Oleg: How complex are your flight models going to be in BoB?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Hello Oleg

Here are some excerpts from an account of a pilot's flight in a 109G. (I realize you are not modelling a 109G in BoB, I include this account just as an example, not to focus on a 109) The excerpts are part of a technical evaluation from the perspective of an experienced warbird pilot.

The pilot makes mention of a number of issues which a real pilot would have to consider, and which affect the aircraft's flight tendencies, for example, how low speed aileron response to the left or right is affected by engine torque, how lack of trim could affect maneuvers such as wingovers, the complexities of aircraft which do not have constant speed propellors, and which are set in manual pitch, etc, etc.

I am wondering how much detail you will be simulating in BoB? How complex will the advanced flight model be? Which of the very detailed characteristics noted in the account below be taken into account and modelled in the game with the various aircraft types? (not just the 109)

Here are the excerpts. They are from a from Warbirds Worldwide article by Dave Southwood:

>>>

The Bf109G has conventional elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Pitch trim is achieved by a variable incidence tail plane, and there is a ground adjustable fixed tab on the rudder and on the aileron for yaw and roll trim. The wing trailing edge incorporates manually operated simple flaps and radiator cooling is controlled by split flaps on the trailing edge which droop with the main flaps to increase flapped area. The outboard half of each wing leading edge incorporates an independent automatic slat, which extends at low speed or in hard manoeuvres. The main undercarriage legs retract outwards and when fully lowered the mainwheels feature a marked toe-in, i.e. the wheels are closer together at the front than at the rear. I believe that this unusual characteristic is caused by the problems of fitting the wheel well and undercarriage leg pintle into the wing due to the position of the main spar. The tailwheel is lockable from the cockpit. The engine is a Daimler-Benz DB605, driving a VDM variable pitch propeller which rotates clockwise when viewed from behind.

On approaching the aircraft it looks sleek, compact, and quite small compared to other World War II fighters. These characteristics are emphasised by the cockpit, which is small, cramped, and neither the seat nor rudder pedals are adjustable. Once the canopy is closed, there is very little headroom either. I am 6feet 3 inches tall, and to the question "How do I fit in it?" all I will say is that 'where there is a will there is a way!' However, the cockpit of this particular airframe is almost totally original, the only significant difference being that the gunsight has been removed and a Becker VHF radio and standby magnetic compass fitted in its place. This degree of originality adds much to the feel and character of this airframe and sets it apart from many rebuilt warbirds that have modernised cockpits, a practice that I dislike greatly. It must be added that this original cockpit has all of the labelling in German, airspeed in kilometres per hour (kph) and altitude in Kilometres. Manifold air pressure is in atmospheres (ata), 1 atmosphere being 30 inches of mercury.

Starting the engine requires one or two willing helpers standing on the starboard wing root to wind up the inertia starter with a crank-handle. The engine is then primed with about 10 strokes of a Ki-gas type pump, the fuel pump switched on and the starter handle pulled which engages a clutch connecting the inertia starter to the engine; hopefully the engine starts! There are two points about this starting procedure. Firstly, you cannot overprime the engine. Secondly it is not feasible to take the aircraft away from Duxford without the groundcrew!

Taxying is achieved using differential braking via rudder pedal mounted toe brakes. The aircraft is reluctant to turn sharply and my technique is to apply full rudder in the required direction of turn to give me better leverage and to then stamp on the toe brake. This is aided by pushing the stick fully forward to unload the tailwheel, an action which is totally unnatural to someone used to the Spitfire! However, the '109 is tail heavy and the tail never lifts. It is during taxying that the very poor forward field of view is first realised. You can see virtually nothing within 30 or 40 degrees either side of the nose, definitely worse than anything that I have ever flown.

