Jump to content
xJammer

Aerodynamic damage and stall/spin characteristics

Recommended Posts

Taken from the patch notes discussion

 

With a few more hours in the game I really enjoy the new DM, but I feel the aerodynamic effects of damage are too benign. 

 

Damage to the wing increases the drag and reduces the lift. The lift is modelled as you need to use aileron to correct for it, but I do not feel the asymmetrical drag is there.

The lift coefficient of the damaged wing (CL) changes with the angle of attack, so pulling a combat manoeuvre will aggravate the results of damage even more so

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/18186/1/AIAA 2015 Almond Render Walker.pdf

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/17506/3/Pickhaver Render 2.pdf

 

image.png.0e2e6bd6d838fd34cad86d1b38da316b.png

 

As a result, pulling up with a damaged wing will first cause that wing to slow down due to increased drag (yawing into the wing). Secondly it will asymmetrically decrease the lift that the wing produces (more aileron input required) the lift decrease is both due to slow down and due to CL dropping. Combined it is a recipe for a violent stall. Right now even with severe wing damage keeping the aircraft at a stall is quite trivial.

 

In short I would have expected more uncontrolled violent spins from damaged aircraft that are riding the stall. Especially if they are performing a tight turn. Right now if the damage is taken to a wing we get a mediocre wing drop that is easily corrected and no yaw effect at all. Pulling up hard is also possible without an immediate wing drop.

Edited by xJammer
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting indeed, I hope more will add input on this topic. It could be a definite game improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you check any of the available airframes ?

I've been putting a lot of time since 3.007 dropped into P-47 flying and thing that I've noticed in particular was that once any of the wings is damaged the loss of lift is visible. Either wing feels heavy and reduces your ability to manouver. Entire stability is affected therby affecting performance. Its very noticeable if you fly with autopilot on and then wing gets damaged - autopilot tries to compensate for the loss of the wing and keep airplane poined where its supposed to fly but in effect it just wobbles left and right.

 

It's first time I've noticed such effect in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Did you check any of the available airframes ?

I've been putting a lot of time since 3.007 dropped into P-47 flying and thing that I've noticed in particular was that once any of the wings is damaged the loss of lift is visible. Either wing feels heavy and reduces your ability to manouver. Entire stability is affected therby affecting performance. Its very noticeable if you fly with autopilot on and then wing gets damaged - autopilot tries to compensate for the loss of the wing and keep airplane poined where its supposed to fly but in effect it just wobbles left and right.

 

It's first time I've noticed such effect in the game.

Agreed, huge loss of lift when P-47 wing is damaged. This is the only aircraft I've noticed this in though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed, huge loss of lift when P-47 wing is damaged. This is the only aircraft I've noticed this in though.

 

 

If I grasp it correctly what the OP tries to tell us is that the loss of lift in one wing is already modelled, but what is not modelled is that when you pull, thus increase angle of attack, the lift generated by the wing is going to drop even more so than normal. 

 

Imagine you are flying damaged p47 and need to apply right stick to correct for the fact that your left wing is damaged. Now if you were to pull up the left wing will fly normally as you are correcting for it, as per the OP paper what should happen is that your left wing would drop even though you are correcting for it, because it lost more lift due to you pulling up the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes some of you got it right. The change of lift in damaged part is modelled, however asymmetrical drag and CL that depends on the AOA of the wing is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am experiencing now very often that a few holes on FW expecially and 109 wing tips make the plane very unstable and barely flyable. Totally impossible to dogfight anymore.

What about this clip? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think is possible to fly without rudder. One thing is to lose all the vertical stab and other thing is to lose just the rudder. If you lack the rudder the plane still can fly. Not very stable and you can not aim properly because you can not yaw. A stall would be harder as well to recover with no rudder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I think is possible to fly without rudder. One thing is to lose all the vertical stab and other thing is to lose just the rudder. If you lack the rudder the plane still can fly. Not very stable and you can not aim properly because you can not yaw. A stall would be harder as well to recover with no rudder. 

Thanks for your opinion!

