Common defense maneouver in BoX

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

As long as you don't mess with the throttle, you can even make shallow turns without rudder. It's the aerobatics where the gyro effects really rear their head.

My point was that some aircraft make gyro felt right away, while in others you start to really notice them in aerobatics.

[ZachariasX]

15 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

…text…

Didn‘t know it was then actually PAX time I could log. Makes getting an airliner rating a real proposition. Thanks for the advice.

 

Other than that, when virgins talk about s*x in public places, a certain composure is advised. Even when quoting Mata Hari.

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 2/22/2023 at 4:02 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, if it works out with the production values of a AAA title, you'd be about on Reflected's level (I'm not kidding, the level of polish he puts in is amazing). I found Il-2's scripting more limited than DCS, and AI somewhat more capricious, although this is an area both sims could improve.

I've had a look on the DCS store page for the campaign you mention, and indeed it looks very impressive from its description

 

Regarding mission scripting, I've got no personal experience with DCS's mission editor, but what I hear from other people is that IL2 offers more comprehensive mission scripting, although DCS is easier to use. I can say however that I have seldom been limited by the IL2 editor, if at all. It often surprises me how much control I have over the AI behaviour and that I'm able to make the AI behave almost to the letter as their real-life counterparts did according to the ORBs.

 

On 2/22/2023 at 5:23 PM, [CPT]Crunch said:

The money will be made on outstanding game play, ease of use, and multitude of options for the players.  Everyone likes different aspects, and that's what makes a great game.  You could build a sandbox with a generic map and totally fake inspired working ground war, if it plays really well with great flexibility and function suspending belief people will flock to it.  Trying to nit pick every aspect of a sim to recreate a historical account is a complete waste of time and energy.  Just get a good action game going around a detailed and as accurate as possible smoke and mirrors world with our level of planes is good enough. 

 

Saying a sim is historical is like saying you knew Abraham Lincoln in life and presence, as someone told you about it and you saw his 3 dimensional image stamped on a penny once.  Yeah, you got a vague notion of who he was and what he possibly looks like, but that's about it.  You could be presented with documentation of what he smelled like, how he stood as compared besides you, what he thought, and what his hand grip was like but no one will ever really know or experience these detailed things again. 

 

The maps we fly on aren't much better to the person who knows these regions, but for our needs who cares, general shapes and distances are close enough, in the case of maps its better to quit wasting energy over high historical detailing and spend the budget on greater artistic expression filling up the empty voids.  In the end we're still left only with Lincolns image stamped on the penny history left us.

 

In the long run the generic sandbox will win out, since it's potential is less restricted allowing artistic flexibility for a faster and better rounded product.  The money is in fun games, not representing a historical experience, it's a slow death sentence focusing intensely on history because that objective can never be achieved.        

You keep insisting that a "generic sandbox sim" is objectively better. It just doesn't work that way. Maybe it does for you, but yours is not the only opinion out there. Personally, I don't care the slightest for "generic sandbox sims". I require a bare minimum of historicity to suspend my disbelief. Of course historicity cannot be fully achieved, but you can get close. You can say the same thing for the flight model; no matter how hard you try, you'll never experience the movements and G-forces of a real aircraft that makes you really "feel" the flight model and its subtleties.

 

We both have to compromise in that regard, we only have different standards for where the optimal balance is. Saying that a "generic sandbox sim" is objectively better since it better suits your personal preferences is plain wrong. You may be correct in that a "generic sandbox sim" would be more popular to the general public (à la WarThunder), but there are always people like me who want coherent packages of historical enemies and a fitting map, so there'll always be a market for that. Conversely, if the only option to fly, let's say, an I-16 is on the wrong map against enemies it never flew against, there are always people like me for which that's not enough and who would in that case prefer to not fly the I-16 at all, no matter how good its flight model is.

 

I respect your viewpoint, but presenting it as the optimal solution that will please everyone is ridiculous.

