Jump to content
=ABr=BR_Xipan

Force G Allies X AXIS

Recommended Posts

Hello friends I am feeling that the G force is being applied unevenly between allied pilots and the axis pilots. I know there were some differences due to the pilots position on the aircraft and overalls for that but nothing miraculous.I have a feeling that this difference in resistance between the pylons is being misapplied as if the axis pilots had a super strength to force g. I will post a video of one of my experiences in Combat BOX and would like to know if you share this opinion with me. Thank you friends for your attention.
NOTE: Sorry but the translation from Portuguese to English was used the google translator.

 

h

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by =ABr=BR_Xipan
  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I belive "feeling" is the importan part...

Maybe try instaling tackview, and you can re-watch your gameplay with the actual speed and Gs each one has.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

Eu acredito que "sentimento" é a parte importante ...

Talvez tente instalar o tackview, e você pode assistir novamente ao seu jogo com a velocidade real e Gs que cada um possui.

I will make!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A factor that the game does not reproduce is the fact, well know to the Russian, is that not all pilots are equal NOT equal in this matter and that training helps...

I know that some individuals, like for sight or muscular force and reflexes, some are better than other and can naturally support more g-force than others.

Plus our bodies when facing a challenge adapts, and with experience a human body can learn to react in a better way facing the same challenges.

It also why the Allies where superior to the Axes forces by the fact that their pilots did go on leave in a regular manner and pull out of combat after a set number of combat missions.Making them also more alert when in combat. The Allies where maybe not better pilots individually   but a lot better in general. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After eating my share of popcorn and then some, I'll try and be constructive....
 

- As far as we know, pilot position is not taken into consideration when applying the G force. It would be a big quality of life improvement for germans if it was. But it is not.

 

-Only aid that's taken into consideration is G-suits for allies on the P51.

So yeah, basically the only aircraft that has an advantage is the P51. G forces are otherwise evenly modeled ......

In doubt I suggest flying consistently on the Axis side for a month and see what you think about that axis pilots's ""super strenght"" (LMAO)

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there  is no difference between the sides in how they handle G-forces (allied g-suit aside) there IS a difference in how responsive planes are at high speeds. Giving equal RL stick pressure can result in different g-loads depending on the plane. That might be what you're experiencing.

 

Many allied planes have more responsive elevator controls at high speed, for instance, which makes it "easier" to G-loc if you're not paying attention. It's not axis bias, you just can't pull out as hard in a 109, so the pilot will still be conscious when they lawn-dart into the ground after a shallow dive ;) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dat moment when you enter a post where you think you gonna find "russian bias" whinning, but its all about "axis bias" whinning. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recorded this quick mission just to see what is the max G-Force the P-51D-15 can do versus the Bf 109K-4

 

image.png.d462505cb1e292ad4a30b6d7f296a11d.png         image.png.bf7a006d8e0f3135548fba73183cdaa0.png 

 

Fw 190D-9                                                                                                       Tempest V     

 image.png.798c2634845da8b96e24d878eb679a8e.png image.png.5afa9ab6ef7d164807bb30fcfced1afc.png

Bf 109G-14

image.png.5d36d4a129524dbf013097f3f2e54ac0.png

 

Well it seems that they are all different depending on the aircraft. I am not 100% sure I am testing everything accurately - so if anyone can think of a reason my testing is off, please let me know.

 

 

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a chart which accurately records my feelings.  I’ll have to get it out.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

I have a chart which accurately records my feelings.  I’ll have to get it out.  

 

Is it this one? 😂

 

pain_diary_example_1.png.0e3eed2d03d8e4cfd598d0dc9341ce59.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 8:28 PM, JG7_X-Man said:

I recorded this quick mission just to see what is the max G-Force the P-51D-15 can do versus the Bf 109K-4

 

image.png.d462505cb1e292ad4a30b6d7f296a11d.png         image.png.bf7a006d8e0f3135548fba73183cdaa0.png 

 

Fw 190D-9                                                                                                       Tempest V     

 image.png.798c2634845da8b96e24d878eb679a8e.png image.png.5afa9ab6ef7d164807bb30fcfced1afc.png

Bf 109G-14

image.png.5d36d4a129524dbf013097f3f2e54ac0.png

 

Well it seems that they are all different depending on the aircraft. I am not 100% sure I am testing everything accurately - so if anyone can think of a reason my testing is off, please let me know.

 

 

 

thanks, your images help a lot in my questioning about

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you did ignite the torch, and they gathered 😂!