Yes I think the same. What I feel maybe strange is when the 109 in the video performed an Immelman turn without the rudder. Usually when you are at the highest point of a loop (and you are quite slow) on a 109 you need a lot o rudder to stabilize the plane because of the torque or you will probably enter an inverted flat spin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 11:10 PM, =FEW=ayamoth89 said:

Thanks for your opinion!

Yes I think the same. What I feel maybe strange is when the 109 in the video performed an Immelman turn without the rudder. Usually when you are at the highest point of a loop (and you are quite slow) on a 109 you need a lot o rudder to stabilize the plane because of the torque or you will probably enter an inverted flat spin...

A flat spin should not be possible to recover with no rudder. Maybe some way method pulling gas suddenly, deploying gear or whatever to try to roll the plane to point down. [edited]

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =FEW=ayamoth89 said:

Thanks for your opinion!

Yes I think the same. What I feel maybe strange is when the 109 in the video performed an Immelman turn without the rudder. Usually when you are at the highest point of a loop (and you are quite slow) on a 109 you need a lot o rudder to stabilize the plane because of the torque or you will probably enter an inverted flat spin...

 

I do not think this is right at all.  Spins do not usually come just from stalling: you usually need to cross control rudder and ailerons as well - which you cannot without a rudder!  I think all that would happen with a stall at the top of a loop would be that you would tend to fall away to one side.  Lord knows I have done it enough times....  Normally you would use rudder to keep the direction of the loop constant, but you can perform loops or Immelmanns without a rudder: you just will not be pointing in the same direction when you exit. 

 

It is hard to see what is happening in your video because the camera keeps moving about. It would be clearer with a static free camera, but it it looks to me like the 109 simply stalls (or close to it) and then falls orienting itself nose down, which is exactly what it should do, since the vertical stab is still having a weather-vane effect.

 

edit: I have just been trying loops over the top and tail slides in a 109 with my feet completely off the rudder through the whole process. The plane changes direction during a loop, so you end up facing ~90 degrees away from the original direction. In a tail slide the plane does not spin but reorients itself nose down.

 

I know this is not the same as having no rudder at all: but it is close. You do not have to use rudder to perform these manoeuvres - just like the Spitfire manual says for that aircraft, so the claim that " you will probably enter an inverted flat spin..." is just wrong.

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

. But on the game we have really shitty stall fms so... 

 

I keep hearing this, however I still dont know what it in relation to. Which sim has good stall behavior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

 But on the game we have really shitty stall fms so... 

 

Based on your experience doing stall tests in WW2 warbirds?

  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I do not think this is right at all.  Spins do not usually come just from stalling: you usually need to cross control rudder and ailerons as well - which you cannot without a rudder!  I think all that would happen with a stall at the top of a loop would be that you would tend to fall away to one side.  Lord knows I have done it enough times....  Normally you would use rudder to keep the direction of the loop constant, but you can perform loops or Immelmanns without a rudder: you just will not be pointing in the same direction when you exit. 

 

It is hard to see what is happening in your video because the camera keeps moving about. It would be clearer with a static free camera, but it it looks to me like the 109 simply stalls (or close to it) and then falls orienting itself nose down, which is exactly what it should do, since the vertical stab is still having a weather-vane effect.

 

edit: I have just been trying loops over the top and tail slides in a 109 with my feet completely off the rudder through the whole process. The plane changes direction during a loop, so you end up facing ~90 degrees away from the original direction. In a tail slide the plane does not spin but reorients itself nose down.

 

I know this is not the same as having no rudder at all: but it is close. You do not have to use rudder to perform these manoeuvres - just like the Spitfire manual says for that aircraft, so the claim that " you will probably enter an inverted flat spin..." is just wrong.

 

ok thank you for your testing, your answers and explanations! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Based on your experience doing stall tests in WW2 warbirds?

Well yes in my case I fly real warbirds and various planes, and very often too.

 

In IL2 P factor is way under modeled , landings and take offs super easy, some airplanes stalls and slow flight not realistic.

Developers keep tweaking the FM for the better, and I think easy landings/take offs and P factor are there so new people are not put off by a steep learning curve.

