Spitfire AND The upcoming New FM....

[BlitzPig_EL]

But it is about the game Brano, at least with my guys.

[ZachariasX]

But it is about the game Brano, at least with my guys.

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that if you had

 

- an easier mission editor

- ability to host other players for a mission (that you've created with the tool above)

 

you "would play again"?

[Brano]

But it is about the game Brano, at least with my guys.

Probably it is. But in my experience of Czech and Slovak community,guys I used to play with years ago simply moved on in their lives. No matter what will developers do,they will not come back. They are not interested anymore.

[ST_ami7b5]

But new guys in their late ...ties are coming, Brano

[BlitzPig_EL]

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that if you had

 

- an easier mission editor

- ability to host other players for a mission (that you've created with the tool above)

 

you "would play again"?

 

 

Those things, and toning down the still squirrely ground handling, yes.   We have had this conversation on our forum, and over teamspeak many times.

Would there be a dozen BlitzPigs flying again?  Probably not, but there certainly would be more than one or two who do now.

 

The actual flying part of the sim is nearly there.  Once the new airflow physics are implemented I foresee a really good change for the sim in terms of the already good flight dynamics.

I took the Spitfire up yesterday on the Moscow summer map offline, climbed to 25,000ft. and just cruised around the map for over an hour, playing with control settings, learning the aircraft, and just doing some sight seeing at low level too. 

 

Bliss.

 

Of course it was spoiled at the end by the inevitable low speed ground loop when I landed.   What nonsense.

 

Still I could put up with that (kind of) if I was able to easily create and host missions that suit what our guys want to do, without being held hostage by the current servers online.

 

The sim is very close to being a really polished product, I hope it achieves the gloss it, and the player base, deserves.

 

Sorry for the thread derail, but, these things have been brewing beneath the surface for a while for me.

 

As to the Spitfire's capabilities, it really is a very good aircraft, but still not in the same league as the F4 or FW 190 in over all performance, as it shouldn't be.

If you are flying a later 109 or FW and get beat by a Spit, it was not the plane that beat you.  It was it's pilot, and I don't expect that to change with the new airflow/control physics.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Those things, and toning down the still squirrely ground handling, yes.   We have had this conversation on our forum, and over teamspeak many times.

Would there be a dozen BlitzPigs flying again?  Probably not, but there certainly would be more than one or two who do now.

 

The actual flying part of the sim is nearly there.  Once the new airflow physics are implemented I foresee a really good change for the sim in terms of the already good flight dynamics.

I took the Spitfire up yesterday on the Moscow summer map offline, climbed to 25,000ft. and just cruised around the map for over an hour, playing with control settings, learning the aircraft, and just doing some sight seeing at low level too. 

 

Bliss.

 

Of course it was spoiled at the end by the inevitable low speed ground loop when I landed.   What nonsense.

 

Still I could put up with that (kind of) if I was able to easily create and host missions that suit what our guys want to do, without being held hostage by the current servers online.

 

The sim is very close to being a really polished product, I hope it achieves the gloss it, and the player base, deserves.

 

Sorry for the thread derail, but, these things have been brewing beneath the surface for a while for me.

 

As to the Spitfire's capabilities, it really is a very good aircraft, but still not in the same league as the F4 or FW 190 in over all performance, as it shouldn't be.

If you are flying a later 109 or FW and get beat by a Spit, it was not the plane that beat you.  It was it's pilot, and I don't expect that to change with the new airflow/control physics.

 

Why do you think ground-looping the Spitfire is nonsense ?  It's perfectly realistic if one forgets to steer using differential braking, as soon as the tail surfaces are no longer effective at the end of the landing run... even if the Spit has a considerably fwd CoG...

 

You can check many sources, but i.e.: http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/spitfire-flight-report.htm where you can read:

 

"Now comes the only tricky part about flying the Spitfire. After lowering the tail to the ground, you have to be positive and quick with rudder inputs, as with no steerable tail wheel and no slipstream over the rudder (throttle closed), you have to be positive on the rudder to keep her straight. With that narrow track undercarriage, any swing must be stopped quickly, or it could fast develop into a ground loop. I never landed in a heavy crosswind, and I’m glad!

