilot notes or have to be calculated.

 

The way the system works is that changes can be made to individual aircrafts without affecting one another by adjusting the input parameters in the respective FMs (hence why people feel a noticeable difference in the Spitfire to the rest of BoS's aircraft). IF a change was done to the physics engine that processes all FM data every aircraft would be affected by it without exception. As for now this is unlikely to be the case.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how it is exactly - how physic simulation is separated from planes FM but based by past experiences (ROF) ich plane has its own code module but not that kind that would made easy by others to made new FM (parameters input on new 3D model). I know for sure that Spit has one FM and other already released planes have two. I suppose (logic - new​ spit plus old others) that there is no need to change others things other than individual planes FMs to go for next patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well only the developers know exactly how they have coded it, by my observation is that while there might be - indeed should be - a set of common equations the FM(s) are using to represent the physics, in the code these are replicated for each plane.  The equations the Spitfire FM is using are not exactly the same as the ones the 109 - or other older FMs - are using, since they have been tweaked to reduce roll/yaw coupling.  (Or so it's behaviour and common sense indicates).   This has nothing whatever to do with the physical properties of the Spitfire specifically, such as it's weight etc.

 

When, in my finance career, I designed a valuation model, this was one model per company. The company data was fed in.  So in that sense all the companies shared the same VM. Each, however, had it's own copy of that VM, stored on a separate sheet (in effect a separate program), so it was easy to change the VM for a particular company if you wanted a more detailed assessment of some particular aspect of the forecast or analysis.  Code maybe expensive to write, but it is cheap to replicate: there is no absolute need for every plane to read from a central physics model in the code.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

il2, rof, dcs, condorsoaring... use closed flight dynamics engines.

 

The closest to this FDM approaches I can find in the civil flight simulation series is probably X-Plane with it's Plane-Maker and Airfoil-Maker companions. X-Plane is an open approach ( everyone can build aircraft for it ), but this liberty is limited to parameters that are allowed to be tuned by the users, while others are still restricted and calculated internally and not subject to any sort of direct tuning ( stability derivates for instance... )

 

Now, for years, X-Plane was plagued by a wrong calculation of prop torque, which "Murmur", a well known simmer in the Civil Flightsim communities could demonstrate to Austin, allowing him to correct what was wrong.

 

For years, aircraft developers, freeware and commercial, tried to find various ways around that limitation, some resulting in more acceptable behaviour, others really not even by far... 

 

In IL2 BoS, I read some Dev Diaries ago that they might have found the culprit to some incomplete modelling details of prop effects that could account for the roll-yaw coupling and probably even the pitch wobbling. They also said they were going to fix it  or at least lessen it's effects - this is a CORE flightsim change, affecting, IMO, all aircraft, just as X-Plane's correction / fix to the wrongly calculated torque effects affected, positively, all aircraft developed after it was released as an update, and actually created some problems for other aircraft that used tricks to overcome that bug.

 

I believe with the new FDM core IL2 will likewise have to revise all of the aircraft models.

 

Regarding the Spitfire, I would say it is still made to operate within the limitations imposed by the present FDM, even if in it's development some more attention was drawn to some aspects, like the modelling of neutral pitch stability. The E-7 is also a 109 that, while still plagued by the wobbliness problem, works better than any other 109 in the game ( imo ). And the update to the parameters used in the 190 A5, ported to the A3, are yet another example of positive fine tuning, still within the old FDM, the one that is supposed to be updated by one of the upcoming patches.

 

This being said, I keep that I would rather have a pitching down moment in the Spitfire in IL2 when flaps are deployed... I would also like to see the brakes as sensible as they're known to be, and I miss prop effects, both when adding power and when reducing it... Probably the upcoming updates will also fine tune this aspects ( ? )