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I've had a look on the DCS store page for the campaign you mention, and indeed it looks very impressive from its description

Look up his videos on YouTube, too. He recently released a playthrough of one of the mission in his upcoming Mossie campaign. 

[JG27*PapaFly]

7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Are you saying that in  rotary engine the gyroscopic effects are not  going from it ?

No, I was talking about WWII planes / planes with a non-rotary engine. The rotary engines had tremendous gyroscopic effects, because the combined mass of rotating engine and prop was high compared to the planes total weight.

 

I forgot to mention one important parameter which influences the magnitude of the gyro effect: the rate at which the plane rotates / perturbs the gyro. For the most part, this equals to the pitch / turn rate. As we all know, Spits and Tempests achieve much higher turn rates than FW190s. Yet they have zero gyro effects. Very handy in air combat,  but arcade as f##k. Am I the only one to find this slightly fishy?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On the upside, 109s that are being jerked around the sky by pilots thinking they are being 'evasive' often-times snap their own wings after said wings take damage.

It might take a pretty tight group/line to instantly 'saw-off' a wing with machinegun but, if a few bullets hit substructure and the pilot is yanking the controls all around, snap!  

So... at least the DM is good there.

[SCG_Tzigy]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:21 AM, SCG_motoadve said:

I have been into flight simulators for 25 years, Reflected Campaigns are the best I have ever played by far, the attention to detail is impressive and it gives you a feel of being there, and part of a big war.

 

Multiplayer I only do Project Overlord, they have tried to make it as historical as possible with the current plane set.

Its really fun, lots of missions objectives, and there are bomber formations you escort, convoy attacks etc.

IL2 the most popular server is Finnish, and its probably one of the most unrealistic ones, TAW is the most realistic and not as popular.

DCS the most realistic WWII server within its limitations is Project Overlord and its the most popular.

Kind of shows DCS and IL2  are a bit of a different kind of crowd, which is ok.

Re Overlord, buddy and I might look into it, what plane pilots would  u say needed most? Allies vs axis? Thx!

[SCG_motoadve]

9 hours ago, SCG_Tzigy said:

Re Overlord, buddy and I might look into it, what plane pilots would  u say needed most? Allies vs axis? Thx!

Axis needs more pilots.

[Livai]

Quote

Common defense maneouver in BoX

 

Hard to tell because

• In Great Battles the FM says "Nope this maneouver is too wild for you to handle and dampens it down" but when I do it in CloD Blitz I don't notice any dampens it down effects. I talk about doing violent maneouver................

[9./JG52Gruber]

Just bumped into this passage in History of the Mediterranean Air War Volume 1.

 

Quote

“My dreams had materialised and I had one exactly where I wanted it. At high speed, in range, fire. I pressed the trigger and my guns barked in response. By almost a sixth sense my German friend saw me at the last moment, and pulled his stick back making my fire pass below him. He then proceeded to pump-handle his joystick rapidly backwards and forwards, as if following the track of the switchback rail at Luna Park, and I didn’t have a hope in hell of hitting him in my first attack. I overshot, pulled around, washing a lot of speed off, and got in an attack from the port rear quarter, which I believe hit him, but did not stop him. I fired again and again, but although he looked a bit sick in the end, he was nevertheless still flying and gradually pulled out of range. I had lost what should have been a certain kill. The Hun beat me by fast thinking and a trick which was too good for me. Full credit to him. I noted this trick and added it to my limited repertoire, and it was later to prove useful in getting out of a similar jam.”

 

[kendo]

What a dirty 'arcade' style trick to pull!

 

That German pilot obviously belongs in War Thunder.

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by kendo

[Aleksander55]

I think you guys are suffering from 'beingtoogooditis'.

 

I started practicing this sim 2 years ago after a long hiatus on flight sims. I started with my beloved I-16, and I swear to you I felt all these effects of gyro forces, prop wash, etc.

 

At least I think it was probably these forces you guys are talking about here. In layman terms: I was all over the place, the airframe felt completely wobbly, loose, out of control, going and pointing places where I didn't expect it to go and point.

 

I also frequently spun myself to my own death, but that has more to do with simply turning too tight than these gyro forces, I think.

 

One place where I'm sure I felt these effects in a very pronounced manner was in takeoff and landing practice. Believe me I panicked when the slightest throtle adjustment made the nose point this way and the other or the airframe to roll in ways I wasn't expecting so close to the ground. My thrustmaster T16000's twist rudder failed time and again, finally the rudder stopped working completely no matter how much I cleaned the pot, so I couldn't even take off for a long time.

 

 

Believe me. I felt everything you guys are talking about here *very* pronouncedly.

 

Though I didn't fly flight sims for some 20 years, I always kept one generic joystick to use in flight missions of games that had those, instead of using mouse and keyboard. I also had the original IL-2 instaled intermitently, flying the quick missions from time to time. So, I never forgot the basics of flight and practiced sometimes.

 

And even with this 'practice' I was all over the place in the beggining. I wish I had kept the earlier tracks of my first several dozen dogfight quick missions. My control and aim was so bad it took everything I had to lightly damage a single 109E7 and pray it was enough to make it retreat. I had planned to keep the tracks to compare my dogfight skill evolution, but I started recording the AI flaws I started discovering and forgot all about that. I was thinking about those tracks the other day and I really lament I didn't keep them for comparison.

 

Nowadays I fly the I-16 like it's on rails. I don't 'feel' any of those forces I used to feel in the beggining. Where before landings were a very careful and disciplined effort, nowadays I just plop the thing down coming from any angle without ever touching the rudder. My control and aim for deflection and long distance are still bad, but it's now good enough that I practice with 100% fuel against multiple 109K4s with 30% and make short work of them in a couple of minutes.

 

The exception, and I think even more proof of what I'm talking about: I discovered I could use an old generic driving wheel pedals for rudders, but since I didn't practice for so long, take offs are still a challenge. Even today, when I choose to start a mission with a take off, I still do it with the grace and skill of a drunk albatross.

 

Apart from that, I got used to the way the airframe behaves with throttle and stick input, and where before it made me panic and think I needed to correct this way and that, nowadays I just already instinctively know what to expect, correct naturally without concious thought and/or just ride with it to my advantadge. When I changed planes to practice I felt all that wobbliness all over again, but with more and more practice even with newer planes with inverted prop rotation I already know what to expect and adapt quicker.

 

It's probably what you guys are (not) feeling, and you folks have much more experience and practice than I do. I've seen other people make this same argument in other threads when this complaint about lack of engine/prop realism came about, I think my case is a very good example of what they were talking about.

[Crocogator]

I don't mind discussion developing naturally, but I think it is worth regurgitating the shocking negative G evasive maneuvers that some airframes (tempests) can pull in BoX. There's guns defense, which I think works quite well and is fair play, and there's full stick forward at 500 kph. A few seconds of 5+ negative G's would be pretty uncomfortable and even if the airframe can do it (one debate) I don't think the pilot will feel very well afterwards (debate 2.)

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

12 hours ago, Crocogator said:

I don't mind discussion developing naturally, but I think it is worth regurgitating the shocking negative G evasive maneuvers that some airframes (tempests) can pull in BoX. There's guns defense, which I think works quite well and is fair play, and there's full stick forward at 500 kph. A few seconds of 5+ negative G's would be pretty uncomfortable and even if the airframe can do it (one debate) I don't think the pilot will feel very well afterwards (debate 2.)

Tempest AND FW 190 are the worst offenders of this IMO.

[JG27*PapaFly]

6 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Tempest AND FW 190 are the worst offenders of this IMO.

Tempest and Spit in my book. 

FW 190 not so much. The 190 series has very limited negative pitch authority. One can hardly push -4 g. I've had -8 g on the clock in the Spitfire without having to adjust trim.