I wish they make a more realistic option for guys who really want to feel the challenge.

 

I ignore this dumbing down of FM and just play the game and enjoy what we have, I still think its the best FM of all sims out there, however I do not enjoy all the whining and bullshit on the forums toxic community, and  when people say  FM its right , specially with an attitude, I can tell you FM its not right and there are plenty of flaws.

Get your pilots license, fly a plane and then you will agree.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Well yes in my case I fly real warbirds and various planes, and very often too.

 

In IL2 P factor is way under modeled , landings and take offs super easy, some airplanes stalls and slow flight not realistic.

Developers keep tweaking the FM for the better, and I think easy landings/take offs and P factor are there so new people are not put off by a steep learning curve.

I wish they make a more realistic option for guys who really want to feel the challenge.

 

I ignore this dumbing down of FM and just play the game and enjoy what we have, I still think its the best FM of all sims out there, however I do not enjoy all the whining and bullshit on the forums toxic community, and  when people say  FM its right , specially with an attitude, I can tell you FM its not right and there are plenty of flaws.

Get your pilots license, fly a plane and then you will agree.

 

 

 

 

.... one of the best comment I've ever read! Thanks! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We won't have realistic stalls and spins of damaged planes as long as the stall and spin behaviour of undamaged planes is so flawed as in this game.

See here:

 

All planes I've tested so far can be instantly recovered from a spin by deploying flaps, sideslipping and using out of spin ailerons. All three inputs are a complete no-go in real life.

Also, check 4:31 to see how a Spitfire with one deployed flap and even missing an aileron can be induced to spin on both directions and instantly recovered using the described method.

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

We won't have realistic stalls and spins of damaged planes as long as the stall and spin behaviour of undamaged planes is so flawed as in this game.

See here:

 

All planes I've tested so far can be instantly recovered from a spin by deploying flaps, sideslipping and using out of spin ailerons. All three inputs are a complete no-go in real life.

Also, check 4:31 to see how a Spitfire with one deployed flap and even missing an aileron can be induced to spin on both directions and instantly recovered using the described method.

 

I' ve really appreciated your job to create this video and your research! Thanks!

I know your video very well by the way and I agree with you from my not expert point of view 

I have a great consideration of your opinion and it will be great to have yours on the video I've posted about planes flying without rudder

Cheers!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, with all the consideration, it appears to me that the repetitive claims are a bit useless at this time, and disruptive instead of productive for the development of IL-2 BoX, and truth is, for me who am also a pilot for more than 38 yrs, it is still the most realistic prop flightsim I have used in a PC...

 

I look forward for 1C / 777 to fine tune their flight dynamics and damage modeling. I couldn't care less about the arms because air combat, and even less ground attack, is what interests me the less in this game, but they need time, and they've been repeating many times that they are aware and doing their best to make it EVEN BETTER!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jcomm said:

for me who am also a pilot for more than 38 yrs, it is still the most realistic prop flightsim I have used in a PC

The challenge with combat flight sims is this: you must have plausible flight modeling at the edges of the flight envelope. If this game was about general non-aerobatic aviation I wouldn't care. But air to air combat is all about the edges of the envelope, the damage model and the interaction of damage model and flight model. Stall and post-stall behaviour are extremely important. Just yesterday I saved my virtual plane (Fw190A5) twice by coptering. Coptering is what we call the global exploit of the fact that planes become spin-proof as soon as significant sideslip is applied. One moment I had a spitfire with a very good pilot 50 m behind me, the other moment I pushed full right rudder, pulled the stick 100% and applied a bit of left aileron to keep the wings level. The resulting AoA of more than 50 degrees slowed me down as if I had hit a wall. One blink of an eye later I had the Spit in my gunsight. My speed was below stall speed, but  by keeping the right rudder pushed and pulling the stick all the way I remained in control, able to aim and shoot. A simple exploit. Totally unrealistic.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PapaFly; you forgot to remind us you have a PhD aswell:rolleyes:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

If this game was about general non-aerobatic aviation I wouldn't care.

Quality products of that type cost you ~50$. Now you want everything of that plus „correct edges of the envelope“ plus weapons and DM for 10 bucks?