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the speculation about the new FM: I don’t see why most of the code in 2.012 can’t be the same as in 2.011 even if the aircraft “FM’s” are being changed? Could be that the “global” change in 2.012 simply means that the aircraft aerodynamic models are being refined while the main track code is essentially the same meaning the vast majority of the code calculating motion (based on the forces derived from the aircraft FM), atmospheric conditions, engine performance, damage modelling etc. is exactly the same. For example, could be that the aerodynamic FM is built around a vortex panel or horseshoe vortex type of model for forces meaning you have circulation lift that is dependent on the local angle of attack (aoa) for all surfaces, wings, flaps, ailerons rudders etc. In such model all panels induce local aoa changes on all other panels and the combination determines the forces and drag. The “new FM” in 2.012 may simply mean that the vortex panel distribution has been refined: Maybe they added a more accurate model of the fuselage? This certainly stabilizes in yaw so its certainly possible. Anyway, if the FM change is something like this then a lot of the code in 2.011 and 2.012 could be the same and a new refined model (the Spitfire) could certainly “fly” in 2.011 even though the aircraft itself is 2.012 standard, i.e. incorporates the more refined panel distribution. Pure speculation of course but in such a scenario the “new” Spitfire FM could certainly co-exist with the “old” aircraft models in the 2.011 code.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read but i really hope the new FM, whatever that means, will make all the planes of the same quality. I mean the Spit is so nice, it feels like from another Simualtion. Even the Yak1b feels bad compared to the Spit and this plane was the best handling wise till the Spit came. Im sure you guys know exactly what i mean. I am so excited and cant wait for 2.012 and im almost nervous. 

 

Pilot accounts about the 109 and 190 are also talking about ease of flight and very good maneuverblity like the ones talking about the Spit and everybody is excited about the Spit and say it flys like they always read about it. I hope this will be true for all the other planes. I dont talk about performance here just the handling because im one who dont think that harder equals more realism. I imagine flying is easy, just the fighting, fear of death, g forces and fatigue are the real dificulties about flying combat ariplanes. Its a long time ago till i was that excited about IL2, last time it was about the 190s FM change. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read but i really hope the new FM, whatever that means, will make all the planes of the same quality. I mean the Spit is so nice, it feels like from another Simualtion. Even the Yak1b feels bad compared to the Spit and this plane was the best handling wise till the Spit came. Im sure you guys know exactly what i mean. I am so excited and cant wait for 2.012 and im almost nervous. 

 

Pilot accounts about the 109 and 190 are also talking about ease of flight and very good maneuverblity like the ones talking about the Spit and everybody is excited about the Spit and say it flys like they always read about it. I hope this will be true for all the other planes. I dont talk about performance here just the handling because im one who dont think that harder equals more realism. I imagine flying is easy, just the fighting, fear of death, g forces and fatigue are the real dificulties about flying combat ariplanes. Its a long time ago till i was that excited about IL2, last time it was about the 190s FM change. :)

Don`t be nervous, FM wise we think the same it seems. What I`ve witnessed so far, other planes are in the same ballpark as the Spitfire. So you`ve had a general taste of whats coming. Performance of the planes should not change and different planes are still different. But generally planes behave `better` and more realistic imho, as do the Spitfire. 

 

No need to over think the new FM, it`s what have been said in the DevDiary 161. Nothing more, nothing less  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested new SPit with definitly new FM charactersitic. I think changes are welcome expecially about pitch and yaw axis but i think developers go too much from one extremum ( too much return spring effect) for another extremum ( too low oscialation). I think now these is little too low gyro effect  and plane is little too much stabile. I hope at least they will find gold mean. And yes now there is much harder to spin plane.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its no queation harder or no but just realistic or no. Going from one extremum to another is also nich good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested new SPit with definitly new FM charactersitic. I think changes are welcome expecially about pitch and yaw axis but i think developers go too much from one extremum ( too much return spring effect) for another extremum ( too low oscialation). I think now these is little too low gyro effect  and plane is little too much stabile. I hope at least they will find gold mean. And yes now there is much harder to spin plane.

Tell me of an aircraft that you can make oscillate like that. Looking at your avatar, I suppose you have experience with real aircraft. I've tried the wobble with a great variety of aircraft and found none of that. I mean not at all. Can you do that? What aircraft type?

 

Besides, I don't think the dev's are not "too exreme now", they are just making things right. Halfway between correct and nonsense is still nonsense. The devs do the right thing. They make it correct.

 

Plus, gyro has nothing to do with "the wobble". Not at all. All the gyro would do, is make your plane pitch up and down when wobbling sideways. (Or make your plane yaw coresponding to your pitch wobble.) Typically in sims I've never found that a plane wobbles more "diagonal" than just up/down or left/right. There is no gyro effect related to that in sims and there never was.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well

 

the Spitfire is supposed to be neutrally stable in pitch, under a wide range of CoG, AoA. This appears to be correctly modelled in the "IL2 Battle of..."  Spit Vb right now.

