Can we get back to the state where it was more difficult ...?

[Guest deleted@50488]

… to land or takeoff in an 109 or Yak / LagG … requiring a lot of dance in the rudder, as opposed to the present state where I can land my Spitfire and continue along the runway without a single touch of rudder to stay straight... Or I can takeoff in that K-4, tailwheel unlocked, full power, fixed or auto prop RPM, and use just right  rudder all the way down the "road" with no problem …

 

Sorry but it's feeling too... ya know what...

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Unplug your peripherals.

[Oyster_KAI]

Even in the beast like K-4 or Mk.9, I can only feeling slightly torque.
more torque effect and rudder control will be close to RL

[JohnHolmes]

I agree take off and landings seem very forgiving. 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Try the Hienkel !

[Guest deleted@50488]

I would like to understand the true reasons for this "softer" feel... Might have been  on purpose die to user requests - some used to complain that certain aircraft were difficult to land, and not get into a ground loop... - but I do remember that the first time a 109 was released ( the F-4 if I'm not wrong... ) I did have to use toe brakes if I was more aggressive with teh throttle in the initial takeoff run...

 

Might also be due to some modification in the propwash modelling / tail surfaces effectiveness, which is also probably the reason why the rudder in these aircraft that are known to have very inneficient rudders at taxi speeds respond so well to rudder inputs ( ? )

 

Something changed, for sure, from the first versions of IL-2, after the initial period whe the LagG3 was the only available fighter...

[Voidhunger]

Flying with the first version of the Lagg3 was masochistic.

[Voyager]

Out of curiosity, you tried the P-40? Would you rate it as easy or hard? 

[Jade_Monkey]

the Mig3 was notoriously hard to take off in, to the point where the devs made a video.

[unreasonable]

On 12/10/2018 at 5:04 PM, jcomm said:

I would like to understand the true reasons for this "softer" feel... Might have been  on purpose die to user requests - some used to complain that certain aircraft were difficult to land, and not get into a ground loop... - but I do remember that the first time a 109 was released ( the F-4 if I'm not wrong... ) I did have to use toe brakes if I was more aggressive with teh throttle in the initial takeoff run...

 

Might also be due to some modification in the propwash modelling / tail surfaces effectiveness, which is also probably the reason why the rudder in these aircraft that are known to have very inneficient rudders at taxi speeds respond so well to rudder inputs ( ? )

 

Something changed, for sure, from the first versions of IL-2, after the initial period whe the LagG3 was the only available fighter...

 

 I suspect it is all mixed up with the general changes to roll/yaw coupling and stability in an update a while back, which increased stability generally.  At the time this was hailed as an improvement in realism, and for high speed flight it might well be, but I wonder about the low speed effects. 

 

FC planes, which are all slow, seem to have much greater yaw stability than expected and less adverse yaw when turning. This is confirmed by our friendly, neighbourhood real Dr.1 flier. 

 

 

[RedKestrel]

I think, in general, ground handling is a little gentler than reality in this sim. Rudder authority is modeled pretty strongly in early takeoff phase, and I think THAT has to do with the fact that the brakes are in general  weaker than they should be, as it is nearly impossible to force a nose-over. I've only had it happen in an I-16 once.

Basically, I think the brakes are gentler to allow people who only have a push button for most braking to not instantly nose over the minute they press the button and go full 100% brakes (which wouldn't be like that IRL). But if you make the braking  weaker, you can't use the differential braking to assist on takeoff and can't overcome the torque. So rudder authority at low speeds is increased to compensate, which makes your takeoff roll and landing easier as you don't have to use the rudder as much for the same thing. The stability fix that dealt with the over-the-top wobbliness has probably added to that as a trade-off.

All that being said...I still have to 'dance' on the rudder quite a bit taking off, especially with the MiG-3. I never played it before the patch but the torque on takeoff is enough that I find it impossible to avoid triggering the tailwheel unlock to counter the torque, and everybody says that you should be able to use only a little rudder on the MiG to avoid the unlocking in the first place. When people say torque isn't modelled at all and I'm using full or nearly full rudder at times on takeoff, it makes me think that we're playing a different game.

Short stabs of rudder, reduced mixture to reduce torque and a gradual increase in throttle, and I still am wobbly with the MiG on takeoffs. I ground looped the MiG almost every landing I made for weeks. Now I never do. All post patch. Nothing changed, I just got better.

I think people need to consider that after years of playing this game, you've gotten used to compensating for a lot of the issues you first faced unconsciously. A lot of guys flying here probably have hundreds more hours of flight time on these virtual birds than actual WWII fighter pilots. 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

When people say torque isn't modelled at all and I'm using full or nearly full rudder at times on takeoff, it makes me think that we're playing a different game.
 

 

When people say that they either do not know what they are talking about or are just using hyperbole. Torque, P-factor and precession forces are all modeled, and I expect with considerable accuracy.  The tricky question is how the plane responds to those forces, which depends on its status and speed, AoA etc. A more complex question that might have some simplifications. 

 

I can live with the current take off and landing behaviour in BoX: I still have to pay close attention.  But it would be fun if the FC crates were a little more unstable.  

 

(We are a horribly demanding lot....)

[Guest deleted@83466]

Isn't it the general consensus (is it?) that some of the torque and gyroscopic effects in this game are undermodelled a bit?   Like in some of these planes, if you botched your landing and slammed in full go around power, the aircraft might flip on it's back!  The P-51, which we obviously don't have yet, is one of those that comes to mind in that regard.

Edited December 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7:52 and 8:35

 

[unreasonable]

27 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Isn't it the general consensus (is it?) that some of the torque and gyroscopic effects in this game are undermodelled a bit?   Like in some of these planes, if you botched your landing and slammed in full go around power, the aircraft might flip on it's back!  The P-51, which we obviously don't have yet, is one of those that comes to mind in that regard.

 

What I suspect is that the forces are not undermodeled -  because they are fairly easy to calculate, except possibly the asymmetric airflow on the wing and tail.  The resistance of the plane to the forces might be off, at least in some circumstances, since this will vary enormously depending on the situation and may be harder to model.  Push the "correct" force against something with the "wrong" resistance and you will get the "wrong" answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Above all I find that:

 

- There is more tail surface authority ( namely rudder ) than there should be at taxi speeds / power settings;

- Torque effects are somehow overdone at low speeds  ( the sum of them all, including some negative contributions, like that of the more effective propwash over the root of the port wing on CW rotating prop aircraft, and the tip of tail / vertical fin contribution, when above the CoG, to also counter engine/prop torque, etc...)

 

Taxiing a 109 in BoX requires permanent right rudder, even with tailwheel locked, and irrespective of GW, and prop RPM settings. OTOH, the tail / rudder are quite effective at those speeds, and for takeoff one just has to use right rudder, without fearing any other effects due to the ineffective rudder until sufficient speed / wash build up.

Edited December 13, 2018 by jcomm