(continued in next post)

[*Buzzsaw*]

(continuing post)

Take off is made with 1 degree nose up tailplane trim, 20 degrees of flap lowered and always with the tailwheel locked. After lining up the throttle is smoothly opened to 1.1 ata, controlling the moderate left swing with rudder. Once the take-off power is set and the aircraft is directionally under control, the tail is gently raised just clear of the ground. The aircraft lifts off at around 150 kph with slight back pressure on the stick. This may sound simple, but is one of the most difficult tasks in flying the '109. If any swing is allowed to develop the toe-in on the outside wheel turns the aircraft even more i.e. it is directionally unstable. It will then roll about the outside wheel, leading to the classic ground loop. This problem is accentuated because the forward field of view is so poor that it is difficult to detect any swing starting. The only saving grace is that the lockable tailwheel gives some directional stability, and so it is kept on the ground for as long as possible. The gyroscopic effect of the propeller and loss of directional stability from the tailwheel once the tail is raised is marked, hence the tail is raised very gently and only slightly.

Once airborne, engine handling is markedly different from similar British and American engines, due to the lack of a constant speed unit on the propeller. The operating philosophy is that the engine has a running line of optimum rpm for a given manifold pressure; 2000 rpm at 1.0 ata, 2300 rpm at 1.15 ata (max. continuous) and 2600 rpm at 1.3 ata (30 minute limit). These rpm are also the minimum for the manifold pressure without overboosting the engine. The pilot sets the manifold pressure with the throttle, and engine rpm is controlled either automatically (when it is governed to the running line) or manually. Manual control is by a rocker switch on the throttle and this varies the propeller blade pitch. Once set, the propeller runs with fixed pitch, RPM increasing with increasing airspeed and vice versa. Cockpit of blade pitch is on a clock. For example, 12:00 is set for take-off and 11:45 for landing. Initially, we always flew the aircraft with manual RPM control, until we were happy with the automatic control functioning. In a display, 1.15 ata is set and RPM controlled manually to 2400-2500 to prevent overboosting. This requires a setting of around 11:05 at high speeds such as for loop entries, and an increase to around 11:20 over the top of a loop. This results in a lot of head-in-cockpit time and propeller adjustment during a display, greatly increasing the workload.

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.

There are two problem areas in yaw control with the '109. Firstly, directional stability is low and marked slip ball excursions occur with any changes of speed or power. Also, there is moderate adverse aileron yaw (right yaw when left aileron is applied, and vice versa). The rudder force to centralise the slip ball is low, but constant rudder inputs are required during manoeuvres to minimise sideslip. If the slip ball is not kept central, the lateral force on the pilot is not uncomfortable and no handling problems occur, but it looks very untidy in a display. At the top of a left wing-over, you are very cross-controlled, with left aileron and lots of right rudder applied. This lack of directional stability makes it hard work to fly the aircraft accurately and neatly, although there are no safety problems. However, it must have made accurate tracking for a guns 'kill' very difficult. I suspect that many '109 kills were made at very close range! It also says a great deal about the shooting skills of the Luftwaffe Aces. The second problem is the lack of a cockpit adjustable rudder trimmer. The fixed tab is set so that the rudder is in trim during the cruise, reducing footloads during long transits. However, for all other airspeed and power combinations, a rudder force must be applied. This is an annoying feature, and I am surprised that a rudder trim tab was never fitted to later models such as the Gustav.

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft. A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit.

<<<<

I realize that when simulating an aircraft, it is obviously not possible to have all characteristics replicated that a real aircraft might display. My question is not intended as a criticism, or a demand, I am just wondering how complex you intend to be.

Thanks for all your hard work on IL-2 and Battle of Britain. We are all looking forward to your next publication. :)

[Avimimus]

Interesting read. My impression was that Oleg will use essentially the same AFM technology seen in version 4.04+. He is going to increase the fidelity of it (more components, slightly more cycles per second) but I believe the basic system is already in place. It will be interesting to see what he says, though.

[Billfish]

Interesting read. My impression was that Oleg will use essentially the same AFM technology seen in version 4.04+. He is going to increase the fidelity of it (more components, slightly more cycles per second) but I believe the basic system is already in place. It will be interesting to see what he says, though.

(going from memory and 2 years ago sooooooo)
Though Oleg has commented somewhat as to some of the newer features and hopefully will more, the flight engine for BoB or a test version of it was released (I believe among the 3.? patches) and applied to the sim....So to a great degree what you're saying is very true....What you may not remember is that so many people complained about the need to constantly trim, outrageous torque and so on that they toned it WAY back down......and if I recall correctly he stated then that what they had tried was much less then actual.