 

The only aspects I didn't find as expected, but can't compare with any of my real life experiences flying what I fly ( gliders ), are pure "conjectures" or based on pilot reports or youtubes I watch trying to search for how accurate a given aircraft is modelled in a flight simulator.

 

So far I think the Spitfire is too easy in:

 

.) braking action on ground, where I can use full brake power right after landing, or during taxi, without having to fear a prop strike...

 

.) absence of roll due to torque even during takeoff at max power - rudder only can be used to overcome any rolling moments. This might be due to the fact that no matter how closer to the future FDM the Spitfire already is, some aspects like the overdone roll-yaw coupling are still in the core FDM and because of that, using only rudder can be sufficient to overcome both the yawing and rolling moments due to torque and other prop effects ( ? )

 

I find it strange that cycling the throttle from full to idle, at a really wide range of speeds and AoA has practically no impact on rolling tendency ?

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me of an aircraft that you can make oscillate like that. Looking at your avatar, I suppose you have experience with real aircraft. I've tried the wobble with a great variety of aircraft and found none of that. I mean not at all. Can you do that? What aircraft type?

 

Besides, I don't think the dev's are not "too exreme now", they are just making things right. Halfway between correct and nonsense is still nonsense. The devs do the right thing. They make it correct.

 

Plus, gyro has nothing to do with "the wobble". Not at all. All the gyro would do, is make your plane pitch up and down when wobbling sideways. (Or make your plane yaw coresponding to your pitch wobble.) Typically in sims I've never found that a plane wobbles more "diagonal" than just up/down or left/right. There is no gyro effect related to that in sims and there never was.

 

I know what gyro cause als P-factor etc. I just want to say that devs go little to far for opposite site then before. Have you every kick full rudder in level flight in real plane ( not Cessna ex. aerobatic one? )  I think they  go little too much now but still its much better then before ( too much spring effect and oscilations, too much roll with rudder kicks).  Plane flys in the air testing SPitfire i feel it little to stable without any oscilation now.  Think that these planes got 1000 HP and more engines with big props which casue some effect on smooth flying.

 

And yes i flying in real ( maby not warbirds yet but still :P )

 

https://www.facebook.com/aviatv/videos/795442147154749/

 

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you every kick full rudder in level flight in real plane ( not Cessna ex. aerobatic one? )

In the Cap or the Bücker Jungmann I cannot make them oscillate like that. In the sim, it is especially painful as adverse yaw in the sim induces this yaw swing. In real planes, I can see some adverse yaw (like in the Bücker that needs some foot to enter a bank coordinated, more just pressure than really moving the pedal a lot as it is very, very sensitive) but then I get a yaw only related to aileron input. As I center the stick, so centers the nose. It will not continue swing at maybe 2/sec.

 

The ablity to just hit the stick from the side a bit and have the nose oscillating left and right for some swings is something i never detected on any plane, even if I was looking for it. It is even obvious in the video you posted. (I should love to fly a Zlin once :) )

 

At 4:39 for instance, one can see how you're using rudder to keep it straight after the roll and you give significant rudder kicks. Now what DOESEN'T happen is ther the plane starts the rolling movement as well as the plane being logitudinally stable. It doesn't follow your significant but short rudder kicks. It dampens them. In the sim, with the wobble, you would have made the plane oscillate along the yaw axis, yet none of that happens IRL.

 

I should add that "the wobble" in the sim is not due to "kick full rudder" (I did try that, withing reason depending on plane type), but to the plane staring to oscillate induced by very small inputs, like correcting your aim.

 

I take your video as a very nice confirmation of my findings.

 

One big issue that remains is that we have a spring centered joystick that does not give us the feeling as the stick in the aircraft, thus we tend to act much more nervously on the joystick than we would on a real flightstick.There is thus always some room for a "perceived correctness" about how sensitive a real aircraft is to stick input anyway.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zlin 526 got low power engine only 180 HP and quite small prop these birds got 1000 HP and more power and big props it could make some difference ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lovely plane! It looks good in flight and I'm certain it gives a good feeling pilotiong it as well.

 

I am not so sure however about the effect of more power. I have no experience at all on 1000 hp planes (I wish!), but scaling up on power I got a small good taste of what it does. In our flying club, we had a tug plane, an SA-202 Bravo that was converted to a turbo prop engine. So it got uprated from something like 140 hp to 330 hp (de-rated from 420!). Not bad for an 800 kg plane. It gives almost a power to weight ratio of an early Spitfire with 3 tons.