 

We did some tests doing formation flying;

 

-k4 and spit; first test in very close formation spit did blackened more than 109 (dive and pulling out)

Second test not quite close formation G effect was almost the same.

 

-109 vs tempest: very close formation, 109 tailing the tempest in a dive with pulling out, tempest went into blackout while 109 didn't and managed out turn/pull tempest.

 

But i wouldn't call those tests relevant or trustworthy due to many factors like  elevator responsivity and way more stiffer 109 elevator rmwhile tempest elevator can make your toe nails poping out in a second.

 

So any claims without proper tests which would be in formation flying using tacview are doubtfull.

 

S!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 3:21 AM, Turban said:

 

 

-Only aid that's taken into consideration is G-suits for allies on the P51.
 

I believe that the P-47 and P-38 also have G-suits- basically all the Bodenplatte American planes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One v

On 1/11/2020 at 11:08 PM, =ABr=BR_Xipan said:

Hello friends I am feeling that the G force is being applied unevenly between allied pilots and the axis pilots. I know there were some differences due to the pilots position on the aircraft and overalls for that but nothing miraculous.I have a feeling that this difference in resistance between the pylons is being misapplied as if the axis pilots had a super strength to force g. I will post a video of one of my experiences in Combat BOX and would like to know if you share this opinion with me. Thank you friends for your attention.
NOTE: Sorry but the translation from Portuguese to English was used the google translator.

 

 

 

several of things:

- One variable in MP that you have to be cognizant about is how much of previous exposure to G forces you have accumulated before the engagement. If you are fresh from the airfield you will have a better stamina compared to a tired opponent. And obviously the opposite applies.

- When you're chasing you are constantly trying to undercut the opponent by shortening the radius of the turn (tightening) in order to gain on him.

- So together you have a lot variables that if not paid attention to will come around and bite you:

  • shorter turn radius while chasing (which means more G's than your opponent)
  • elevator authority of your plane - it's very very easy to over-pull the elevator on Tempest compared to the 109. Even the very brief but strong pulls can accumulate very quickly in to a cascaded effect of "too many g's"..
  • accumulated tiredness from previous g-forces (from 1 second ago to 5 minutes ago).

It's not real life, it's a computer game, so you simply need to learn and keep in mind all of these variables and try to stay within the "allowed" groove so-to-speak. Be cognizant of this continuous g-force feedback loop...

 

Edited by Count_de_Money
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Count_de_Money said:

One v

 

several of things:

- One variable in MP that you have to be cognizant about is how much of previous exposure to G forces you have accumulated before the engagement. If you are fresh from the airfield you will have a better stamina compared to a tired opponent. And obviously the opposite applies.

- When you're chasing you are constantly trying to undercut the opponent by shortening the radius of the turn (tightening) in order to gain on him.

- So together you have a lot variables that if not paid attention to will come around and bite you:

  • accumulated tiredness from previous g-forces
  • shorter turn radius while chasing (more G's)
  • elevator authority of your plane - it's very very easy to over-pull the elevator on Tempest compared to the 109. Even the very brief but strong pulls can accumulate very quickly in to a cascaded effect of "too many g's"..

It's not real life, it's a computer game, so you simply need to learn and keep in mind all of these variables and try to stay within the "allowed" groove so-to-speak..

 

adding to this; if you're chasing, you're generally faster than your opponent. So not only is your turn circle smaller, but you are going faster = more Gs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Count_de_Money said:

One v

 

several of things:

- One variable in MP that you have to be cognizant about is how much of previous exposure to G forces you have accumulated before the engagement. If you are fresh from the airfield you will have a better stamina compared to a tired opponent. And obviously the opposite applies.

- When you're chasing you are constantly trying to undercut the opponent by shortening the radius of the turn (tightening) in order to gain on him.

- So together you have a lot variables that if not paid attention to will come around and bite you:

  • shorter turn radius while chasing (which means more G's than your opponent)
  • elevator authority of your plane - it's very very easy to over-pull the elevator on Tempest compared to the 109. Even the very brief but strong pulls can accumulate very quickly in to a cascaded effect of "too many g's"..
  • accumulated tiredness from previous g-forces (from 1 second ago to 5 minutes ago).

It's not real life, it's a computer game, so you simply need to learn and keep in mind all of these variables and try to stay within the "allowed" groove so-to-speak. Be cognizant of this continuous g-force feedback loop...

 

 

Sorry - I didn't pay much attention to your comments ( I will read later) - I was more captivated by your clever callsign and vatar LOL :good:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey X

I think you would have to try and maintain a TAS that was within 2 % during your pulls on all aircraft during testing to get fairly accurate results. 

