Does anyone else thing the low speed handling in this game is a bit much? Especially going uphill.

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

How am I going to deduce anything meaningfull from a video in slow motion,

By reading the thread, watching the other videos and reading what I've said and you've quoted. If you don't understand, then you don't understand what we're talking about. 

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

but anything involving videos is almost always rhetoric

Completely agree to be fair, but if your not being rhetoric in a video or post on a discussion then what's the point in posting it? ? I'd happily run through some calculations of a spinning prop vs the ailerons, but have absolutely no idea where to start. This is very much a "doesn't pass the BS test" argument until someone comes up with those - I can agree on that. 

 

A torque stall is very real issue in propeller airplanes and was deadly in the late war props if you weren't careful. 

 

https://www.australianflying.com.au/news/warbirds-supermarine-seafire-history-and-recent-restorations

“There are two important points to remember.  Firstly, the approach speed is critical because the Seafire is a very clean aeroplane and if you are a little fast you may float over all the wires and into a strong wire barrier - crunch!  Second, if your approach is bad and the batsman gives you a ‘wave off’, don’t slam the throttle fully open, the plane could start rotating around the propeller in a torque stall, which was nearly always fatal."

https://www.corsairsandkittyhawks.com/torque-stalls/

 

”Sadly demonstrated by Barney Warbrick at Waiuku on 16th August 1944, whilst I was still flying Kittyhawks at Ohakea. Flying his Corsair low and slow with wheels and flaps down and canopy open to wave to his brother-in-law driving the local cream lorry, as he applied power to climb away his Corsair was seen to give a violent shake, then roll to the left into a vertical dive into the Waiuku golf course."

 

Most of the other examples you can find are for the Corsair due to the required slow landing speed and the need to land in a left hand turn. But that's a larger, heavier plane with a much bigger wing span and the same power as our K4, so the idea that the K4 wouldn't do that approaching it's landing config stall speed doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't necessarily have to be a stall either, just something that needs to be counteracted by more than a little aileron like in the other video. 

 

Also, the K4 is used due to the absurdity of it's power to weight ratio, this isn't a vendetta against it. If anything the Spitfire IX/XIV should be the biggest culprits. It frankly should be an issue in the earlier planes to some degree.  

Edited May 21, 2021 by ACG_Cass

[Nocke]

All good and fine. I am not denying that there are torque effects. But I do insist that from the video you posted I can't learn anything about how this might be represented in this game. I have no clue how much the video speed is reduced, I just think it is, but nobody is actually telling me. I also have no idea of how much throttle is being used, nor do I have any clue where this plane is coming from and what dynamics it is in. From the little I can see in the video it might just be a plane on the top of a zoom climb, as said, possibly even throttled down.

I'd like to add that I was perhaps a little harsh because watching the video I felt a little betrayed. I looked at that and really started wondering how he can hang there that long time. Then I realized the sound, and that I was being presented a slow motion sequence without getting told so. That made me angry.

[ACG_Cass]

On 5/21/2021 at 9:47 AM, 216th_Nocke said:

All good and fine. I am not denying that there are torque effects. But I do insist that from the video you posted I can't learn anything about how this might be represented in this game. I have no clue how much the video speed is reduced, I just think it is, but nobody is actually telling me. I also have no idea of how much throttle is being used, nor do I have any clue where this plane is coming from and what dynamics it is in. From the little I can see in the video it might just be a plane on the top of a zoom climb, as said, possibly even throttled down.

I'd like to add that I was perhaps a little harsh because watching the video I felt a little betrayed. I looked at that and really started wondering how he can hang there that long time. Then I realized the sound, and that I was being presented a slow motion sequence without getting told so. That made me angry.

 

No worries at all. So it's 1/4 speed full power climb to a full stall. 

 

The reason for the slowmo is it's much easier to show what's going on. As the speed drops off, you should be seeing a loss of control from the ailerons and arguably, much less of an effect from the rudder and elevators. You've got 2000hp spinning a propeller in one direction vs barely any airflow over the devices that spin you in the other direction. The propeller induced yaw also seems to be easily countered by just a super quick flick of the rudder. 