 

I can think of an alternative where I cannot reproduce your specific findings in that way. Must be good then, huh? It‘s also ~50 bucks *per plane* and you get a DM where... how did you call that? „Totally ruins the game“? Well, they’ll make it work. They told us a year ago. We are still waiting. So, in two weeks maybe? Also, if you‘re further in the mood for piling, there‘s plenty to find as well. You‘ll have fun.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

... how did you call that? „Totally ruins the game“? 

Dude, I never said that. If you want to quote me, use the quote function. Stop lying about stuff I never said. Can you do that for a change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Dude, I never said that. If you want to quote me, use the quote function. Stop lying about stuff I never said. Can you do that for a change?

Lo and behold. Quote function. At your service.

 

Was paraphrasing you with a common expression in these fora or even in game chat for anyone that cares most about piling as main form of contribution.

 

Indeed what you wrote is

14 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Totally unrealistic.

 

As this topic seems to be your main contribution, you should not be surprised that the audience does read your remarks in a broader way. That way can be called piling. Maybe it is not what you thought you wrote. I certainly give you that. But one can well read it as such.

 

You make nice videos though. In the future, you can make them (and the report) in a way stated by the devs to report FM issues? I mean, you will find more inconsistencies if you are really looking for them. Trust me, there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get why you guys trash on Papa?

He provided some well put feedback about definitely flawed aspects of the game. Yeah, he worded some stuff poorly as he's propably not a native speaker and you don't even have to like him personally (I don't know the guy btw). But if you actually like the game, then you should be happy that there are people who are willing to spend their time to collect materials that prove that there are some things that need to be worked on. Do you not care about flight models being flawed as they are? If you don't then why even bother visiting the forums? Just keep playing the game and stop caring whether or not can it be improved. 

 

Truth is that there are some people that are interested in the development of Il-2 and are hoping that it will keep getting better and better, and this attitude of "I like the product therefore if you don't think it's perfect you're an enemy of mine" is dumb as balls. If you want to be constructive then either say "Yeah, I hope devs take a look at that" or provide some evidence or opinions that contradict OP's video. Or, if you're just going to attack everybody that provides conctructive criticism about the game then why bother.

 

So to sum it up, yeah, in a game where pushing your plane to the maximum as a core aspect those things need to be looked at, thanks for the video.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the developers have a list with a hundred issues they want to improve, if/when time permits. So what the developers don't need are rude complaints about things that don't work, but constructive and detailed information of how to improve one specific issue at a time, including sources. You're kidding yourself if you think that posting some youtube video is of any help to them. It might help make some people in the community feel better (not a bad thing), but that's it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JtD said:

I'm sure the developers have a list with a hundred issues they want to improve, if/when time permits. So what the developers don't need are rude complaints about things that don't work, but constructive and detailed information of how to improve one specific issue at a time, including sources. You're kidding yourself if you think that posting some youtube video is of any help to them. It might help make some people in the community feel better (not a bad thing), but that's it.

 

Yeah sure but I wasn't talking about the devs but the community itself. The best approach the developers could have regarding topics like these would be to ignore or delete the ones where users are being rude or vulgar (or just ban/warn said users) and have a designated community manager that would address the constructive one's with a generic "Yeah, this issue is known and we will work on it when the time allows". That's a common approach in game development and it means that community knows it's being listened to even if in some cases their being rightly ignored. 

 

What I adressed earlier wasn't aimed at the devs but rather unnecessarily apologetic community members that for some reason developed a bond with developers so strong I'm eagerly awaiting some wedding annoucements to pop up. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

The best approach the developers could have regarding topics like these would be to ignore or delete the ones where users are being rude or vulgar (or just ban/warn said users)

Hm. You think so? What about the "free speech" shout fest afterwards? You don't mind them? Or wouldn't they occur then?

 

2 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

have a designated community manager that would address the constructive one's with a generic "Yeah, this issue is known and we will work on it when the time allows"

Jason himself replied to that particular issue rather quickly, saying he passed it on to Petrovich. Or isn't that good enough?

