Auto level autopilot is single engine airplanes which gives additional speed is being abused in multiplayer

[Aap]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Practise. Once you nanaged to fly cordinated, flying straight is "straight forward".

 

It would probably put us in a loop, if I said again that no amount of practice could match the computer's ability to keep your plane level and ball in the middle for extended period of time and for numerous repetitions. With no effort required from pilot (other than Bf109). I think this part has been pretty much covered by now, so no real reason to get into this loop. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

It would probably put us in a loop, if I said again that no amount of practice could match the computer's ability to keep your plane level and ball in the middle for extended period of time and for numerous repetitions. With no effort required from pilot (other than Bf109). I think this part has been pretty much covered by now, so no real reason to get into this loop. 

Why don't you try it and see how fast you can get going, then activate autolevel and see how much faster it goes? Will you try it? Or do you think the experiment cannot be made because "it's not possible?"

 

You will also realize that in planes without rudder trim, you can quickly memorize how far to depress the rudder pedal such that the ball is centered.

 

I did that and I found the speed difference is somewhere in the measurement differences. So your theoretical speed advantage is so small, that it for sure cannot be the difference between life or death. It it just not.

[Aap]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Why don't you try it and see how fast you can get going, then activate autolevel and see how much faster it goes? Will you try it? Or do you think the experiment cannot be made because "it's not possible?"

 

What would you want me to try exactly? People have tried it, for example xxvii-Dietrich in last October, and could not get his plane go faster than autopilot with trimming. You have showed that if stabilizer is wrongly trimmed, it will slow you down, so we know that autolevel does not touch the actual trims. But what about planes where stick, pedals and trims affect the same control surfaces? Or planes that don't even have trims. I have no reason to doubt Dietrich's tests, but if you are able to prove that you are able to go faster in these planes on level flight manually than with autolevel, I think again many people would be interested to see these results.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You will also realize that in planes without rudder trim, you can quickly memorize how far to depress the rudder pedal such that the ball is centered.

 

I know it sounds like repetition, but even if a human being knew perfectly well, how far to press the pedal or at what angle to keep his stick, he sometimes fails at doing that. Just like basketball player knows that to get a point from a free throw, he should throw the ball to basket, but sometimes he misses, despite his best effort. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Talisman]

On ‎16‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:27 AM, StickMan said:

The old IL-2 1946 in-flight map would be perfect.

Agreed   I hope the dev's are listening and able to develop a better map.  This would help pilots using VR very much too I would have thought.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Sokol1]

Suggestion: Remove manual trim for all aircraft (bonus: will stop complains about not being able to use the spiking, low resolution axes of X-52 throttle rotaries for trim), leave AI-Auto level... (can rename for AI-Auto Trim). 

 

Add a button for: Set Trim - based on AI-Auto Trim - similar system used in ancient Warbirds Online.

 

Then players can just use the two buttons for "trim" and "gamey by gamey" feature all will be happen, without "unfair (real or not) advantage" against any player/plane.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Sokol1

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

Suggestion: Remove manual trim for all aircraft (bonus: will stop complains about not being able to use the spiking, low resolution axes of X-52 throttle rotaries for trim), leave AI-Auto level... (can rename for AI-Auto Trim). 

 

Add a button for: Set Trim - based on AI-Auto Trim - similar system used in ancient Warbirds Online.

 

Then players can just use the two buttons for "trim" and "gamey by gamey" feature all will be happen, without "unfair (real or not) advantage" against any player/plane.

 

Good grief, hell no. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I feel like the people (erroneously) claiming that autolevel trims the plane don't actually do any manual trimming.

[ZachariasX]

PROOF: Autolevel does NOT give "perfect" trim.

 

Here: the Yak-1 at full power on the deck:

 

You see, the ball is NOT centered perfectly!

 

The ball is a very sensitive gauge. The speed loss will be minimal, but this is *not* perfect trim.

 

It is however a very reproducable setting that is extremely useful in performance testings.

 

But I hope with that it should definitely kill the argument that autolevel gives "instant perfection". It would really be nice if people coming up with complaints really had something to back up their ideas.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Also has anyone really looked at auto level in the spit. It bounces around like crazy.