 

The problem is the meta this creates. Being slow isn't as much of a disadvantage as it should be. Minimum speed, full flaps out deck dances happen all the time and part of the reason is there is very little penalty for chopping the throttle and then pushing it to full max, despite being almost at stall speed. According to the sources above and a lot of other sources about carrier landings in the corsair, powering up like that should have you spinning into the ground. 

[Nocke]

I agree. I tried the P47. Flaring at 100mph I slammed the throttle forward - nothing happened, almost, just a very slight tendency towards a little rolling, easy to correct. Now I am wondering what is missing - is it the prop action in the air, or is it the azimuthal inertia of the engine? Would we expect a difference between inlines and radials?

Should have thought a little more. Was confusing radials and rotaries

aaaand also I am confusing inertia effects and stationary effects like the torque.

I'll better just shut up.

[JtD]

A few more cents:

 

If you're flying with a constant speed prop and do in fact manage to keep the rpm constant, you don't get anything out of intertia when throttling up. The prop and engine remain at a constant speed. In case of the P-47, if you are at 100% rpm (i.e. 2700 rpm), you'll gain maybe 1000 engine rpm when throttling up. Also note that typically propeller and engine work in opposite direction, due to the reduction gear inverting rotation. But, in the worst case, from intertia, lets assume a change of 1200 in engine rpm, that's 600 airscrew rpm (10 per second), with an effective prop mass of 100kg. Let's then say the mass of the aircraft is 6tons, and the mass is distributed a bit further out, say factor 2 (goes in by the square). So you have 100kg*10rps = 24000kg*X. X is 0.0417, or 15°/s. So, if no damping at all was to take place, the P-47 would make a very slow roll at 15°/s after throttling up. But these aircraft are well damped and stop from maximum(!) rolling velocity to straight flight without rolling typically within a second. Simply put, inertia isn't really hurting anything.

 

A far more important point would be the extra torque generated by the prop (i.e. the increased drag of the prop blades while creating thrust).  The theory says, well, be my guest in estimating the rotational intertia of a P-47 to get to an undamped figure, but keep in mind that a massive part of that torque is being cancelled out by the corkscrewed air stream hitting the wings and the rudder fin. Because that's too complex to reliably estimate, lets forget about theory and just look what NACA tested.

Torque is a stationary thing and you need to counter it no matter if you fly at a constant condition, or if you throttle up. So we don't actually need a plot where NACA throttled up. NACA does provide charts of a P-47 in landing and in wave off condition, both low speed flaps down, but one with power off, the other with power on (42.5", 2550 rpm), and we can just look at the delta.

Power off, ~100mph: A little rudder, ailerons centred.

 

 

Power on, ~90mph: Rudder at maximum, ailerons opposed in the range of 7 degrees each (10-15 total).

 

The test pilot did not manage to fully stall the aircraft because he had insufficient rudder. He used ailerons to keep the plane level.

 

However, all the charts also show that it was possible to control the stall by use of the controls. They were not completely ineffective, not even the rudder, which was just insufficient power on.

 

If you try in particular the lower one out in game, you'll find it impossible to re-create. Basically you can control the aircraft (with full rudder authority) with minimum control input at these speeds. Until you stall. There's no "poor control pre-stall" zone. At least I didn't find it.

 

What we also should expect when throttling up at really low speeds in game a necessity for massive rudder and lots of aileron input, which I also didn't find.

 

---

 

Fwiw, what can really flip your aircraft if you throttle up, is one wing stalling due to a change in the airflow. The side the prop pushes the air up (thus the wing down), will create an upwards airflow over (a part of) the wing. The wing push down in combination with the upwards air stream can suddenly increase the wings angle of attack beyond the stalling point and the wing will drop sharply.

Edited May 22, 2021 by JtD

[ACG_Cass]

Awesome stuff @JtD. It's pretty easy to imagine the results of the tests if they were at 70" 2700rpm then!