You were ranging from 525 to 576

sadly I'm not sure how you can be that precise (2%)= about 10 mph in this sim 

also I think you would have to keep the same AOA

 

Chime in as needed 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with what the OP has posted, and have done my own tests with squad mates in duel areas to prove it, 

I agree with what others have said about "onset" making a difference but easing into a turn slowly in tests, (making onset virtually irrelevant) and maintaining the same turning circle with a 109 at the same speed, 

The spitfire is blackout city whilst the 109 barely has any greying. 

 

Countless times flying red I've pursued 109s (equal diving speeds too) in fast dives ending in either climbs or turns to have them pull up or turn with ease (and continue maneuvering) knowing if I attempted the same I would black out. 

 

I havn't got tacview yet but I will get it for future tests, 

But I plead with anyone who disagrees to try out a few tests for themselves and tell me I'm not right. 

Edited by 334th_Hartmann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilot behavior to Gs are independent of plane type (the one connection is what Gs one plane can do other can't for example I can do max 4G in camel but 11 in Tempest), only pilot is , which dependents to pilot fatigue and if pilot is using  G suit , that's all. If any mistake is in code it has to be in pilot not  in the plane. 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

I completely agree with what the OP has posted, and have done my own tests with squad mates in duel areas to prove it, 

I agree with what others have said about "onset" making a difference but easing into a turn slowly in tests, (making onset virtually irrelevant) and maintaining the same turning circle with a 109 at the same speed, 

The spitfire is blackout city whilst the 109 barely has any greying. 

 

Countless times flying red I've pursued 109s (equal diving speeds too) in fast dives ending in either climbs or turns to have them pull up or turn with ease (and continue maneuvering) knowing if I attempted the same I would black out. 

 

I havn't got tacview yet but I will get it for future tests, 

But I plead with anyone who disagrees to try out a few tests for themselves and tell me I'm not right. 

 

May in fact be a completely realistic and well modelled representation of the reality.

 

Read the attached historical test report in the post below:

 

If the devs have actually modelled this (effects of seating position) deliberately they deserve a BIG round of applause (imho)

 

 

 

Edited by kendo

Share this post


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

May in fact be a completely realistic and well modelled representation of the reality.

 

Read the attached historical test report in the post below:

 

If the devs have actually modelled this (effects of seating position) deliberately they deserve a BIG round of applause (imho)

 

 

Although I'm not a real life pilot, I think these g-forces are well modeled and especially the seating position is well represented (imho).

The thing actually is, that many complaints about the g-force has not really something to do with "realism", but just simply the fact,

that those flying crazy "unlimited" manoeuvres now feel "limited" as they realize the said manoeuvres are not possible anymore without

punishment.

 

To me, even if it might not be 100% or a little bit overdone, it is far more realistic - anyway, far more realistic than before.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 9:21 AM, Turban said:

In doubt I suggest flying consistently on the  opposite side for a month and see what you think


I took the liberty to Change a little. Then this sentence work for 90% of all complains 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Pilot behavior to Gs are independent of plane type (the one connection is what Gs one plane can do other can't for example I can do max 4G in camel but 11 in Tempest), only pilot is , which dependents to pilot fatigue and if pilot is using  G suit , that's all. If any mistake is in code it has to be in pilot not  in the plane. 

Tests were performed in berloga duel. Areas one v one, spawning it at same time, going to the deck and initiating a continuous turn, therefore pilot fatigue was the same, as I've said, I would urge you to perform the same test and let me know what you find. 

 

19 hours ago, kendo said:

 

May in fact be a completely realistic and well modelled representation of the reality.

 

Read the attached historical test report in the post below:

 

If the devs have actually modelled this (effects of seating position) deliberately they deserve a BIG round of applause (imho)

 

 

 

If the seat position is modeled than it would certainly explain the different G tolerances, but one would have to ask the question, why would it be known that the spitfire is superior in a turn fight if those who flew it were blacking out before seeing the potential? Something just isn't right, 

Fact is if your tailed by a 109 going the same speed, for arguement sake, you should be able to initiate a continuous turn and eventually end up on the 109s 6, you can't physically do that anymore, the 109 will match your turn and if you try to pull more and use the spits superior turning ability you will black out. 

 

18 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

 

Although I'm not a real life pilot, I think these g-forces are well modeled and especially the seating position is well represented (imho).

The thing actually is, that many complaints about the g-force has not really something to do with "realism", but just simply the fact,

that those flying crazy "unlimited" manoeuvres now feel "limited" as they realize the said manoeuvres are not possible anymore without

punishment.