 

Kill this thread already please. 

[dburne]

16 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

Also has anyone really looked at auto level in the spit. It bounces around like crazy.

 

Kill this thread already please. 

 

A hearty amen to that!

[Gambit21]

On 5/17/2018 at 5:35 PM, hrafnkolbrandr said:

I feel like the people (erroneously) claiming that autolevel trims the plane don't actually do any manual trimming.

 

I feel like this when I click on this thread...

 

 

[VesseL]

Why this thread, or any other thread shoud be stopped before it fade away naturally.  This thread has been very good. Now we know that the autolevel dont trim, but adjust the main controls only. Thanks ZachariasX and all who did the tests to proof how the autolevel affect really. Theres still slight doupt in my mind that some planes, 109 and all planes with less that full trims will in some situations benefit if using autolevel. Looking around and fly coordinated is not possible at the same time. For me atleast it is impossible in 109. This thead and the autolevel are both OK. Nobody wanted to remove the autolevell.

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I feel like this when I click on this thread…

 

 

 

You could be in danger, coz it could be astma, heart, or mentall, but hopefully and most likely it is just normal forum stress by reading too much complaints. You survive. Few days off will cure it.

[spamRoast]

On 5/16/2018 at 10:04 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I honestly don't know the code or how much it would take to change it, but it certainly does not seem like a big task to add a trottle cap or something like that.

 

On 5/16/2018 at 11:16 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Well, I am not a coder by profession and have not seen the code of BoX, but these couple of possible suggestions really don'y seem hard to do in any way. If you have some real reason to think otherwise, would be interesting to know why.

 

Just to give an example, the "quote" feature in this forum could involve hundreds of lines of code and could be difficult to change without breaking things. So imagine the complexity of software for games/sims where you're often dealing with hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code. Game code has to:

1. Take user input from several sources like our flight sticks, keyboards, head trackers, or VR headsets.
2. Then after taking your input it needs to update game state like where game objects are located. For example, if you turn left on the stick the game starts turning the plane left. And this game has extra physics complexity with the FMs and DMs to factor in too.
3. Then the game needs to render those 3D objects new positions onto a 2D screen. If it's multi-player, they need to be rendered on each player's screen at the same place at the same time.

The software does those steps over and over again around 60 times a second so that the experience feels and looks real and it needs to do this without burning up your CPUs/GPUs. Most software is complex, but video games are a special kind of difficult, especially with the complexity of sims like this.

 

So to answer your question - and just like others have pointed out - making any change to a game like this is much more time consuming than it seems, even for things that seem simple to do from the player's perspective. There's much more going on behind the scenes than the game/sim you're experiencing. This doesn't account for the time it takes for meetings, planning or testing that others have already pointed out.

Saying that "this should be easy to change" is like telling a surgeon that a surgery on your ankle shouldn't be difficult because it's just your ankle when in reality the surgeon still has to plan how to work around bones and tendons so they don't ruin your foot. It's like telling a lawyer that a court case should go quickly because there aren't many witnesses when you don't know the complexities of law or the particular case.

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by obit

[Feathered_IV]

For all the cheating, exploits and griefing that apparently goes on, it seems the most lasting solution would be to remove Multiplayer altogether.  Get to it Devs!  

[Rolling_Thunder]

29 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

For all the cheating, exploits and griefing that apparently goes on, it seems the most lasting solution would be to remove Multiplayer altogether.  Get to it Devs!  

But then how would some folk measure their masculinity and bravery?

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

But then how would some folk measure their masculinity and bravery?

 

It appears that whining about MP in the forum already serves that purpose.

[Aap]

8 hours ago, obit said:

Just to give an example, the "quote" feature in this forum could involve hundreds of lines of code and could be difficult to change without breaking things. So imagine the complexity of software for games/sims where you're often dealing with hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code.

 

While I am not a coder, I don't see how such a simple change could affect hundreds or thousands lines of code. All the lines and functions and stuff are already there, would just need to alter one input value. Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%". Or, they already must have a formula that calculates, where to keep rudder while in autolevel, let's call it a variable "rudder_pos". Now, by altering the value of this "rudder_pos" by a "+100" or something like that would make the plane fly aerodynamically less efficient.