 

2 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

What I adressed earlier wasn't aimed at the devs but rather unnecessarily apologetic community members that for some reason developed a bond with developers so strong I'm eagerly awaiting some wedding annoucements to pop up. 

Suggesting to write up bug/FM reports in a way as asked by the devs is "unnecessarily apologetic"? Especially when you can expect one to be perfectly capable to do so? So far I thought it was the best way to forward issues to the devs in the most efficient way while causing the least amount of vitirol amongst the threads possible. Or are there other priorities?

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a thread about how developers should communicate with the community, and I derailed it from the original subject enough as is.

If you're really interested about what I have to say about questions you asked, then I'm afraid you'll have to live the rest of your life slightly dissapointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Suggesting to write up bug/FM reports in a way as asked by the devs is "unnecessarily apologetic"?

Wait a second here: I've put a lot of time into a thorough analysis, revealing 16! FM issues. And you really expect me to open 16 individual complaint threads, pushing dozens of tracks onto the developers? Sorry, I have a family and a full-time job to attend to, so that simply isn't possible. Besides, I don't see how that would take the heat out of the discussion.

So please stop spooling off the "your report is in the wrong format" tape. It stinks. The issues I posted are so basic that each of you can easily replicate them. That of course would mean spending time in-game instead of constantly stalking and pestering me on the forum.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JG27_PapaFly don't get put off by those people. They have been around since the beginning of this franchise in 2013 and think they do the game/Devs or whatever some good, if they defend every flaw to death and try to ridicule every critic.

I saw your long post before it got deleted/"made invisible" and i really appreciate those useful infos. Helps the game (and so the Devs) a lot more then the forum police

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

I'm one of those who have been using this simulator since it's initial release, and actually had turned into this type of flight simulation experience just a year before, by the hand of DCS World P51d.

 

In the past I have used many flightsims, some military, like one of the very first I used and really adored! CYAC!!!  I used the Combat Flight Simulator series, the original IL-.2, a few ww1 sims, Rise of Flight, IL-2 CloD, IL-2 1946 ( last week for a coupl,e hours before requesting the refund from Steam ... ) etc...  a couple months ago even War Thunder!, which I must confess really attracted me for it's immersive action online and smoothness on my old rig ( i5 2500 @ 3,3 GHz + GTX 960 ).

 

But, TBH, all of these sims usually get uninstalled a few weeks after the initial enthusiasm because I either start finding the very same flaws I find in most civil sims, or I find them too arcadish, or, the benefit of playing them and the "sensation of flight " they provide do not overcome my sensation of "feeling stupid playing war games at my age...in front of a PC console, instead of using that time more productively..."

 

IL-2 "Battle of ..." series has attracted me since the very first time I took the LaGG 3 for a ride. Wow! I was impressed by pretty much every detail of the simulation. From there on, and even if I try to distract myself playing Condorsoaring ( now v2 , and while the soaring season doesn't start here in Portugal ) or Aerowinx PSX ( because my dream was to become an airline pilot and the Boeing 744 is one of my preferred airliners ever... ) the truth is, sooner or later I am back to IL-2.

 

All other variants of ww2 flight simulators were abandoned ( this includes the very well known tittle I started with in 2012… ) and I was never interested in modern air war, so I'm really a lot more interested in both ww2 and ww1 aircraft, and their reprsentation in PC-based flight simulation.

 

So, why am I telling ya this stuff, apparently useless, instead of praising again the detailed videos done by our Papafly ?  Probably because just as I posted above, while I think and find Papafly's contribution REMARKABLE and very IMPORTANT, and certainly FUNDAMENTAL FOR THE DEVS to identify some of the certainly many flaws this sim has, truth is the videos have been repeatedly linked in different threads. I believe I would probably do the same if I had the talent to build those videos, and was really involved in getting the better out of this excellent simulator, problem is, maybe because of my age..., I've started to learn that I MUST WAIT!  I MUST GIVE WAY AND TIME to the others around me... In this particular case I am talking about the very small but talented team behind the IL-2 Great Battles series, specially those directly involved in the design of the flight dynamics of each model. Their work is something I can't probably even measure in terms of hours spent investigating, designing, coding and fine-tuning, and while there are many aspects I would really like to see addressed, and you can find many posts where I present my thoughts and complaints, I have decided that the balance is still very positive towards their side.