Meaning, that what it really took to fly one of these was so difficult even before the toning down it had been as they knew they would need a balance between reality and playability (naturally few thought to adjust their difficulty settings if they wanted it easier).....

I myself would like to see it to as close to real as possible.....Yet I also don't mind a 3 hour mission where maybe only 3 minutes of that are combat.........It's the realism or best approximation of it we can get that I enjoy, not whack-em and stack-em arcade play.

[JG4_Helofly]

Oleg said the FM will not change very much from what we have now.
IMO it's too easy. It's even possible to take off a bf109 without locking the tailweel, giving instantly full power and pull the stick back to lift off at minimum speed.

Maybe it would be too hard for avarage player to handle if the plane would be as nasty as in RL.

[robtek]

i, for myself would like to have the option to switch to full real.

robtek

[JG52Uther]

I too would like it be as realistic as possible. If it was a pig to fly in real life,then it should be a pig in SoW.

[SlipBall]

I'm in also....I hope that each aircraft's peculiarities are as close as possible, to the way they are in rl.....differential braking, I'm betting will be there in SOW

[Chivas]

Hopefully it will be an Option so that both the novice and realist will be happy. I'm sure at this point in the developement Oleg is up to his ass in aligators, so who knows how it will all pan out.

[JG4_Helofly]

The problem is that it's nearly not possible to play online with simplified FM. Keep in mind that 99,9% of all online servers have RL FM on, so arcade player will not play a very long time if they don't even get off the runway. Only the hardcore sim player would buy a very complex and hard simulation.
1C must sell as much copies as possible and there are not so much hardcore player willing to buy a real sim, so the FM might take a hit because of this. But that's just speculation. I don't know what Olegs objectives are. Doing a FM which is as realistic as possible or tuning the FM a bit down to allow arcade player to have fun too? I don't know.

[SlipBall]

I think the fact that a SU-26 will be included with Bob, is a indication of a very confident Oleg Maddox, in regards to fm of that aircraft....who knows about the spits, 109's, etc. time will tell I quess

[GOZR]

I hope they will not use the SU as base model or we will have heavy SU FM style in all.. ;) same as IL2 style of all planes, The act some how all the same.

lets see what it will be..

I'm very glad that they do include a plane like the SU .. many acrobatics pilots will be happy...if it's well done.

[Avimimus]

What you may not remember is that so many people complained about the need to constantly trim, outrageous torque and so on that they toned it WAY back down......and if I recall correctly he stated then that what they had tried was much less then actual.
....It's the realism or best approximation of it we can get that I enjoy, not whack-em and stack-em arcade play.

You can have some peace then. The idea that Oleg detuned the FM is just a superstitious belief. His statements I believe are best interpreted as a defense of the torque, saying in effect that if anything it was undermodeled instead of overmodeled. The rest is placebo effect. Oleg will aim for realistic torque in Bob.

[JG27_brook]

how can this be if ya can not pull heavy G,s above 350kph in diving turns in IL2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlfOWZHEGNk

[MOH_Hirth]

FM must be a eternal beta, with revision everytime find a new detail to improve, we cant stay waiting 6 months for fixes, FM is the "heart" of realism.
I believe in future FM softwares will help to do new SOW FMs, based in technical details, than personal vision from another planes pilots.

[mazex]

Great read about the 109!

I once flew with an old 109 pilot that had gotten to old to fly (the doctors complained about his heart so his license was revoked) - so I flew with him in his own plane "for the record" (a Grob). He flew in the air - but he left the landings to me... He said that he was getting to old for it and anyway he still had bad memories landing since his early days as a pilot with the 109:s during the war.

He told me that he was trained late in the war with a lot of other 18 year old "kids". They never got hold of flying the 109 and where scared all the time - most about the landings! Half of his squadron where killed starting or landing and when I asked him if he shot down any allied plane he just laughed... No way he said, I fired at some but I don't think any bullets where near their intended targets.

[BadAim]

I bet his story is probably the more common one. From what I've read the vast majority of kills were made by aces, and most of the rest by guys who got two or three (probably clearing the aces tails, I bet). Most got nothing, I suspect they were much too busy not dying to be able to concentrate on getting hits.