Like I said, I am not a coder and don't know their code, but I have seen the devs send out hotfixes in hours after release on a lot more complex errors to have a guess that such a change would not require hundreds of hours of work.

 

When I look at many of the arguments in this thread, then it unfortunately brings to mind the classical resistance to change that is common in many organizations:

- there is no issue

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

- fixing this issue would cause ten new problems

- whoever mentioned this issue is a stupid whiner

 

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

- would changing the process (software in this case) make the outcome better or worse? If worse - stop now, if better - step two.

- impact-effort matrix (google it). Or simply put, would the achieved benefit out-weight the required effort.

Edited May 20, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- there is no issue

There isn't. At least not in the way the OP stated it. I gave proof to that.

 

Can you please proof that autolevel gives a perfectly timmed plane?

 

At least I made the effort to give proof of the contrary. Curtesy of taking people serious.

 

If you cannot or you are unwilling to subatsnciate your claim, then:

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- there is no issue

 

If there was

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

This may or may not be so. But as long as you don't give proof to the statement "that it's easy" you are on the losing end of the argument if the ones that actually CAN see how difficult this may or may not be don't even bother with it.

 

People are really astonisngly bad in assessing the impact of issues "by their own feeling". We (or at least I) do believe you that you think this is a serious issue, but not substantiating a claim just keeps it your issue. Fixing someone elses issues in common goods is always a lost venture and does nothing but damage.

 

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

First, you should make sure that your hypothesis is true. You haven't done that yet. I have done it for your case and my result doesn't look good for your hypothesis.

 

If you don't sanity check your hypothesis, you might as well make a two step process about making setting up a fence around the edge of the world for people not falling off.

 

I say that because this is not the only thread where people come back from MP with a wasted ego and try to find a reason for being nothing but free food for some others. It seems that there is a substancial part of players that actually don't trim their aircraft. But in fact, ass soon as you settle your aircraft in a new flight attitude, you should trim it. Trim is smething you use ALL THE TIME while flying, especially in combat with ever changing flight settings. This is why autolevel cannot be an advantage even if it in fact did trim the aircraft. You should have done that anyway by the time you would use autolevel. And you couldn't use autolevel to trim the aircraft for climbs or dives. And these are in fact conditions that require trim most.

 

Thus, not only the argument is baseless, it also follows a deeper misunderstanding of how to use the function in question.

[DD_Arthur]

Thankyou Zach

 

Now surely that should be it for this thread.....please.

[Aap]

Well, Zack, instead of trying to enforce the typical resistance approach again  (we have gone through enough circles of that already, so no need to go for another round), why don't you approach  my suggested two-step approach with open mind?

Would the suggested change make your gameexperience worse? If not, why resist it so passionately? It might make the experience better for somebody else.

[Aap]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This may or may not be so. But as long as you don't give proof to the statement "that it's easy" you are on the losing end of the argument if the ones that actually CAN see how difficult this may or may not be

 

That is another interesting approach. If the "resistance movement" is throwing out statements that it is very hard to change (which is a textbook argument against changes), takes thousands of lines of code etc, then it is my job to prove that it is easy? How about you prove that it is hard to do, if that is your argument against the change in the first place. Especially if you CAN see it.

[Dakpilot]

It is a non issue, but trying to change it (I have no reason to 'resist change') will depreciate my game experience because in my mind the Dev time could be spent on something more worthwhile 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

[dburne]

Oh my word,

 

I assure you if I ( playing SP) in my Spit come upon an AI enemy flying as if they had auto-level on staying straight and level, they would be a most easy target for me. In fact I would love it as my kill ratio would climb drastically. 

With proper engine management and judicious use of +16 boost - Talk about low hanging fruit for easy pickings, that they would be.

 

I can't imagine it would be any different for MP, if you try and use auto-level as a tactic to get away from a determined enemy, man you are going to be toast.

 

As I have said before, with this community if it were able to be used as a credible evasive tactic, it would have been discussed - hotly a long, long time ago.

 

And if somehow folks start being successful online doing this, you can be assured it will blow up the forums with talk of it.

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

How about you prove that it is hard to do, if that is your argument against the change in the first place. Especially if you CAN see it.