 

Braking to help directional control can be used, but with caution, as brake application depended on rudder pedal position and I found the brakes could be a bit “snatchy.” They are also operated by air bags, a system so beloved by the Brits! I was always worried about bursting one, so used very little brake at Swartkop, I would normally let her roll to the end, by which time we were almost at taxi speed. Losing a brake, even at low speed, would be bad news as with no steerable tailwheel, nor enough speed for rudder effectiveness, you would be powerless to stop a slow ground loop. However, even a slow ground loop would probably end up with the Spitfire on her nose and a very expensive propeller turned into matchwood! "

 

For me it's a nonsense to be able to use full brake while taxiing, and even during landing, without a prop strike resulting...

 

I honestly hope the upcoming patch makes things more difficult as a matter of fact - in some aspects like for instance taking off in the 109 with an unlocked tailwheel... - while on other aspects, like the known wobbling, they should really turn more stable and easier to cope with. more harmonious like some aspects of the Spitfire feel right now...

Edited July 24, 2017 by jcomm

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well, just an update now that I have logged a few more hours in both il2 bos spitfire vb and dcs world spitfire ix - my preferred waste of time in simulation :-)

 

I still think braking effects are tuned down maybe to help users using not so good controllers or not even having rudder with toe brakes, but regarding the rlling moments due to power changes, well, I went getting further info ( which I should have in the very 1st place... ) about both models of the spitfire, and appart from the notorious differences in the engines and their power, there are also other important differences in the dimensions, the vb having more wingspan and wing area, etc... which may well account for the lessen effects of troque-induced roll...

 

The other aspect I was comparing - stupidly.... I have to assume - was the way the cockpit graphics were reproduced between the two simulators and spitfire models. There is, now I know, a huge difference between the two aircraft in terms of the geometry / placement of the armoured windscreen which accounts for the different look they have when looking from pilot seat... I was blaming IL2 because it looked so different from the ix in dcs, but it was only due to my lack of knowledge after all :-/

 

Enjoying quite a LOT these spitfires !!!!! 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Some more questions for the experts :-)

 

I downloaded an interesting "Pilot's Manual for the Supermarine Spitfires IIA and IIB", linked at one of the posts in the forum, as it is probably the closest we have to the ingame V b  ( ? is it ? )...

 

Reading through the text I am glad to find no mention to the use of any aileron deflection during takeoff - just coarse use of rudder to counter any swing tendencies - which is in agreement with the way our IL2 Spifire requires even when taking of at max power...

 

OTOH, I really think 1C / 777 should do something about the pitching response to flap deployment as presently modeled. I understand the argument that since there is no simulation of the resulting deflection of the elevator, due to the deflected propwash when the flaps are lowered, and the stick stays put, the aircraft actually tends to pitch up, after an initial pitch down hesitation, but I think the stick deflection should be modeled, or at least the pitching tendency calling for pilot input... ( pulling the stick to counter the pitching down tendency ).

 

Likewaise, I still think the ground handling is too simplified. On the one hand, just like pretty much all aircraft in IL2, propwash  makes the tail surfaces too effective at even ground power settings, on the other hand, this Spit can be fully barked, at any weights, without a prop strike resulting... Another aspect that I think should be fine tuned...

[ZachariasX]

For your convenience jcomm:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29949-spitfire-flight-manual/?do=findComment&comment=496548

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, Zacharias, that's the thread I was talking about. Thx !

[JtD]

There was virtually no trim change with deploying flaps. Both power on and power off. The test state 2-3lb increase in pull force (reduction in push force) , which is probably about 1% of the stick range we have in game and less than the friction the elevator control had. Elevator angle change is about 2° up, out of a range of more than 50°, so roughly 4%. Force and angle change are in the same direction, which is pull, but they are minimal. In game we need a significant push input.