 

The main change in flight behavior was mainly that you have to use a lot of foot to keep it straight upon takeoff. But as soon as it is airborne, in regular flight it handles like the traditional Bravo. The heavy sack just became a brute, but regarding control in regular flight regimes it doesn't differ all that much.

 

Still, one can dream of sitting in a Spit for an expensive hour. Something that is hard to sell at home, but the hour in a Spitfire IX just got €300 cheaper during the last year. ;) Still hard to sell at home, spending £5000 for an hour flight time in an old plane...  But why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried today second time SPit and i need to say it feel better now  - there is small oscialtion with pitch change, stall looks good and spin also. I dunno about power change casue from idle to full power i dont see any change in behaviour. Surly new FM is step in right direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

or during taxi, without having to fear a prop strike...  
  :cool:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried today second time SPit and i need to say it feel better now  - there is small oscialtion with pitch change, stall looks good and spin also. I dunno about power change casue from idle to full power i dont see any change in behaviour. Surly new FM is step in right direction

There will always be room for fine tuning, but this is also my opinion. A big step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A notice that during taxi now there is need much less power then before - SPitfire taxi with about 15% power - other planes ( old FM) about 40% power. So taxi is improved also now :)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I freezed  il2 battle of ... while I wait for their upcoming major FDM update.

 

It's a great sim, my preferred in ex-aequo with dcs world when it comes to flight dynamics modelling, and still the one which somehow makes me feel closer to being there flying ( not the combat part which I really don't like that much... ), with it's unique graphics, smoothness...

 

But at it's present stage, probably due to the fact that the roll-yaw coupling hasn't yet been tackled, it feels strange to just having to use rudder to counter all of the prop effects, specially during high power / high AoA scenarios... This applies to both the Spitfire and pretty much all other fighters in il2

 

I really hope things change near the end of August :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And yes i flying in real ( maby not warbirds yet but still )

 

Great flying, Kwiatek! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me of an aircraft that you can make oscillate like that. Looking at your avatar, I suppose you have experience with real aircraft. I've tried the wobble with a great variety of aircraft and found none of that. I mean not at all. Can you do that? What aircraft type?

 

Besides, I don't think the dev's are not "too exreme now", they are just making things right. Halfway between correct and nonsense is still nonsense. The devs do the right thing. They make it correct.

 

Plus, gyro has nothing to do with "the wobble". Not at all. All the gyro would do, is make your plane pitch up and down when wobbling sideways. (Or make your plane yaw coresponding to your pitch wobble.) Typically in sims I've never found that a plane wobbles more "diagonal" than just up/down or left/right. There is no gyro effect related to that in sims and there never was.

You also have to remember that everyone will have different feeling of the aformentioned "wobble". With my Hotas X I am wobbling like a crazy person even with additional curves. But when I watch my friend's gameplay he has far less of the wobble. It all depends on your stick.

The same Hotas X has no such problem in WT or DCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to remember that everyone will have different feeling of the aformentioned "wobble". With my Hotas X I am wobbling like a crazy person even with additional curves. But when I watch my friend's gameplay he has far less of the wobble. It all depends on your stick.

The same Hotas X has no such problem in WT or DCS.

This for sure. Flightsticks make much more of a difference in how planes handle in sims, much more than I would like it. Still, the "wobble" I'm talking about is something I cannot make real world aircraft do, even if I'm trying hard. I just cannot induce an oscillation of that sort. This is why I am thinking it shouldn't happen like that in a sim using any flightstick whatsoever.

 

I'm definitely ready to dump my Saitek gear (have the X-55 currently, many buttons but seemingly not made the hand of a human being, ministicks imprecise to the point of rendering them unusable) for something like Virpil offers. Well, once I'm convinced that they can ship their products reliably. Same goes for pedals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would realy like to be able to have a good FF joystick, but I am more than satisfied with my TS1600. I had a X55, but sold it as soon as I could - really didn't like it at all.

 

OTOH I did like my good old X52 Pro, and I still use the HOTAS / Throttle unit together with the Saiteck Combat Rudder Pro pedals and the TS16000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would realy like to be able to have a good FF joystick, but I am more than satisfied with my TS1600. I had a X55, but sold it as soon as I could - really didn't like it at all.