I'm also with the full real team, I don't care if it takes me weeks to re-learn how to fly my 109 if the flight model is accurate. I'm of a mind, though that perhaps some kind of sliding scale method of toning down the flight model might be better for those who are less keen on dying over and over again, than the typical "turn off engine torque" type on-off switch you see all the time in games.

While I'm sure that there will be plenty of whining, I'll bet that Oleg blows us away.

[jameson]

I also hope we get the most accurate flight model possible, perhaps the game should an "experten" button which only works if you have passed flight school and which then would give full manual control and workload for your ride. It would be a bit elite online though!

[Erkki]

I hope the multiplayer system will remain the same - I would hate to "lead the ping" and not be able to determine if I hit or not, before I'd see damage... Let alone lagging in the way its seen in most other games, where the server "brings the game back" to the pont when everyone was still in.

[AA_Absolute]

I remember (4.04b i think) "test" version for future FM, with lots of inertial moves, very hard to aim,and not easy take off and landing (for all planes i try), IMO the closest FM to RL as i "feel" in my low experience in real planes.

I like real FM as pc could simulate, like "experten" FM... if people dont like it, easy, down difficulty tab one step.

I think Oleg and team know very well this questions, and make the best possible solution.

PD. Sorry for uglish

[JG27_brook]

The 109 conventional elevators, were well over the top in il2 starting at 450kph, with 600kph been more close to reat life

[Romanator21]

If anyone complained about the FM in 4.0+ it was because he was too used to the earlier FMs. I started Il-2 with FB and AEP, and it really doesn't capture the feeling of flight like our current system.

Regarding SOW, Luthier has mentioned that he had to re-learn everything when flying the Spit, and that gunnery was especially difficult. Sounds promising.

And lastly, regarding the 109 handling: The author mentions that the Bf-109 E could roll when slats were deployed. I think this had to do with one coming out before the other. If we consider that these are designed to increase air flow over the wing, and therefore increase lift, at low speeds and high angles of attack, then this is not surprising. I would really like to see this and other details like it modeled, based on difficulty settings. For example, Soviet crates which have varying weight from plane to plane, optional radio or even canopy, and reliability issues such as de-laminating wing panels (sometimes out of player control for a campaign). That should put La-noobs in their place :cool:

(only joking of course, by the time La-7s were around most manufacturing problems were resolved :-P ).

Another thing to touch upon is power settings. Really, you can not run at full power for more than a few minutes, or you will damage the engine, or at least dramatically shorten its service life. In Il-2, you can cruise around all day at 100%, but I think this is already being addressed in SOW given what has already been shown to us.

[WTE_Galway]

Regarding SOW, Luthier has mentioned that he had to re-learn everything when flying the Spit, and that gunnery was especially difficult. Sounds promising.


Aside from the obvious FM improvements the Mk I Spit was apparently a far different bird to the later models we are used to in IL2 and much closer to the original air racing roots of the marque.

Bit like comparing a euro sports car to an American muscle car.

[Blackdog_kt]

Another thing to touch upon is power settings. Really, you can not run at full power for more than a few minutes, or you will damage the engine, or at least dramatically shorten its service life. In Il-2, you can cruise around all day at 100%, but I think this is already being addressed in SOW given what has already been shown to us.

That has been a pet peeve of mine for the past 2-3 years, which is when i first came into contact with civilian sims. When there's no combat, they have to add other stuff to keep the virtual pilot occupied and i was pleasantly surprised to find there's a ton of things to keep you busy.

The good thing is, for a WWII combat sim it's not that complicated so it won't really detract much from combat, while adding something to do during the transit to and from the target. Since there's no complex avionics, IFR flying or air traffic control in WWII combat, all one has to do is take care of their engine a bit.
It will only force us all to take a quick glance at two gauges (yes, just two, manifold pressure/ata/boost and RPM) while advancing the throttle, so that we don't go over the redline. Essentially, everyone will be flying at up to 20% less power depending on altitude (numbers are arbitrary, some crates have a bigger "gap" between max continuous power and full out war emergency that others), but since it will apply to everyone the relative strengths and weaknesses between aircraft types will remain the same.