 

There are much simpler 'under the hood' logic changes/additions that are not implemented because even they will take too much time.

[spamRoast]

14 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

While I am not a coder, I don't see how such a simple change could affect hundreds or thousands lines of code. All the lines and functions and stuff are already there, would just need to alter one input value. Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%". Or, they already must have a formula that calculates, where to keep rudder while in autolevel, let's call it a variable "rudder_pos". Now, by altering the value of this "rudder_pos" by a "+100" or something like that would make the plane fly aerodynamically less efficient.

Like I said, I am not a coder and don't know their code, but I have seen the devs send out hotfixes in hours after release on a lot more complex errors to have a guess that such a change would not require hundreds of hours of work.

 

When I look at many of the arguments in this thread, then it unfortunately brings to mind the classical resistance to change that is common in many organizations:

- there is no issue

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

- fixing this issue would cause ten new problems

- whoever mentioned this issue is a stupid whiner

 

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

- would changing the process (software in this case) make the outcome better or worse? If worse - stop now, if better - step two.

- impact-effort matrix (google it). Or simply put, would the achieved benefit out-weight the required effort.

 

I am a software developer and my post was simply to point out the complexity of game software, just like others have tried to do (unsuccessfully unfortunately), because you asked why something wouldn't be simple. What seems like "a simple adjustment" to you can involve much more behind the scenes that neither you or I can comprehend because we don't know their code, and you aren't a coder as you've pointed out.

My point about "millions of lines of code" was just to say that games involve a lot of complex code. I didn't mean that changes can't be made quickly (code is organized in a way to allow that). But your anecdote that "hot fixes can be done quickly so therefore this should be easy to do quickly too" is a misunderstanding of the differences between new features and hot fixes. Hot fixes are called "hot" because they're more important than standard bug fixes and usually have an impact on important functionality that needs to be addressed right away, so of course they're fixed quickly. That's completely different than adding new features or changing existing features. New changes or edits need to be thought out, the team needs to research the impact of the change on other parts of the system, they need to have meetings about it and plan the best way to do it. And even if the change is "simple", they still have to spend man hours on the meetings, research, and the followup testing anyway. That's not the same as fixing urgent bugs right away.

You keep opening with "I'm not a coder" then finishing with "but this shouldn't be so hard to do because of XYZ". Maybe just consider the fact that you're telling professionals that something should be simple when you don't work in that profession. Would you do that to any other professional who works in a profession that you don't work in?

I was just trying, as others have, to give you a better picture as to why "something that seems like it would be simple" is not always the the case, since that's what you asked. I gave you clear answers but you still keep arguing that you're right. I'm done pointing this stuff out and am not going to devolve into an argument about it.

Edited May 20, 2018 by obit

[Aap]

1 hour ago, obit said:

You keep opening with "I'm not a coder" then finishing with "but this shouldn't be so hard to do because of XYZ". Maybe just consider the fact that you're telling professionals that something should be simple when you don't work in that profession. Would you do that to any other professional who works in a profession that you don't work in?

 

I have been  telling openly that I am not a coder and also that I have not seen BoX code, just to point out exactly that I don't know how hard or easy this specific change is. I don't claim it is easy, but based on the appearance of it, it seems not to be a complex change. See what I am saying? On the other hand, the professionals here that throw out the textbook excuse against changes ("it is very hard to do") somehow CAN know that it is hard to do? Probably have seen BoX code? Then I am asked to prove that it is easy, while I have never claimed that it must be easy - on the contrary, I have every time made clear that I have not seen BoX code, so I don't know. How about you prove that it is difficult, when you are the ones that bring out the complexity of the change. About the other question, yes, I have had to make estimates about tasks in other professions, too, based on my experience; but more importantly, I have learned to dismiss the instant "it is very difficult" excuse, unless there is something concrete to back up the claim also.

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

There are much simpler 'under the hood' logic changes/additions that are not implemented because even they will take too much time.

 

Like what?

Edited May 20, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

This discussion about code complexity is ignoring the fact that the proposed solution would be very disruptive.

17 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%".

Something like this would break conventional applications of autolevel. I can think of many situations that demand full throttle in level flight.