 

2 hours ago, JtD said:

What we also should expect when throttling up at really low speeds in game a necessity for massive rudder and lots of aileron input, which I also didn't find.

 

I think the point above is the main issue. Not necessarily that it's an immediate unrecoverable stall, but the fact that your control inputs have to so minimal to correct it, it allows for some pretty care free flying at low speed. Interesting about the change in airflow - didn't know that so thank you. 

 

I think @JG7_X-Man kind of has a point though, we very much get what we pay for with this game. I get the feeling the handling leans more towards the easier side to allow it to be a little more noob friendly, which is completely fine. It's more a personal preference thing for me as it lowers the skill ceiling and allows for some pretty un-authentic stuff to happen in MP. Would be nice if the effect was actually upped to more realistic levels and perhaps a prop torque setting was put in the difficulty options. But unless it's something that can be easily changed I doubt we'll see updates like this across all of the FMs (it would be a lot of work I assume). 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

@JtD I think one of the Big Issues with slamming the Throttle and the slow adjustment Speed of Electric Propellers.

When the Pilot Slams open the throttle at lets say 1700 and full fine pitch the engine accelerates very quickly to 2700 and only then the Propeller starts adjusting to coarse Pitch while the Engine still accelerates until lets say 3200 where the blades are finally coarse enough to catch the Engine and slow it down.

The Propeller is still adjusting to Coarse and will continue until 2700 is achieved.

At that Point the Propeller is so coarse, most of it's Power goes into spinning the Plane instead of forward propulsion.

 

Normally the Hydraulic Props were very quick to adjust while Electric Props took some time and would thus allow for more over rev and coarser pitch.

[palker4]

being very skilled in crashing planes I set out to find out how to stall your plane with sudden full power.

In the first part at the edge of stall after opening the throttle left wing dips so I return the stick to neutral and use ailerons to straighten. EZ.

In the second part I continue holding stick back, letting the game engine do its thing

https://streamable.com/eduovq

 

Idk if that stall is realistic or not I will let you decide.

[daliborsky]

not only that. After last patch IL2 is no longer the same. AI is able to put up with much  more g load than I can, at same speeds and turn rates. Plus I think the mechanism for translating joystick movement into control surfaces and is way off at the moment for some aircraft (most notably Spitifire in all three variants and probably some more). Before you brush me off - I am pilot with military experience.

The relation between stick movement and force produced (at almost any speed) is way too strict, i.e. little movements in pitch produce 2-4 g loads. I had to learn to fly in IL2 from scratch, as this was not the way it was before the patch. I would kindly ask the developers to look into it. Dynamic stall is also over-pronounced with aircraft entering into lomcevak-kind of semi acrobatics with little authority on any axis, resulting in normal spin out of which there is no escape. As if tail surfaces are in total shadow from the fuselage - no reaction from rudder input.... I suspect something is broken (or the code calculating forces in extreme attitudes - i.e. low speed, high aoa, high speed/high aoa)....

 

In real aircraft, one is able to maintain g-load during turn or vertical manoeuvre as it is not only related to speed and turn rate, but of course by radius. In IL2 it seems speed is not bleeding with increased g-load, but the load is increasing way too fast for the movement of the stick. As if g-load is calculated from joystick movement instead of the radius and speed.

 

Any thoughts or comments?

[sturmkraehe]

5 hours ago, daliborsky said:

not only that. After last patch IL2 is no longer the same. AI is able to put up with much  more g load than I can, at same speeds and turn rates. Plus I think the mechanism for translating joystick movement into control surfaces and is way off at the moment for some aircraft (most notably Spitifire in all three variants and probably some more). Before you brush me off - I am pilot with military experience.

The relation between stick movement and force produced (at almost any speed) is way too strict, i.e. little movements in pitch produce 2-4 g loads. I had to learn to fly in IL2 from scratch, as this was not the way it was before the patch. I would kindly ask the developers to look into it. Dynamic stall is also over-pronounced with aircraft entering into lomcevak-kind of semi acrobatics with little authority on any axis, resulting in normal spin out of which there is no escape. As if tail surfaces are in total shadow from the fuselage - no reaction from rudder input.... I suspect something is broken (or the code calculating forces in extreme attitudes - i.e. low speed, high aoa, high speed/high aoa)....