What will change how the various types stack up against each other is the workload. The pilots of better performing planes will be forced to work for that performance boost. For example, an early 109E with a manual prop pitch system will be a handful to fly (it didn't have a constant speed prop, so it needed constant monitoring) compared to an early Hurricane that has the wooden fixed pitch prop, an early Spit with the two-stage propeller or the more mainstream Hurris/Spits with constant speed props. In a similar fashion, as the timeline of WWII advances with expansions, nobody will dethrone rides like the pony and the jug from their seat as supreme high altitude performers...what will change is that the pilot flying them will have to work with 3-4 different engine controls to get that performance, while the German rides are all automatic by that point.

I think it will be interesting to learn new skills and use these individual quirks in order to score kills, it makes for a more diverse array of tactical considerations and a couple extra stuff to think of before charging head-long into the fight. As an example, it might become impossible to simply chop the throttle and dive straight down from 10km on someone who's flying at 2km...either you set throttle to idle and damage your engine from rapid cooling during the dive, or you keep the throttle up and overspeed the airframe. After a while, clever pilots with some experience will learn that they can balance the situation by giving a bit of throttle and closing their cowl flaps/radiators and intercoolers to prevent both overspeed and rapid cooling.

Of course, as altitude changes so does engine power output (having the throttle more than half-way forward at sea level exceeds the operating limits in some of these warbirds, having it at full at high altitudes might not even generate full power though) and heat build-up and dissipation, not to mention that we'll be getting dynamic weather to further complicate things (eg, diving through a frozen cloud or a cold air mass). This is where experience will start to show. The guy who sticks with one ride will soon learn to set up everything before the dive, in a way that the parameters may be on the knife's edge during the descent but give optimal values when the target altitude is reached where the shooting takes place (ie "i don't have time to fiddle with this now, lucky for me i did it 10 seconds ago"), before setting everything up again for the climb back up.

It will be great fun learning where all the new "sweet-spots" for all these compromises are. :grin:

[Romanator21]

Aside from the obvious FM improvements the Mk I Spit was apparently a far different bird to the later models we are used to in IL2 and much closer to the original air racing roots of the marque.

As far as I know, the difference between the Mk.I and Mk.V is practically only the engine, and possibly fabric covered control surfaces (which would reduce maneuverability at high speed, but wouldn't really complicate gunnery).

EDIT:

SOW and Il-2 have the Hurricane Mk.I in common, so maybe the differences in FM should be really apparent there.

[WTE_Galway]

As far as I know, the difference between the Mk.I and Mk.V is practically only the engine, and possibly fabric covered control surfaces (which would reduce maneuverability at high speed, but wouldn't really complicate gunnery).

EDIT:

SOW and Il-2 have the Hurricane Mk.I in common, so maybe the differences in FM should be really apparent there.

- pilot armor
- exchanging four machineguns for two 20mm cannon
- increase in the ammo capacity of the remaining machineguns
- new engine
- different prop
- spring tabs were added to the ailerons

The result was an overall increased weight and a possible change of CG.

The spring tabs were added to the ailerons to obtain an increase in the high speed roll rate with a resultant change in the feel of the aileron response.

Though to be honest I really have no idea how much difference those changes would have made. I am only going on anecdotal pilot reports that claimed the Mk I was more responsive and "lively" to fly.

[Romanator21]

Actually, There are multiple armaments installed on a Mk.I and Mk.V

In Il-2 we have a Mk.Vb with 2 Hispano cannons and 4 machine guns. Letters a,b, and c denote wing types. So, a Mk.Va would have 8 machine guns just like a Mk.I, and a Mk.Vc would have 4 Hispano cannons. I believe letters d and e refer to no armament (for recon), and "universal" type, respectively. That's why our Mk.IXe has .303 or .50 cals in the wings, and has 2 Hispanos with 2 empty nubs (which can accept 2 more Hispanos if the machine guns are removed).

Some Spitfire Mk.I did have 2 Hispanos like our Mk.Vb, but these had teething problems with reliability.