 

Regarding the particular videos recorded by Papafly, the lead producer has acknowledged their relevance, and said it was forwarded to the main FDM developer.

I think this, the simple fact that indeed Jason himself acknowledged it, and participated in a thread that yes, was then hidden, but not deleted, means a lot in terms of the kind of support and commitment to the success of the tittle, and fulfilling their users wishes, and so, I think it is worth giving them SPACE & TIME to work, instead of creating new hooks that can actually distract potential users, those that can make the IL-2 user community grow and actually "feed the system", which in turn means a higher probability of the amount and rate of good things to come, grow.

 

So, Papafly et al, it's great that you were able to record those videos, I would like to have done the same to document the various complaints I have posted at these forums, but we have to also accept that the 1C / 777 team didn't simply put a stone over it, but rather had the courage - the Lead Producer himself - to acknowledge, appreciate and forward it all to those who can actually, when the opportunity arrives, do something about it.

 

 

Edited by jcomm
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post and good on the team by looking into this.

What is annoying are the people who immediately jump and insult anyone giving a critique to the sim.

Do they get a prize for that? Or they are comfortable thinking its realistic and dont want any changes to make it more challenging?I dont get it but is one big problem with this community.

Then ask for evidence like if they are some kind of authority, and some people go into the trouble of making a video as evidence and that pisses them off too.

Do they come from War Thunder?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Good post and good on the team by looking into this.

What is annoying are the people who immediately jump and insult anyone giving a critique to the sim.

Do they get a prize for that? Or they are comfortable thinking its realistic and dont want any changes to make it more challenging?I dont get it but is one big problem with this community.

Then ask for evidence like if they are some kind of authority, and some people go into the trouble of making a video as evidence and that pisses them off too.

Do they come from War Thunder?

 


This, well said. The amount of vehement apologists around here makes one's stomach rise.

 

The old evidence chestnut- if these same old mouthpieces keep defending flaws, they won't ever get fixed.

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't come from WT, but I have programmed flight models for Il-2:1946 in the past. I don't find the video helpful and I find the tone used for presentation very annoying. It's stuff like that which made me withdraw from interacting with the community back then. There were so many things that time was better spend on. What I take away from Jasons replies is that it's the same today. So while some feel the video is a huge contribution to the future of this game, I find it to be the exact opposite. My opinion, from my personal experience, and has nothing to do with how much I like or don't like BoX or the devs or their interaction with the community.

 

I underdstand FM critics and FM critics critics and to some point FM critics critics critics, in this particular case I share the point of view of the middle group.

Edited by JtD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too personalized, too sensitive.

 

Fact FM has flaws, they will always have them, its unrealistic to pretend we have perfect FM.

But we want them as accurate as possible.

If no one ever say never about this or that FM flaw , why will the developers bother improving them?

Everyone is happy they love our FM and DM so lets stay how we are and just throw at customers new planes and lets not bother make them accurate since community dont care, and dont know any different.

 

This is why we need FM and DM critics and a demanding community, not crazy defenders of the sim no matter what.

Its sign of having low standards .

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking what some read into my comments.

 

For the record, I want any (yes, there are) FM issues corrected as anyone else, ALL OF THEM if possible, better sooner than later. And no, I find no purpose in any issues other than them being resolved.

 

The situation is just that @JG27_PapaFly entered this forum as a neophyte, but managed to have his therad terminated like a pro. In process I sugessted various times to him that he'd better work on his communication style but he proved rather resistant to the idea. Alas, I came off as a creep in process. Sorry for that, my bad. Now if you asked me what ingredients are required for a forist to go the Crump way rather sooner than later, I should think his way is just what it takes. And I wouldn't like that. I'd much rather have him produce good FM reports. But this is now as far as it goes from my side. Good luck.

 

Just remember, c'est le ton qui fait la musique.

 

 

 

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

×