 

To me, even if it might not be 100% or a little bit overdone, it is far more realistic - anyway, far more realistic than before.

And I 100% agree that the G force limitations are a great addition to the game, I was actually excited that it may benefit the red side and restrict the 109s ability to perform the more ridiculous stabilizer manauvers employed by "skilled" pilots but its not the case, 

It's another disadvantage the reds now have to overcome

Edited by 334th_Hartmann
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seat position is not taken into account only G suit and fatigue.

6 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

Tests were performed in berloga duel. Areas one v one, spawning it at same time, going to the deck and initiating a continuous turn, therefore pilot fatigue was the same, as I've said, I would urge you to perform the same test and let me know what you find. 

We do not have G indicator available in the game. So one  can  use tackview to measure it and that should be compared plane wise. 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

If the seat position is modeled than it would certainly explain the different G tolerances, but one would have to ask the question, why would it be known that the spitfire is superior in a turn fight if those who flew it were blacking out before seeing the potential? Something just isn't right, 

Fact is if your tailed by a 109 going the same speed, for arguement sake, you should be able to initiate a continuous turn and eventually end up on the 109s 6, you can't physically do that anymore, the 109 will match your turn and if you try to pull more and use the spits superior turning ability you will black out. 

 

I have just read an account of flying the 109 from a modern day display pilot (it was posted in another g-loc thread here on the forum)

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt.html

 

Here is a quote:

 

"Wing loading is high, even for a WW2 fighter. Leading edge slats automatically drift out during increased angles of attack to mimic a larger wing. It works brilliantly. On paper, the Bf109 should not be able to stay with a Spitfire in a turn. In the real world, half of the German aces claimed they were always able to stay with Spitfires and Hurricanes in turns. How is this possible? The Bf109 accelerated stall behavior was far more benign than its competitors, allowing pilots to play at the edge of control without penalty. At any speed and G load, slight relaxation of the stick instantly returned the stalled wing to normal flight. Lesser aircraft could not risk flying at the edges of their superior theoretical performance without losing more control than the Bf109."

 

I have previously read in books German pilots claiming they could turn with Spitfires and Hurricanes. i always assumed that it was down to coming up against inexperienced RAF pilots who weren't getting the best from their aircraft. The pilot in the account above attributes it to the 109 having more benign stall behaviour because of the slats.

 

There is a interesting 'what if ' that has occurred to me - maybe it was also down to the RAF pilots being unable to use their theoretical advantage due to an increased tendency to black out?

 

This could be completely wide of the mark, and i'm not pushing for one side or another in this discussion, but i find it fascinating to contemplate the possibly deeper issues behind what initially seems to be just a strange, unexplained discrepancy in a flight-sim. (and it may still be just that)       

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

I have just read an account of flying the 109 from a modern day display pilot (it was posted in another g-loc thread here on the forum)

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt.html

 

Here is a quote:

 

"Wing loading is high, even for a WW2 fighter. Leading edge slats automatically drift out during increased angles of attack to mimic a larger wing. It works brilliantly. On paper, the Bf109 should not be able to stay with a Spitfire in a turn. In the real world, half of the German aces claimed they were always able to stay with Spitfires and Hurricanes in turns. How is this possible? The Bf109 accelerated stall behavior was far more benign than its competitors, allowing pilots to play at the edge of control without penalty. At any speed and G load, slight relaxation of the stick instantly returned the stalled wing to normal flight. Lesser aircraft could not risk flying at the edges of their superior theoretical performance without losing more control than the Bf109."

 

I have previously read in books German pilots claiming they could turn with Spitfires and Hurricanes. i always assumed that it was down to coming up against inexperienced RAF pilots who weren't getting the best from their aircraft. The pilot in the account above attributes it to the 109 having more benign stall behaviour because of the slats.

 

There is a interesting 'what if ' that has occurred to me - maybe it was also down to the RAF pilots being unable to use their theoretical advantage due to an increased tendency to black out?

 

This could be completely wide of the mark, and i'm not pushing for one side or another in this discussion, but i find it fascinating to contemplate the possibly deeper issues behind what initially seems to be just a strange, unexplained discrepancy in a flight-sim. (and it may still be just that)       

It's certainly interesting, and thanks for a non biased reply, 

The assumption we have all had that the spitfire was the superior turner, may have been wrong all along, 

Those slats certainly must make the difference, 

I would of thought the 109 should of behaved more like the mustang does in game at the moment, stall characteristics and elevator authority at high speed anyway, 

 

Even so I am still interested to see exactly how the G tolerances are implemented plane to plane and whether the seat positioning Is definately a factor

Edited by 334th_Hartmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 334th_Hartmann said:

 

Even so I am still interested to see exactly how the G tolerances are implemented plane to plane and whether the seat positioning Is definately a factor

If person responsible for coding it is saying that those are not factors  why you ask this questions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

If person responsible for coding it is saying that those are not factors  why you ask this questions? 