 

In real aircraft, one is able to maintain g-load during turn or vertical manoeuvre as it is not only related to speed and turn rate, but of course by radius. In IL2 it seems speed is not bleeding with increased g-load, but the load is increasing way too fast for the movement of the stick. As if g-load is calculated from joystick movement instead of the radius and speed.

 

Any thoughts or comments?

 

I am not quite sure if I understand everything that you want to pass to the reader.

 

But from what I interprete I too think that stick behavior is different for the spitties than for other planes. For instance it is really easy to briefly over pull a 109 to get a short burst and this maneuver seems imposible for a Spitfire. Now some folks will say: the 109 had slats but you can do the same with the 190 to some extend and the spit had cranked wings. Whereas the slats were meant to offset the wing tip stall AoA for the 109 the wing tip simply had a lower AoA in the Spitties.

 

Concerning the stall behavior of basically all planes in IL2: It is simply weird.

Edited May 23, 2021 by sturmkraehe

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, daliborsky said:

AI is able to put up with much  more g load than I can, at same speeds and turn rates.

 

Sorry, but no - the AI uses the same G model as the player. 

[daliborsky]

I was in a mirror turn - so my target (Bf-109g) was in same spot all the time, meaning, that we had same radial and probably air speed and thus same g-load. I was slowly passing out, when he was still pulling and in time overturning me.

 

there is no other explanation than that g-loc is modeled differently and if not, there is something wrong with implementation. Please note, that this was observed several times in a row.  @sturmkraehe I know that, I'm talking about same movement of joystick (no settings changed) now produces excessive g-load. Speed bleed is one of the things which I find not very realistic, or to say - not convincing..

Edited May 24, 2021 by daliborsky

[LukeFF]

8 minutes ago, daliborsky said:

I was in a mirror turn - so my target (Bf-109g) was in same spot all the time, meaning, that we had same radial and probably air speed and thus same g-load. I was slowly passing out, when he was still pulling and in time overturning me.

 

there is no other explanation than that g-loc is modeled differently and if not, there is something wrong with implementation. Please note, that this was observed several times in a row.  @sturmkraehe I know that, I'm talking about same movement of joystick (no settings changed) now produces excessive g-load. Speed bleed is one of the things which I find not very realistic, or to say - not convincing..

 

Well, first off, you need to provide a track file showing exactly what happened.

 

Secondly, someone else recently swore up and down that the AI was performing better in high-G turns than the player. Once video evidence was in hand, it was shown that claim was not even close to being true.

[daliborsky]

I understand. You must trust me, that I thought 5 times before posting this and was thinking of trk of course.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

This remains a major problem online...I have a track to post from an unfortunate FW 190 A6 (with gunpods) vertical "spray and pray" on Combat Box that I was the victim of today lol ? (yes I overshot like an idiot).

Edited August 2, 2021 by =AW=drewm3i-VR

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Here is the clip...this happens all the damn time. In fact it is something of a tactic for blue flyers...yes I know I goofed up a bit here and should have gone vertical sooner.

 

 

 

[gimpy117]

1 hour ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

Here is the clip...this happens all the damn time. In fact it is something of a tactic for blue flyers...yes I know I goofed up a bit here and should have gone vertical sooner.

 

 

 

wow. that's broken. on so many levels. looks like aerodynamically the 190 ignored the hispano shot you got on the wing, and then his hits caused so much impact it literally knocked your aircraft into a spin. I mean, what can you do when in some circumstances German aircraft can ignore damage and pull incredible AoA and only need one hit to literally knock you out of the sky? 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

5 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

wow. that's broken. on so many levels. looks like aerodynamically the 190 ignored the hispano shot you got on the wing, and then his hits caused so much impact it literally knocked your aircraft into a spin. I mean, what can you do when in some circumstances German aircraft can ignore damage and pull incredible AoA and only need one hit to literally knock you out of the sky? 

My favorite is the shrapnel blast damage that peppers the whole plane from one or two cannon rounds in the fuselage...massive but localized skin and systems damage is plausible, but this result is so scripted and just plain silly. This happens all the time online to allied fighters. 

[354thFG_Panda_]

Aim Better...

Edited August 3, 2021 by LR.TheRedPanda

[BubiHUN]

11 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

Here is the clip...this happens all the damn time. In fact it is something of a tactic for blue flyers...yes I know I goofed up a bit here and should have gone vertical sooner.

 

 

 

did you ever saw how yaks and lavochkins do the same? ? 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

did you ever saw how yaks and lavochkins do the same? ? 

Wouldn't surprise me lol

[ACG_pezman]

I dunno, I think the 190 pilot was smart.

 

Our spitfire pilot burned a lot of energy for no reason.  His energy advantage is obvious yet he goes vertical and starts a spiral climb?  I mean, the spitfire doesn't retain energy in a climb like a 190 can, and it's climb is better but not that doesn't matter when you aren't trying to put altitude between you and your target. 

 

He literally flew 2000m in distance in that spiral climb but ended up with a 600m gain, the whole time he's spending all the energy in his bank with all that induced drag (control surfaces) plus fighting gravity.

 

So what I see is a lucky 190 pilot who used his energy wisely and to great effect, even taking the precaution to gain a little bit more before starting his zoom in pursuit.  To top it all off, the exponential energy burn of the spitfire made him slow at the end, and a slow aircraft is easy to shoot because they can't change direction quickly. 

 

The 190 wasn't going to survive if he missed that shot, he had to set it up at the 2:19 mark in the video and wait to ensure that the spit was committed to that path before firing, otherwise I am certain his plan was to nose down and gain E instead of commit to the firing solution.  Because if he missed it would be him in the video getting shot, and the spitfire not changing direction and attempting to go over the top on him meant he knew what specific area of sky that spitfire would have to occupy for a few seconds in the future.

 

And that single 20mm round in the wing-tip did affect the aerodynamics of the 190, but every turn was into the damaged wing which let the pilot work with the damage instead of fight it.  The fact that the 190 pilot never gets that damaged wing high is proof that it was causing issues for him.  Had the spitfire done a spiral climb to the right the 190 would have had much more issues keeping that damaged wing high.  It's inducing drag and wants to dip, so turning left let's it dip and played into the damage.

 

Also, the 190 only performs two rolls in the whole time that the spitfire is zooming around the spiral in three different planes of motion, so he couldn't maneuver because of his lower energy and damaged wing.  He literally lets the spitfire burn itself out before committing to his final energy purchase: his final firing solution.

 

However, this is all my opinion.  With all the times I have had Spitfires and Tempests do god-like things against my high E 190, I could be biased.

 

 

[Denum]

I think it lacks that modelling at the moment for sure. 

Would be nice if it gets added at some point but who knows. Its a pretty significant addition. I do find it frustrating that some planes can pull more AoA out of no where (BF109s) and others just violently roll over (P47) 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:49 PM, //pezman* said:

I dunno, I think the 190 pilot was smart.

 

Our spitfire pilot burned a lot of energy for no reason.  His energy advantage is obvious yet he goes vertical and starts a spiral climb?  I mean, the spitfire doesn't retain energy in a climb like a 190 can, and it's climb is better but not that doesn't matter when you aren't trying to put altitude between you and your target. 

 

He literally flew 2000m in distance in that spiral climb but ended up with a 600m gain, the whole time he's spending all the energy in his bank with all that induced drag (control surfaces) plus fighting gravity.

 

So what I see is a lucky 190 pilot who used his energy wisely and to great effect, even taking the precaution to gain a little bit more before starting his zoom in pursuit.  To top it all off, the exponential energy burn of the spitfire made him slow at the end, and a slow aircraft is easy to shoot because they can't change direction quickly. 

 

The 190 wasn't going to survive if he missed that shot, he had to set it up at the 2:19 mark in the video and wait to ensure that the spit was committed to that path before firing, otherwise I am certain his plan was to nose down and gain E instead of commit to the firing solution.  Because if he missed it would be him in the video getting shot, and the spitfire not changing direction and attempting to go over the top on him meant he knew what specific area of sky that spitfire would have to occupy for a few seconds in the future.

 

And that single 20mm round in the wing-tip did affect the aerodynamics of the 190, but every turn was into the damaged wing which let the pilot work with the damage instead of fight it.  The fact that the 190 pilot never gets that damaged wing high is proof that it was causing issues for him.  Had the spitfire done a spiral climb to the right the 190 would have had much more issues keeping that damaged wing high.  It's inducing drag and wants to dip, so turning left let's it dip and played into the damage.

 

Also, the 190 only performs two rolls in the whole time that the spitfire is zooming around the spiral in three different planes of motion, so he couldn't maneuver because of his lower energy and damaged wing.  He literally lets the spitfire burn itself out before committing to his final energy purchase: his final firing solution.

 

However, this is all my opinion.  With all the times I have had Spitfires and Tempests do god-like things against my high E 190, I could be biased.

 

 

You're simply wrong and I do not think this applies only to one plane or the other...last night on Finnish a high energy 109 F-2 bounced my Hurricane flying on the deck in combat mode with xx boost and 4 20mm cannons. I easily evaded and the guy tried to run in a wide starboard turn before trying to climb back up to altitude. I turned inside his circle with ease at WEP and climbed up after him and shot his ass out of the sky at only 60 mph (with control authority to aim) and at a nearly 80 degree AoA. If you can't beat them with legitimate tactics, join them I guess? ? He did make some errors no doubt, but having control authority to aim and fire 4 20mm cannons at 60 mph at an almost 80 degree AoA in a modified biplane is absurd. Again, I think the FMs are mostly good with a few exception, but we need much stronger torque effects and much less "floaty" low speed handling.

 

I will post the track shortly.

27 minutes ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

You're simply wrong and I do not think this applies only to one plane or the other...last night on Finnish a high energy 109 F-2 bounced my Hurricane flying on the deck in combat mode with xx boost and 4 20mm cannons. I easily evaded and the guy tried to run in a wide starboard turn before trying to climb back up to altitude. I turned inside his circle with ease at WEP and climbed up after him and shot his ass out of the sky at only 60 mph (with control authority to aim) and at a nearly 80 degree AoA. If you can't beat them with legitimate tactics, join them I guess? ? He did make some errors no doubt, but having control authority to aim and fire 4 20mm cannons at 60 mph at an almost 80 degree AoA in a modified biplane is absurd. Again, I think the FMs are mostly good with a few exception, but we need much stronger torque effects and much less "floaty" low speed handling.

 

I will post the track shortly.

Here is the track:

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by =AW=drewm3i-VR

[357th_Dog]

Who would have thought that antigravity drives were so common in WW2 

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

You're simply wrong and I do not think this applies only to one plane or the other...last night on Finnish a high energy 109 F-2 bounced my Hurricane flying on the deck in combat mode with xx boost and 4 20mm cannons. I easily evaded and the guy tried to run in a wide starboard turn before trying to climb back up to altitude. I turned inside his circle with ease at WEP and climbed up after him and shot his ass out of the sky at only 60 mph (with control authority to aim) and at a nearly 80 degree AoA. If you can't beat them with legitimate tactics, join them I guess? ? He did make some errors no doubt, but having control authority to aim and fire 4 20mm cannons at 60 mph at an almost 80 degree AoA in a modified biplane is absurd. Again, I think the FMs are mostly good with a few exception, but we need much stronger torque effects and much less "floaty" low speed handling.

 

I will post the track shortly.

Here is the track:

 

 

RAF for the win ? 

 

ultra manuverability, 20mm galor, and one 5 min timer,

if you have to fly allied your only options are brits, they knew how to build airplanes for video games.

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

21 minutes ago, CountZero said:

RAF for the win ? 

 

ultra manuverability, 20mm galor, and one 5 min timer,

if you have to fly allied your only options are brits, they knew how to build airplanes for video games.

 

 

I love the Hurricane, but all the Hawker birds are a bit much...I think the hurricane is a little too slow, but far too maneuverable, especially in the vertical plane. Its reputation was that of a poor man's p-40 or spitfire and was always relegated to ground attack when those planes were present in a theater like North Africa. In game it is more like an uber I-16 or zero. It's a joy to fly though.

[gimpy117]

On 8/9/2021 at 6:49 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

I love the Hurricane, but all the Hawker birds are a bit much...I think the hurricane is a little too slow, but far too maneuverable, especially in the vertical plane. Its reputation was that of a poor man's p-40 or spitfire and was always relegated to ground attack when those planes were present in a theater like North Africa. In game it is more like an uber I-16 or zero. It's a joy to fly though.

I agree, but I also think how crazy it is that these aircraft (the Spit, Tempest, Hurricane) get moaned about because they are the only aircraft that can out maneuver a 109. which has always seemed kinda suspect...wing slats or not.  

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

I agree, but I also think how crazy it is that these aircraft (the Spit, Tempest, Hurricane) get moaned about because they are the only aircraft that can out maneuver a 109. which has always seemed kinda suspect...wing slats or not.  

The spitfire also has no problem with the 109 in game minus it's very susceptible horizontal stabilizer and OP German cannons.

[gimpy117]

13 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

The spitfire also has no problem with the 109 in game minus it's very susceptible horizontal stabilizer and OP German cannons.

and I would agree, the Prop Hanging meta is not so much fun when someone else can prop hang too. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

30 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

and I would agree, the Prop Hanging meta is not so much fun when someone else can prop hang too. 

I've added this tactic to my repertoire ...already blasted one 109 out of the sky! ?

[ACG_pezman]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:10 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

You're simply wrong and I do not think this applies only to one plane or the other...last night on Finnish a high energy 109 F-2 bounced my Hurricane flying on the deck in combat mode with xx boost and 4 20mm cannons. I easily evaded and the guy tried to run in a wide starboard turn before trying to climb back up to altitude. I turned inside his circle with ease at WEP and climbed up after him and shot his ass out of the sky at only 60 mph (with control authority to aim) and at a nearly 80 degree AoA. If you can't beat them with legitimate tactics, join them I guess? ? He did make some errors no doubt, but having control authority to aim and fire 4 20mm cannons at 60 mph at an almost 80 degree AoA in a modified biplane is absurd. Again, I think the FMs are mostly good with a few exception, but we need much stronger torque effects and much less "floaty" low speed handling.

I'm not defending the low speed characteristics of the FM beyond that I don't know how these aircraft would handle in those situations.  However, common sense has also shown me that if I'm still in range of their weapons, I can't be upset if I get hit.  What gets me upset is how a floundering enemy, at the limit of their effective range, spraying in a last ditch attempt to do something before they stall and go defensive, hits me with one random cannon shell and absolutely wrecks my plane every time. 

 

Especially in the FW-190, a random cannon shell in the wingtip is a death sentence.  It's best tactic, cutting and running with an energy advantage, is nuked by the drag.  The wing seems generates so much drag that it loses the ability to generate lift, and if you try to dive away and run, you spiral into the ground unable to pull out without inducing a roll to that side and diving steeper.  Every.  Damn.  Time.

 

However, one time I was hit on the opposite wing on a second pass, which gave the aircraft it's balance back.  Dude saved my life by doing that, as I could now maneuver again, and I managed to stay alive long enough for a teammate to see and help.  Sad to say I think it's a viable tactic, balancing out drag, because the Pe-2 has a similar problem with a damaged wing slowly dragging you down to the ground.  But on the Pe-2, you can hop into the turret and shoot your opposite wing (just a little bit, doesn't take much) to equalize (or balance) out the drag so you can fly home. 

 

Hey, live and die by the rules of your world... right?

15 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I've added this tactic to my repertoire ...already blasted one 109 out of the sky! ?

...right ?

