Real VS IL2 (part 2)

[Herne]

9 hours ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

G sustainanability comes down to training and physical fitness of your body. The fewest of us are likely to be trained fighter pilots and have varying limitation when it comes to G forces.

As a glider pilot I don't mind 2G at all. It's not too uncommon to get there in high bank turns while circling thermals. At 4.5G (my max continous so far) it is difficult to freely swivel your head as the muscles harden up to fight G. But still, to my own suprise, I found myself to be quite capeable of dealing with those forces. With training I'm sure it could be even better.

 

Gliders probably give the pilot the most comfortable sustained G experience due to the laid back position of the pilot. Many years ago in my early 20's I pushed a sustained +5g on the accelerometer  for about 40 seconds, before I started to black out. I was young and foolish, and do not recommend this, but I held it until my entire vision faded to black, then released some of the back pressure on the stick, observing as the vision returned in reverse order. I only did it, because I was called back to base on the radio, on a day when the whole sky was going up.

 

There was no lasting fatigue for me, in fact the reverse is probably true. At the time It was so much fun that I was on a high for days. I'll never forget it.

[SCG_motoadve]

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I think the OP evaluation is taken way too literary .

I agree with him about the feel of flight, The authentic feel of flying in a real environment. Sometimes you even get turbulence in this game.

Aside from that I still got a much more authentic feel of being in a plane flying the YAK 52 in DCS, but that is probably caused by how seriously I take procedures on startup and taxiing.

More aware of these things flying GB planes , I would probably not notice that.

So personally I think it is the attitude while flying that matters . I fly GB for fast fun , and DCS for something else.

The systems in DCS are modeled in more detail than GB for sure.

Te start procedure its pretty realistic.

I have the Yak 52, brakes are the opposite of the ones in GB, way to over sensitive, at the end a mid term between DCS and GB is how they work in real life. If you ask me which braking model I prefer GB.

 

Flaps when deployed you should get pitch up forces, it does happens in DCS but like 25% of how they should feel, its just a weak pitch up force, in real its a lot and you need to instantly pitch down and trim down, other pilot who owns a RL Yak 52 agrees with this.

When putting flaps down in the CJ 6 the pitch up feels like when you put flaps down in the P40 in GB (although I dont know how the P40 reacted in real life), but you need to pitch down.

 

 

Here is a power off landing practice, when I put flaps down see how the nose wants to go up, and also I need to pitch down to keep the speed.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by II./JG77_motoadve
Text

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

The systems in DCS are modeled in more detail than GB for sure.

Te start procedure its pretty realistic.

I have the Yak 52, brakes are the opposite of the ones in GB, way to over sensitive, at the end a mid term between DCS and GB is how they work in real life. If you ask me which braking model I prefer GB.

 

Flaps when deployed you should get pitch up forces, it does happens in DCS but like 25% of how they should feel, its just a weak pitch up force, in real its a lot and you need to instantly pitch down and trim down, other pilot who owns a RL Yak 52 agrees with this.

When putting flaps down in the CJ 6 the pitch up feels like when you put flaps down in the Spitfire in GB (although I dont know how the Spit reacted in real life), but you need to pitch down.

 

Real Spitfires pitch strongly nose down when flaps are lowered, according to the Spitfire PNs (also pitch down for lowering gear).   This is generally the effect according to every source I have seen, simply because they extra flap lift is biased towards the rear of the wing.

[SCG_motoadve]

I meant the P 40, the Spit pitches down a bit as you said and also according to historical data.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Pitch up with flaps? Surely at same airspeed net lowering alpha as CoL moves aft for same lift generation?

[Lusekofte]

To derail further, currently trying to learn myself the Harrier in DCS it pitch up a lot when deploying flaps . I read a review on YAK 52 by a YAK 52 owner. He said if not the same as you , pretty similar things. I guess the FM is as close as it gets in that game engine. We have to accept simulators for not being accurate as life. Huey pilots state however that  the huey is pretty acceptable in DCS. And I am ok with that

[Cpt_Siddy]

 

 

The problem of all sims is that they are all rigid body simulations without the ability to dynamically recalculate the body being simulated. 

 

This is most apparent in games like War Thunder, where you can fly with one wing, as long as the parts that are being simulated have a net lift along the center of gravity or close enough to be compensated by the simulated forces of the control surfaces. 

 

 

This said, the simulations that can do fluid mechanics and other neat stuff usually have calculation times on the order of days to weeks for given simulation, so we still have some way to get that fidelity in to our sim.

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy