Flight Model Potential Inaccuracies List

[Chill31]

On 10/14/2021 at 8:09 AM, US93_Larner said:

Ah, yes - I'll add that in.  Do you have the figures / sources for what the Dr.I's top airspeed should be? Regarding stick pressure, @Chill31mentioned that his Dr.I requires a good deal of forward-stick to keep it level - I'm inclined to believe him! ? 

He'll know better than any of us whether or not the forward-stick pressure is too pronounced in FC...! 

I suppose this will be rather subjective in the Sim, because we all have different joysticks, some longer than others.  My warthog with 6 inch extension has afeel that closely resembles my plane...

[vangel]

On 10/20/2021 at 5:26 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

A little side by side comparision. Spot the difference.

I always think that FC planes are too dark in flight, here is a good example on how the air with increasing altitude bounces back light, brightening the planes from the sides and from below, even in the sun shadows. The FC screenshot shows a totally unrealistic, dark, almost unlit model. There a re  lot more things to consider like camera / film stock gain/gamma curves in every photo taken, but from personal experience all the planes in IL-2 are too dark in the air. I have a lot of unnecessary problems seeing the markers on approaching planes becaus of that.

Edited November 23, 2021 by vangel

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, vangel said:

I always think that FC planes are too dark in flight,

I always think that elevator response at small deflections is not effective enough in this sim, actually in most of the planes in the GB series. It is striking how much down angle the sim needs to counteract the forward CoG.

 

This makes for two related, general issues: One is that the planes are mushy on pitch response and tend to lag the input. In real aircraft, especially aerobatic ones, pitch of the plane is more like a direct proportional output of the stick input. The second is that stick travel required for normal maneuvers in pitch or trim (as seen in the pics you quoted) is excessive.

 

It is of note that aircraft neutral in pitch axis (like the Spitfire) suffer most from this, as the the point of lift moves forward or back in accorcance to the AoA. If you have it move from behind the CoG to in front of the CoG, you will feel the tendency to pitch up and self tighten the pull excessive compared to the real aircraft, where you sense some (it is not much) shift in pressure required to keep the stick in position. But you youn't have to manually correct for the travelling lift vector. Having a mushy and ineffective center zone makes percise flying tedious, which it is in the sim, but not at all so in the real aircraft.

 

This mushyness may make some sense in a very stable aircraft like the Cessna172, but in most cases it is out of place. "Other sims" get that wrong as well, in particular MSFS.

 

But anything is better than the wobble of yore, I suppose.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

IMHO I have feelings that FC planes especially heavy ones with underpowered engines have to much lift during slow speeds and turns, they stick to the air to much, prop hang , do crazy maneuvers  , have too responsive or to good  slow speed control surfaces effectiveness etc. Can't see plane crash in unrecoverable to not enough height  wing drop or spin,  some planes can hardly spin at all by pulling full stick at low speeds. They are to forgiving in the game  where you can read in real life how much lives were lost to bad plane quirks or bad piloting.  Yeah we have experience and so much hours in those planes but that not the case if you can abuse and do not lost control or relay on auto recovery in some planes whatever you do.

[Off_Winters]

Hi All,

After the game update today I have noticed both the Camel and the SE5 are basically impossible to get out of a spin. I fly with full hard/realistic FM settings. taking either into a spin from 10,000ft I have not been able to get out of a spin once. Both of these aircraft in real life had very good responses to recovering from a spin. If anybody has been able to get them to recovery I'd love to hear how you did it.

for me this is a very big FM issue that needs to be looked at, as its a death sentence as it stands if you drop into a spin, which completely changes the way you have to approach a fight and is very limiting with regards to evasive maneuvers.

[ST_Catchov]

On 10/13/2021 at 7:06 PM, US103_Larner said:

S.E.5a:
- The S.E.5a in Flying Circus appears to struggle with energy retention - in combat manoeuvres and 'zooming' climbs, the S.E.5a will rapidly lose energy which it will not regain without flying in a straight line. By comparison, the Flying Circus SPAD XIII is able to both zoom and manoeuvre in a dogfight while losing and regaining energy.  This lessens its effectiveness in "boom and zoom" attacks - a tactic favoured by historical S.E.5a pilots.

Some community members have previously suggested that this may be due to the S.E.5a's propeller pitch being too coarse.

 

The Se5a (Viper) has had this problem since 2011 or thereabouts when the strange and anecdotally inaccurate "glass engine" was addressed back in the RoF days. Unfortunately this resulted in the above explained weirdness. I don't know if it is the prop pitch as suggested or something else? Whatever, it has been a decade long issue as the FC Se5a was ported from RoF with the "bleeding revs" issue intact.

 

Jason recently announced in the DD that analysis has shown there is something wrong with the function of the 109 prop and it will be adjusted. Will the same courtesy be applied to the Se5a? A review after so long would be nice.

[No.23_Triggers]

On 3/13/2022 at 2:10 AM, ST_Catchov said:

Jason recently announced in the DD that analysis has shown there is something wrong with the function of the 109 prop and it will be adjusted. Will the same courtesy be applied to the Se5a? A review after so long would be nice.

My personal guess would be it's gonna be quite a while, if ever, before the FC flight models get looked at. I'd imagine FC3 would come out before any major overhauls are considered (again, if ever). I hope I'm proven wrong! 

[ST_Catchov]

8 hours ago, US103_Larner said:

My personal guess would be it's gonna be quite a while, if ever, before the FC flight models get looked at. I'd imagine FC3 would come out before any major overhauls are considered (again, if ever). I hope I'm proven wrong! 

 

I tend to agree. But it never hurts to remind the devs of issues that should be reviewed. Forthcoming new crates and maps are great and should be applauded but there does seem to be an elephant in the room. And it's not a Martinsyde. Although that's not a bad idea.