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, //pezman* said:

I'm not defending the low speed characteristics of the FM beyond that I don't know how these aircraft would handle in those situations.  However, common sense has also shown me that if I'm still in range of their weapons, I can't be upset if I get hit.  What gets me upset is how a floundering enemy, at the limit of their effective range, spraying in a last ditch attempt to do something before they stall and go defensive, hits me with one random cannon shell and absolutely wrecks my plane every time. 

 

Especially in the FW-190, a random cannon shell in the wingtip is a death sentence.  It's best tactic, cutting and running with an energy advantage, is nuked by the drag.  The wing seems generates so much drag that it loses the ability to generate lift, and if you try to dive away and run, you spiral into the ground unable to pull out without inducing a roll to that side and diving steeper.  Every.  Damn.  Time.

 

However, one time I was hit on the opposite wing on a second pass, which gave the aircraft it's balance back.  Dude saved my life by doing that, as I could now maneuver again, and I managed to stay alive long enough for a teammate to see and help.  Sad to say I think it's a viable tactic, balancing out drag, because the Pe-2 has a similar problem with a damaged wing slowly dragging you down to the ground.  But on the Pe-2, you can hop into the turret and shoot your opposite wing (just a little bit, doesn't take much) to equalize (or balance) out the drag so you can fly home. 

 

Hey, live and die by the rules of your world... right?

...right ?

 

See the track I posted above in the Hurricane ^. I guess the moral of the story is that until the low speed handling and damage model is fixed (if ever) tuck the nose and run instead of trying to zoom climb away as you would in DCS, CLoD, 1946, or any other sim ever made, because in GB it is easy to go full throttle and follow the opponent close enough to ruin his day.

[ACG_pezman]

20 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

...tuck the nose and run instead of trying to zoom climb away as you would in DCS, CLoD, 1946, or any other sim ever made...

This is a point that I think is overlooked far too much, and the main reason why I don't complain about the flight models in this game.  To my knowledge (AFAIK), this is also the only sim out of the ones you mentioned (and others in the genre) that has a dynamic flight model.

 

The fact that this sim is also the only sim with a dynamic flight model in your list, how can we claim its modeling of low speed control is wrong and not more realistic than those sims?

[JtD]

What is the difference between a dynamic flight model and a not dynamic flight model?

[Drum]

Dynamic is a force (or flight model) that stimulates change or progress within a system or process.  Versus what would otherwise be considered a static force (or flight model) which is from a predetermined database of figures.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Drum
can't spell

[AndyJWest]

So, the difference is between software that uses data and algorithms, vs one that uses data and algorithms?

[busdriver]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:10 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

I turned inside his circle with ease at WEP and climbed up after him and shot his ass out of the sky at only 60 mph (with control authority to aim) and at a nearly 80 degree AoA. If you can't beat them with legitimate tactics, join them I guess? ? He did make some errors no doubt, but having control authority to aim and fire 4 20mm cannons at 60 mph at an almost 80 degree AoA in a modified biplane is absurd.

 

With all due respect, you're confusing pitch with AoA. You have no AoA indicator. If you want to say 80 degrees nose up/high, that's different (and correct) but it's NOT your AoA. Otherwise...carry on. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by busdriver

[sturmkraehe]

1 hour ago, Drum said:

Dynamic is a force (or flight model) that stimulates change or progress within a system or process.  Verse what would otherwise be considered a static force (or flight model) which is from a predetermined database of figures.

 

To be honest - and here I am talking as an engineer who has to do some modelling from time to time - more complicated is not necessarily more synonym to realistic. In MOST cases you want to model somethig pretty complicated you will have to do some assumptions. These assumptions may be best available but still best guesses. And let's not forget some unwanted numerical issues where modelling in a complex and dynamic way has unwanted and unpredicted consequences.

 

As a rocket scientist we constantly use data bases for our calculations and this is absolutely fine as long as you remain within the boundaries of the tables.

[Panzerlang]

I'm a layman in these things but I'd have thought if you're going full-throttle vertically the prop-wash would give a decent amount of tail-surface control authority to quite a low speed?