Details aside, even with all the changes you mentioned, I doubt Luthier would have to "relearn" how to fly. But I'll reserve judgement until we can make a direct comparison to the Hurricane, or Stuka in each game.

[K_Freddie]

That has been a pet peeve of mine for the past
It will be great fun learning where all the new "sweet-spots" for all these compromises are. :grin:
Hopefuly all modelled, but yes... really cool :grin:

[The Sheepherder]

Ha, I'm won't mind the FMs in SOW since I fly at arcade level with a keyboard! :P

[Splitter]

That has been a pet peeve of mine for the past 2-3 years, which is when i first came into contact with civilian sims. When there's no combat, they have to add other stuff to keep the virtual pilot occupied and i was pleasantly surprised to find there's a ton of things to keep you busy.

The good thing is, for a WWII combat sim it's not that complicated so it won't really detract much from combat, while adding something to do during the transit to and from the target. Since there's no complex avionics, IFR flying or air traffic control in WWII combat, all one has to do is take care of their engine a bit.
It will only force us all to take a quick glance at two gauges (yes, just two, manifold pressure/ata/boost and RPM) while advancing the throttle, so that we don't go over the redline. Essentially, everyone will be flying at up to 20% less power depending on altitude (numbers are arbitrary, some crates have a bigger "gap" between max continuous power and full out war emergency that others), but since it will apply to everyone the relative strengths and weaknesses between aircraft types will remain the same.

What will change how the various types stack up against each other is the workload. The pilots of better performing planes will be forced to work for that performance boost. For example, an early 109E with a manual prop pitch system will be a handful to fly (it didn't have a constant speed prop, so it needed constant monitoring) compared to an early Hurricane that has the wooden fixed pitch prop, an early Spit with the two-stage propeller or the more mainstream Hurris/Spits with constant speed props. In a similar fashion, as the timeline of WWII advances with expansions, nobody will dethrone rides like the pony and the jug from their seat as supreme high altitude performers...what will change is that the pilot flying them will have to work with 3-4 different engine controls to get that performance, while the German rides are all automatic by that point.

I think it will be interesting to learn new skills and use these individual quirks in order to score kills, it makes for a more diverse array of tactical considerations and a couple extra stuff to think of before charging head-long into the fight. As an example, it might become impossible to simply chop the throttle and dive straight down from 10km on someone who's flying at 2km...either you set throttle to idle and damage your engine from rapid cooling during the dive, or you keep the throttle up and overspeed the airframe. After a while, clever pilots with some experience will learn that they can balance the situation by giving a bit of throttle and closing their cowl flaps/radiators and intercoolers to prevent both overspeed and rapid cooling.

Of course, as altitude changes so does engine power output (having the throttle more than half-way forward at sea level exceeds the operating limits in some of these warbirds, having it at full at high altitudes might not even generate full power though) and heat build-up and dissipation, not to mention that we'll be getting dynamic weather to further complicate things (eg, diving through a frozen cloud or a cold air mass). This is where experience will start to show. The guy who sticks with one ride will soon learn to set up everything before the dive, in a way that the parameters may be on the knife's edge during the descent but give optimal values when the target altitude is reached where the shooting takes place (ie "i don't have time to fiddle with this now, lucky for me i did it 10 seconds ago"), before setting everything up again for the climb back up.

It will be great fun learning where all the new "sweet-spots" for all these compromises are. :grin:

Your description of the potential of this sim made me drool lol. I do wonder how many of us are looking for exactly what you described. Will we be a severe minority in the SoW world?

Splitter

[robtek]

Well, that potential will separate the men from the boys in the online world, won't it?

[Blackdog_kt]

I think a lot of people will want to use the new engine management model. I know i'll use it even if i can't do it well. In fact i expect that i will do terrible with it initially, but i'll stick with it. You see, the other guys flying on the server will have the same problems and if people are fiddling with their radiators you got all the more of a chance to bounce them ;)

In that sense, it won't be so much about separating the ones who've "got it" from the ones who don't, but about seeing who's willing to learn a few more things and get shot down in fabulous, new and interesting ways :grin:

[robtek]

Isn't that the difference?
a) i want it all, right now or else
b) lets figure it out how to be good
kiddies and adults