 

Haven't seen them say this. Where did they say it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

Haven't seen them say this. Where did they say it?

Read what AnPetrovich said about that  type subjects in Russian forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

I was actually excited that it may benefit the red side and restrict the 109s ability to perform the more ridiculous stabilizer manauvers employed by "skilled" pilots but its not the case

 

Which maneuvers are you talking about? 

 

Everybody had lost an or severals advantages with this new G model. 

On turning aircrafts, you can't turn as much as you can anymore. 

On B&Zoomer aircrafts, you loose a lot of shooting opportunities due to the heavy G load on the pilot when pulling at high speed. 

USAAF with G suits has now a real advantage. Fortunatly Tempest doesn't have G suit... :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B

18 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

If person responsible for coding it is saying that those are not factors  why you ask this questions? 

Because there is an obvious difference in G tolerance between a BF109 F4 and Spit Mk5, performing the same turn at the same speed.... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Read what AnPetrovich said about that  type subjects in Russian forums.

 

1. I don't understand Russian, so i don't read the Russian forum (except occasionally using Google Translate, which usually turns into a comical experience...)

 

2. "that type subjects" is a little vague. Did he specifically say that seating position/inclination/etc was not modelled as part of their G simulation? Genuinely interested to know...because if it isn't then there are some bugs that need to be reported for fixing. 🙂

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

B

Because there is an obvious difference in G tolerance between a BF109 F4 and Spit Mk5, performing the same turn at the same speed.... 

Same turn rate , same speed , same G,  and one pilot is blocking out earlier other not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

 

Which maneuvers are you talking about? 

 

Everybody had lost an or severals advantages with this new G model. 

On turning aircrafts, you can't turn as much as you can anymore. 

On B&Zoomer aircrafts, you loose a lot of shooting opportunities due to the heavy G load on the pilot when pulling at high speed. 

USAAF with G suits has now a real advantage. Fortunatly Tempest doesn't have G suit... :ph34r:

Those pilots who use the stabilizer in a way that wasn't implemented in real life, assigning it to the joystick or other control to gain obscene elevator authority, performing high speed "slice backs" etc without blacking out ofcourse 😉

It's a very "gamey" exploit in my opinion which we have to live with. 

 

And I am a massive fan of the Blackouts being introduced, in my opinion it would of been best to just give every plane the same g tolerance though, 

With variables like g suits and seat positioning, one could argue that the only way you will over come these disadvantages is gaining more G tolerance as an experienced pilot, but how would they implement that? 😂

 

6 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Same turn rate , same speed , same G,  and one pilot is blocking out earlier other not ?

We got there in the end... Yes mate

Edited by 334th_Hartmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

Those pilots who use the stabilizer in a way that wasn't implemented in real life, assigning it to the joystick or other control to gain obscene elevator authority, performing high speed "slice backs" etc without blacking out ofcourse 😉

It's a very "gamey" exploit in my opinion which we have to live with. 

 

And I am a massive fan of the Blackouts being introduced, in my opinion it would of been best to just give every plane the same g tolerance, 

With variables like g suits and seat positioning, one could argue that the only way you will over come these disadvantages is gaining more G tolerance as an experienced pilot, but how would they implement that? 😂

 

All they'd have to do is make it to where you can't map stabilizer/flaps to the same axis as the joystick. Problem solved (for the most part)

Players will always game the game, it's difficult to stop unless you put real world limitations on virtual pilots.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

All they'd have to do is make it to where you can't map stabilizer/flaps to the same axis as the joystick. Problem solved (for the most part)

Players will always game the game, it's difficult to stop unless you put real world limitations on virtual pilots.

I've read in previous posts that they could then use external software to mimic keys as joystick, you couldn't stop it ever I don't think, just have to live with it 

Edited by 334th_Hartmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

1. I don't understand Russian, so i don't read the Russian forum (except occasionally using Google Translate, which usually turns into a comical experience...)

 

2. "that type subjects" is a little vague. Did he specifically say that seating position/inclination/etc was not modelled as part of their G simulation? Genuinely interested to know...because if it isn't then there are some bugs that need to be reported for fixing. 🙂

Yes , you must dig it yourself if it is important to you. 

Automated translation are very good  today, everything make perfect sense .

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

×
×
  • Create New...