 

However, what I consider far more important is to see the -5 degrees the elevator of the Spitfire had in level flight at all but the lowest airspeeds near stall, in game the aircraft is flying straight and level with neutral elevator, while the real thing required downward elevator and push forces (or significant nose down trim). That's not only visible in tests, it's in fact visible on almost every photo showing a Spitfire airborne, even in turns the elevator is typically still angled for nose down. I really don't see why one of the most important Spitfire characteristics can be absent from game, it's simply not a Spitfire as it is.

[ZachariasX]

There was virtually no trim change with deploying flaps. Both power on and power off. The test state 2-3lb increase in pull force (reduction in push force) , which is probably about 1% of the stick range we have in game and less than the friction the elevator control had. Elevator angle change is about 2° up, out of a range of more than 50°, so roughly 4%. Force and angle change are in the same direction, which is pull, but they are minimal. In game we need a significant push input.

I don't think that effective stick travel matters much in this case. [Edit: speaking of just the principle of induced pitching, not its magnitude.] In real aircraft, I (again, personally speaking) have little perception of how much of the stick travel I am actually doing for most of the flight in real aircraft. I do just enough to make the aircraft do what I want. Typically, you perform very little stick movements. Only during take off and landing as well as in aerobatics, I truly get a sense that you are making decisive movements. But I always get a very good sense of what the stick does in my hands.

 

Example here, The Bücker Jungmann. When you fly it, at first I would hold the stick with a firm grip, as there is considerable force required to make far movements (the ailerons are HUGE) and as the aircrafts Flettners have to be trimmed on the ground, so there will be some pull to counter during flight to keep it steady. Almost like a Helicopter, it feels like balancing on a marble. But very soon you get to know the trim forces and you very quickly can control the stick with just two fingers. If you let the stick go, it will enter a spiral, but slowly. You make very small movements but you will feel the stick pulling this or that way with at least as much force as you apply to move the stick for regular flight. The rudder however is like computer rudder pedals with spring in the softest mode. Unless you do aerobatics there is almost no force on it and you can yaw the plane like moving a gun turret. (Should you fall backward in a failed renversement, you keep that the rudder and stick centered with all your strenght OR ELSE.) During most of the flight, you're actually countering trim forces and not moving the stick.

 

However, what I consider far more important is to see the -5 degrees the elevator of the Spitfire had in level flight at all but the lowest airspeeds near stall, in game the aircraft is flying straight and level with neutral elevator, while the real thing required downward elevator and push forces (or significant nose down trim). That's not only visible in tests, it's in fact visible on almost every photo showing a Spitfire airborne, even in turns the elevator is typically still angled for nose down. I really don't see why one of the most important Spitfire characteristics can be absent from game, it's simply not a Spitfire as it is.

I would guess this is probably a sim artefact resulting from using a generic way to calculate flight attitude for making the Spit neutral in pitch. Making it not pitch up and down upon trim changes probably makes it immune to trim changes imposed by different airspeeds as well. Let's see what the new FM brings to the table.

Edited August 6, 2017 by ZachariasX

[JtD]

I can imagine that forces and feeling are much more important than stick travel in real life. And yes, stick travel for most part of the flight is rather small. In game, however, we not only use ridiculously high control inputs, we have the premise of stick position equals elevator position, within certain force limits. It's hard to do it otherwise. If high pressure hydraulic joysticks become standard and feel&forces can be properly simulated, I guess the software side will make good use of it.

Anyway, thanks for first hand experience input.

To account for the wrong trim of the aircraft, they'd just need to animate the elevators differently and probably adjust the trim and elevator range definitions. You may not even need to screw with the FM as such. This you would need to do with the flaps.

Edited August 6, 2017 by JtD

[Irgendjemand]

 

 

If high pressure hydraulic joysticks become standard

 

So you mean in the next life?

[ZachariasX]

So you mean in the next life?

Well, if it was in this life and if it was a Saitek, then expect water damage to your place... :D