 

Few developers will write any code to solve a small problem by disturbing important features that were established long ago. Engine management is already fairly complicated; additional complexity can really hurt the game. 

 

The only real solution is to provide an option to disable autolevel. However, it's entirely understandable that this is not a priority.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Like what?

 

Just certain small additions to already existing editor logic/additional simple trigger conditions that would allow greater functionality and user interactivity, etc.

For instance with a relatively small addition to the trigger logic, I could script the ability for you to call for additional air cover or ground attacks. It's all there, everything I need

save for one small addition. HUGE bang for the buck...huge. Interactivity that doesn't exist right now...but there's just no time in the schedule. Too much on the plate. Deadlines to meet, investors to make happy, bills to pay. It's just the reality of the situation. Thus I gently broach the subject now and then, but don't complain when it doesn't happen.

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

There would be a better argument for taking away the autopilot bank ability in fighters, the way the auto pilot throws in a bank, not only doesn't lose any speed but will accelerate to max speed while banked.   Try an auto pilot turn, than attempt to duplicate with a hand flown, same bank angle.  If that ain't an advantage, your not using the ole tool bag right.  Install the bomber turn rate, or eliminate that feature in fighters.  You still have the beer break ability, only go straight to the fridge, no energyless banking or wobbling. 

 

Definitely don't take it away, but it certainly could be tweaked a bit.

[Aap]

6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Something like this would break conventional applications of autolevel. I can think of many situations that demand full throttle in level flight.

 

I can't think of any situations that would require autolevel on full throttle, when simulating planes that did not have autolevel historically. If a game situation requires more than 70% throttle, then maybe these are the situations, where players could fly their planes manually, instead of going for a beer or piss and let AI take over their planes. Bombers could be different of course, just like old IL2 1946 had autolevel on bombers, though I doubt that bombers went full throttle during bombing runs historically either.

 

6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Engine management is already fairly complicated; additional complexity can really hurt the game.

 

I think that additional complexity, as long as it is real and historical, can improve the game for simmers. Arcade options are good for new players of course. But that is a different discussion. 

 

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Just certain small additions to already existing editor logic/additional simple trigger conditions that would allow greater functionality and user interactivity, etc.

For instance with a relatively small addition to the trigger logic, I could script the ability for you to call for additional air cover or ground attacks. It's all there, everything I need save for one small addition. HUGE bang for the buck...huge. Interactivity that doesn't exist right now...but there's just no time in the schedule. Too much on the plate. Deadlines to meet, investors to make happy, bills to pay. It's just the reality of the situation. Thus I gently broach the subject now and then, but don't complain when it doesn't happen.

 

Yes, it is understandable that with limited resources they need to prioritize things, but hopefully over time they can add these small additions also, piece by piece. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I can't think of any situations that would require autolevel on full throttle, when simulating planes that did not have autolevel historically.

• Engines with full throttle as unlimited nominal mode
• Manning gunner positions without a player flying
• Full power dash to avoid interception

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I think that additional complexity, as long as it is real and historical, can improve the game for simmers. Arcade options are good for new players of course. But that is a different discussion. 

Throttle reduction to 70% on autolevel certainly isn't "real and historical". It would be perhaps the most contrived feature in the game. 

[AndyJWest]

As an illustration of just how badly thought through this '70% throttle' suggestion is, consider what would happen at high altitude, where close to full throttle is necessary to maintain height. Any use of autolevel would cause the aircraft to stall. 

 

Proposals to modify game functionality need to be carefully thought through, rather than looking for 'quick fixes' that will cause more problems than they solve. 

[Aap]

24 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Throttle reduction to 70% on autolevel certainly isn't "real and historical". It would be perhaps the most contrived feature in the game. 

 

No, it is not real and historical. But it would allow people to get a beer or take a piss, which is the main point of people wanting to have auto-level feature in the game. The "full power to avoid interception" by using autolevel is exactly the point that OP wants to get rid of.

 

8 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

As an illustration of just how badly thought through this '70% throttle' suggestion is, consider what would happen at high altitude, where close to full throttle is necessary to maintain height. Any use of autolevel would cause the aircraft to stall.