 

OTOH I did like my good old X52 Pro, and I still use the HOTAS / Throttle unit together with the Saiteck Combat Rudder Pro pedals and the TS16000.

I liked the X-52pro as well. Stick was ergonomic, buttons well within reach, double detent trigger, 8-way coolie hat for views (only 4-way in the X-55!). Had two of them, both broke beyond repair after about on year. However, installing MadCatz software let my Windows7 boot into blue screen. So I used them with standard drivers. That kind of worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 it shouldn't happen like that in a sim using any flightstick whatsoever.

 

 

 

This, a thousand times this.

 

Coupled with the wonky to this day ground handling and the utterly inaccessible to most mission editor, and the lack of ability to host on the fly from your own machine, and you have the reasons why so many of the old IL2 "pilots" are not playing this version of the franchise.

 

There used to be over a dozen of us BltizPigs that flew '46, now there are only 2 that fly with any regularity, and I'm not one of them.

 

The sim has to be more easily accessible if you want to have the kinds of player numbers that will enable Jason and the the team to be able to give us all the cool toys we lust after.

Keeping the sim a dark and secret warren of uber players who want it to be harder than flying a real aircraft is NOT the key to success.

 

*Waits for first predictable "go fly War Thunder" post.*

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would realy like to be able to have a good FF joystick, but I am more than satisfied with my TS1600. I had a X55, but sold it as soon as I could - really didn't like it at all.

 

OTOH I did like my good old X52 Pro, and I still use the HOTAS / Throttle unit together with the Saiteck Combat Rudder Pro pedals and the TS16000.

 

Find a Logitech G940 on ebay, fix the few bugs it has (wiring), and be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, a thousand times this.

 

Coupled with the wonky to this day ground handling and the utterly inaccessible to most mission editor, and the lack of ability to host on the fly from your own machine, and you have the reasons why so many of the old IL2 "pilots" are not playing this version of the franchise.

 

There used to be over a dozen of us BltizPigs that flew '46, now there are only 2 that fly with any regularity, and I'm not one of them.

 

The sim has to be more easily accessible if you want to have the kinds of player numbers that will enable Jason and the the team to be able to give us all the cool toys we lust after.

Keeping the sim a dark and secret warren of uber players who want it to be harder than flying a real aircraft is NOT the key to success.

 

*Waits for first predictable "go fly War Thunder" post.*

I also think it would help to make the sim a bit more flexible to be used. The function to host other player on the fly on your machine (usually in local networks, like in the "old days" with doom or quake) could be a convenient function. I also always championed the idea of a well documented and logical dev kit / mission editor to produce content. One doesn't have to go as far as in FSX et.al., where you can also produce planes and scenery, especially since such would be against the current busines model of the BoX series.

 

On the other hand, I guess the devs know more about their client base to put such on the back burner. Given the limited budget they have, we can't have it all.

 

So, "accessible" can mean several things. Our current sim is not so accessible to people that are wondering "how do I start the engine", but it is more straight forward to use for people that know what a supercharger gear switch is and also map that one properly before they go flying with the respective aircraft.

 

A sim like this one requires an unusual lot of technical background knowledge to let one fly an aircraft as they were flown back then. This is the strenght of this series. In fact, you're compelled to the same knowledge as pilots had back then. Watching "Red Tails" just won't do.

 

I see the problem more in people getting used to certain difficulties that are in fact simulator artefacts and not real world effects and we take those artifacts as truth because they make things difficult. There are many inherent "difficulties" to flying planes of that era, but many of them we don't notice as we have unlimited lives to spend. "Realism" in a sim is not a straight forward issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, a thousand times this.

 

Coupled with the wonky to this day ground handling and the utterly inaccessible to most mission editor, and the lack of ability to host on the fly from your own machine, and you have the reasons why so many of the old IL2 "pilots" are not playing this version of the franchise.

 

There used to be over a dozen of us BltizPigs that flew '46, now there are only 2 that fly with any regularity, and I'm not one of them.

 

The sim has to be more easily accessible if you want to have the kinds of player numbers that will enable Jason and the the team to be able to give us all the cool toys we lust after.

Keeping the sim a dark and secret warren of uber players who want it to be harder than flying a real aircraft is NOT the key to success.

 

*Waits for first predictable "go fly War Thunder" post.*

People just moved on.Deal with it.Its not about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...