[Dragon1-1]

That sort of thing should, IMO, kill the pilot by rupturing blood vessels in his brain. Humans are notoriously sensitive to negative G, -2 is usually considered the reasonable limit IIRC, -4 is the most that the F-16 will allow you to push, but that's with a reclined seat and a modern G suit. Although, most anti-G techniques don't work for negative Gs, anyway. I imagine limiting the blood flow to the head (also known as choking the pilot) with increasing negative G would increase tolerance, but I doubt you'd find many pilots who'd be eager to try that. Either way, physiological constrains should be way more severe in that area.

 

Also, due to this, aircraft are not designed to take a lot of negative G. Even in modern fighters you can easily break things like bomb racks and such, just by inverting the direction of force on them. Things should break under such conditions, not just the pilot.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

15 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Tempest and Spit in my book. 

FW 190 not so much. The 190 series has very limited negative pitch authority. One can hardly push -4 g. I've had -8 g on the clock in the Spitfire without having to adjust trim.

They don't call it the Luftwobble for no reason ?...maybe it can't pull as many negative Gs simultaneously, but it is the worst offender at wobbling all around and still maintaining control without crashing, even with half a rudder and other significant damage.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Better take another look at the G charts they posted, there's a whopping difference in G tolerance between instantaneous vs sustained.  Blood takes time to flow, why they have a G vs time chart, its a physics thing.  Why long term exposure is really an individual thing, some bodies can take it some not so much, but it's pretty much universal everybody in healthy condition can handle brief exposure to intense high G. 

[Dragon1-1]

I don't see any charts posted in this thread, but either way, short term exposure tends to be on order of milliseconds, as in a crash, not the kind of time you need to make a meaningful change in an aircraft's direction. 

[JG27*PapaFly]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't see any charts posted in this thread, but either way, short term exposure tends to be on order of milliseconds, as in a crash, not the kind of time you need to make a meaningful change in an aircraft's direction. 

There's a short term tolerance effect of several seconds, during which one can apply very high g loads without loss of stamina. That enables Spitfires and Tempests to execute what I call a monkey reversal (these are monkey planes in my book). In short: a blue pilot executes a defensive head-on no-guns merge, passing really close to the incoming monkey plane, followed by a level or unloaded extension. So far,  everything is by the book. Now the money plane merges inverted, and executes an 11 g split S reversal, ending up in guns range behind the blue defender. ?

[[CPT]Crunch]

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/488/dev-blog-228/

 

That chart, the one 'they' posted.

[Denum]

I love when people wobble. 

 

I'm going to do my own move. Get above them and give them the sauce. My record was 150 rounds into the plane. I'm trying to beat that. The P47 is great for this. 

 

until they go click

 

 

 

[=621=Samikatz]

So what does everyone think would be a good solution? There's a nausea effect in sim already if you do aggressive back and forth Gs but it takes a while to kick in. Maybe bring that in sooner as a way to visualise the intense discomfort?

[ZachariasX]

15 hours ago, Denum said:

 

 

 

That dude is firing from the center axle of the minigun insead from the respective barrel! Totally ruins the immersion.

Edited March 9, 2023 by ZachariasX

[Crocogator]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:34 AM, [CPT]Crunch said:

Better take another look at the G charts they posted, there's a whopping difference in G tolerance between instantaneous vs sustained.  Blood takes time to flow, why they have a G vs time chart, its a physics thing.  Why long term exposure is really an individual thing, some bodies can take it some not so much, but it's pretty much universal everybody in healthy condition can handle brief exposure to intense high G. 

Nobody denies this, of course.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

23 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

There's a short term tolerance effect of several seconds, during which one can apply very high g loads without loss of stamina. That enables Spitfires and Tempests to execute what I call a monkey reversal (these are monkey planes in my book). In short: a blue pilot executes a defensive head-on no-guns merge, passing really close to the incoming monkey plane, followed by a level or unloaded extension. So far,  everything is by the book. Now the money plane merges inverted, and executes an 11 g split S reversal, ending up in guns range behind the blue defender. ?

Would like to see that monkey move in video, track format to load into tacview.