 

I personally have not seen many people flying so high in MP that they would stall at 70% power, but if some people go so high, I think it is only good that they fly their planes themselves instead of AI. Can always come a bit lower if they need to go for a beer or piss. Also, 70% was just a throw out solution, could as well be 80%, if someone really needs to take a piss when up high.

Edited May 21, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[AndyJWest]

@II./JG77_Kemp

 

Ok, here's a 'throw out suggestion' for you then. Make a concrete proposal, indicating exactly what change you are advocating,  presenting verifiable evidence for why the change is necessary, and a full description of what the side effects are going to be. 

 

[Aap]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Ok, here's a 'throw out suggestion' for you then. Make a concrete proposal, indicating exactly what change you are advocating,  presenting verifiable evidence for why the change is necessary, and a full description of what the side effects are going to be. 

 

I don't really feel strongly enough about the matter to go through any loops to get it changed.

The proposal to reduce speed for auto-level and reasons for it were explained already a couple of times here before my first comment in this thread. So, if somebody wants to make an official suggestion about it and get all the textbook objections to it and a multi-page argument, be can pick them up from here.

[Lusekofte]

My personal view on the matter is to abandon auto level  completely on full realistic servers and  instead have a autopilot function required to trim the plane every time a change in speed or altitude happens. Of course only on bombers that had autopilot or bombsight.  

If people need to take a leak they can trim the plane and be quick.  The only plane that in reality could have a AI pilot is those having to pilots, like the JU 52 and in doubt Heinkel witch had the possibility to turn the yoke over to the navigator/observer/bombardier

Edited May 21, 2018 by LuseKofte

[-TBC-AeroAce]

2 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

My personal view on the matter is to abandon auto level  completely on full realistic servers and  instead have a autopilot function required to trim the plane every time a change in speed or altitude happens. Of course only on bombers that had autopilot or bombsight.  

If people need to take a leak they can trim the plane and be quick.  The only plane that in reality could have a AI pilot is those having to pilots, like the JU 52 and in doubt Heinkel witch had the possibility to turn the yoke over to the navigator/observer/bombardier

 

Would not work. Plane like 109 would go in to a spin after about 10 secs even if trimmed correctly. 

[Lusekofte]

Ah ok , I really never gotten to fly the 109  

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

If people need to take a leak they can trim the plane and be quick.

You really want to emppty the servers, do you? If you have a problem with autolevel, just pull out the "A" key and all be fine for you. If you think thet someone is "cheating" by being AFK and goving you all the opportunities to shoot it down instead of spiralling to death without anyone noticing, you are beyond help.

 

Just because you can trim a plane does not mean you can or are supposed to fly it hands off. Some people are really not all that lonely, buried in their mancave, uninterrupted. I'm telling you, the sound of engine is very potent atrractor to some creatures. Some people have a life going on. When some have to wash their hands occasionally, you might well take that as a placeholder for any kind of ocurrences imposed on a poor player. If you count on having a special interest game that is only enjoyable by a very secect few of the little number of people that enjoy this special interest, be my guest. But be honest abot what you're really asking.

 

Folks harping about realism but on the other hand can fly open cockpit in an I16 in winter and at altitude all day long. And it is even fun after 3 hours. THAT is gamey. Fly open cockpit for once. You'll learn that the main thing you will be interested in is the heater lever, never mind the rest that there is under the sun. Try to look back, holding out your nose in 400 km/h slipstream that is -25°C, felt much, much colderthan that. You have teamspeak, corresponding to a radio that was not there helping you when folks are calling out your 6, in addition that you can scan the sky in a way you couldn't (or wouldn't) in real life.

 

Please don't tell people how they should play this game if you want company in MP. They have their life, you have yours.

[StickMan]

7 hours ago, AeroAce said:

 

Would not work. Plane like 109 would go in to a spin after about 10 secs even if trimmed correctly. 

I'm not even part of the autolevel discussion anymore as I have stopped caring at this point. However guys keep saying this and it's not true. The 109 has preset trims that were set on the ground. If you fly at the correct airspeed and power setting it will fly straight and level for more than 10 seconds, I guarantee it. But no you can't do it at max combat power like the auto level will let you.