I agree with this, but it comes back to perception/opinion. Maybe I feel the 109 "feels faster" and you have the opposite impression.

Is that even possible to quantify, let alone model?

My gut says no, because it's probably not an actual difference in the aircraft, just a perceived difference.

No two machines of any type are exactly the same, especially when they're of a more complex construction like a vehicle is, and especially after they've been subject to wear an tear.

Machines are built to operate within varying internal tolerances, and so while two vehicles may be superficially identical, there can be enough differences in all their variables to give each one a unique character or feel if one becomes familiar enough with them. Lubrication, hydraulics, different construction materials, different levels of wear and maintenance, and faults that aren't worth ironing out, can all vary and line up in such a way as to become noticeable in subtle or even obvious ways.

Simulations may never get down to that level of complexity and may always have to provide a single generalized representation of a machine, but who knows, one day all the variables might be able to be generated and result in genuinely individual virtual vehicles.

I think though that such a level of complexity is only part of what would add up to a more accurate 'feel' when flying in a game or sim, with most of it being dependent upon an equally accurate depiction of the physical interaction of the plane with the atmosphere around it.

That space the plane's fly around in isn't empty. It's a constantly changing set of influences that are mind-bogglingly complex and variable, and while a lot of them can be depicted, visually and even via force-feedback, I'm not sure how complex the depiction of the weather and atmosphere would have to be before it allowed one to get a real sense or feel of actual flight. Some would say it's already been done in some ways, and some would say it will never be possible without using a hardware system that somehow allows you to experience the changes in g-force and air pressure that can occur in flight.

With computer simulations we're very dependent upon audio and visual cues/clues, and somewhat dependent upon force-feedback effects to give us an idea of what the plane is doing and being subjected to from outside, and so, as complex as that can ever be, it's always going to be somewhat limited in what it can convey. But I'm of the opinion that even without the added sensory input that you can get in real-life, there's still scope for a more realistic and complex simulation of the machines and their environments than what we've experienced so far.

The sensation of flight is something that results from such a complex arrangement of factors that there are bound to be lots of new breakthroughs, all giving a more accurate experience than the last, as the simulation technology itself becomes more complex and able to recreate things in finer detail.

The sights, the sounds, the control inputs, the machine and environment systems, all need to keep developing and improving in unison, as indeed they have been over the years. But people need to keep supporting the flight-sim genre of games and simulations to keep those developments and improvements happening. I think for as long as people are using computers there will always be someone somewhere using them to simulate flight. I think it's as irrepressible an urge as the desire people have to fly for real, but if the rest of us want to enjoy the results of those works of passion, we need to make sure we give ourselves that opportunity by supporting those we know of who are currently pushing the technology further towards that goal of a more complete and accurate flight-sim experience, wherever they may be.

I saw this video my brother had shown me for Gran Turismo 5, they had this rig set up that plugged into a car's electronics and got data from its driving on the track. Then the programmers would pull the usb flash stick and upload the data into a computer that compiled the data.

My brother has driven the new BRZ / GT86 (FT86) test production car, and he also has GT 5 on a PS3 and he says the handling, acceleration, etc is similar. He is really excited about this new car and is amazed how GT 5 gets the GT86's characteristics down (rear wheel drive, drift / skid factor, braking / handling, sound, etc).

The only thing missing is the G and feeling of momentum and motion, wheel tension, pedal pressure etc the real thing has.


The technology to record the actual flight data / getting experience pilots to work with is available, as there are some examples of the warbirds. For planes that don't have flyable model, and there isn't a pilot that flew in them when they were available . . . they'd just have to get a working one as close and go from the records / pilot records of how it responded.

But the thing is GT 5 had a Modern Warfare esque budget, and 1C doesn't have that . . .

Then you have to have the fun factor / time, and that cuts out the realism.
Where as in real, missions can take a long time / black widow planes will have quirks that will crash newb and intermediate pilots . . . even experienced fliers unaware of the ship he is flying . . . guns will jam.

So you could have sudden things uber realistic but it just robs the fun factor and people don't play. Now I know the hardcore guys and gals will say "No make it as realistic." but there even then they will find certain aspects modeled realistically won't work in the game.

So there is a balance between realism and fun.

But IL-2 is the sim that gets close. And the devs show they are willing to work to get it as close as possible.

It wouldn't do any good to have someone with experience post their observations. There would be someone shouting them down because they're old and can't remember or the aircraft they're flying now is less weight that it was when used in combat, etc.

Nothing personal Doggles, but I suspect you have never driven on a race track (road course). Two vehicles of similar performance can behave very differently and one can indeed be easy to extract it's performance from while the other is a workout to drive.

In a sim there is none of this.

They are all easy. And if they are not (rare) then players tweak thier joysticks or put trim on a slider, or what have you, to make them easy.

No offense taken. You're somewhat correct, I've only been out on a track twice ever.

Similar performance, or identical performance? First of all that's different terminology than you were using before and secondly I'd agree that two similar vehicles can behave differently.

But two identical vehicles cannot behave differently. If they behaved differently then they are either not identical or are not receiving the same inputs.

I'm sure that driving sim players are tweaking their steering response curves too.

This would require the same input hardware too.
See? It's not going to happen.

For those that are convinced that two aircraft performing the same are behaving in the same manner, pls take a look at january issue of Air Force Monthly. There is an interview of an ex F-16 pilot flying now F-15C in Hawaï...

You'll change your mind in a single page of reading ;)

What we lack in CoD is inertia (mainly in rotation) and external perturbation of flows around our aircraft.

It's not just handling either. When flying a real aeroplane your senses are assaulted by noise, constantly changing g-forces, constantly changing visual stimuli over your whole visual field (as opposed to a screen in front of you), and so on. It's a far more intense experience compared with flying a PC sim, especially aerobatics. Even the weight of a helmet takes some getting used to. And the controls of anything from a light twin up can be physically far heavier than PC controls, requiring a bit of muscle to move.

Of course. But let's play it simple ;)