new flight models-realistic?
 

hey guys!
apart from more regular launcher crashes, i also experienced some other changes.
contacts seem to be spotted easier now, and maintaining visual on a tommy seems easier as well.thats a good thing.

and then there are the flight models.im a 109driver only, but read that this change seem to affect the other planes as well.
rudder input seems to be more sensitive and more important now.ailerons and elevator input feels more "sluggish" now, and the plane needs more time to react on given input.its harder to aim now and harder to recover from a stall.

now im no RL pilot(yet), so before i judge this change, i would like to hear the opinions from guys who know the real thing.is this a step into the right direction and more realistic now?

PS:this is not a question about historical performance of the differnent planes

i've never flown a 109 spitie but ive flown a chipmunk, who fles ocsniderably slower. i was amazed how sensitive the rudder was. pretty much what we have now in CLOD.

yet this was a 150mph plane at top speed. nothing like what a spitfire. so i would expect less sensitive rudders.

thx for the answer pupo...keep your answers coming RL pilots!

oh, and regarding slugish aileron and elevator. well, it feels a lot more like the chipmunk too. the way the nose bounces up and down as you aplie aileron without compensating with elevator is just what i experienced.

well, the difference is now i dont get an hand slap on the helmet from the instructor when i forget to level nose during rolls :grin:

:) nice

so your impression is, that after the patch its more close to your RL flying experience?

One of former Il-2 FM developers who left the team before release mentioned at sukhoi.ru that original iL-2 and CloD aircrafts were over-stabilized in the Yaw axis with all negative circumstances. That was an old known issue to him but hard to correct. Maybe the team is addressing this issue now. I hope more IRL pilots can comment. I spent only 20 hours in Yak-52 very long time ago and IL-2 FM seemed OK to me even back then.

I think it's a matter of how you set up your joystick sensitivity.

in RL piloting you tend to hold the stick with just two fingers really and be really docile on controls in general. The sensitivity and effectiveness of controls is peculiar to each plane, but I think the main mistake many do when using sims is forgetting that the input necessary to control your aircraft are minimal in most occasions.

in theory I should be able to give feedback on the Tiger Moth FM as I have a fair bit of experience on type,I do think the basic elements are accurate but the difference between the desktop experience and RL is massive for obvious reasons, yes the aircraft flies at accurate speeds for given power/attitudes and the basic systems and instruments are well represented.

Tiger Moth does not have self start (needs groundcrew to prop swing)

the engine sound is just not right.

the ground handling is not accurate, tigers are quite manouverable on the ground, I find in game it has the turning circle of a cruise liner which is accurate only if your tiger moth has found it's way onto a hard surface where the tail skid does not find traction in the ground

the ailerons are not modelled correctly, at full deflection the down going aileron should come back to the neutral position.

the side to side wallowing during taxi is slightly over done, the tiger wasn't so wobbly on the ground.

the instructor/student seating is the wrong way round, in military service even the ab-initio student would have taken the back seat from the start, some people who have had air experience flights in tigers get confused by this because in modern times the instructor/pilot sits in the back.

there are other elements of a sim that will never catch the true experience for obvious reasons.

all in all though as a real life pilot I find the 'feeling of flight' well represented in the sim, the flight dynamics as a whole are in tune with my expectations and the modelling of technology of the era feels quite good according to my own experience with vintage aircraft.

Interestingly I read the opposite for the 109 in that it required a lot of force (obviously at high speed) to fully deploy the ailerons! Is this true?

same here. And I agree with Bongo.

I think some Canadian late versions had a starter motor, but I'm not 100% sure. Whichever the case, the RAF only had manual prop swing.
yes, and I'm not too sure about the exhaust being accurate either, the ones I flew with had all a 4 in one exhaust.
I agree on this as well, but then again I only have experience with versions mounting a tailwheel as opposed to the tailskid.
Yep, one of the defining feature of the Tiggie.

I guess it depends on what grass you're taxing on, I had quite wobbly taxiing normally ;)

can't tell on this one, but I'll trust Bongo on it.
When flying solo though you seat on the back, so it makes sense to be trained on the position you'd fly solo in.
very very true: the chilling sensation of open cockpits above all! ;)

'its harder to aim now' :)

You're not kidding... I can't hit a bloody thing anymore! :mad::grin:

well yes, you have a big lever for a reason, because at high speed it is necessary to apply a lot of force on high-performance-no-servo planes. I was referring to normal flying, because I've seen a lot of people yanking their joysticks left and right like desperate, when all it needs is a light touch.

Suppose that's one of the many limits of being a desktop flier ;)

You could make a joystick that got heavier relative to in game speed and alt but it would be quite hard :(

well it was to my great surprise i found out COD + g940 does that.

its priceless.

it goes from deadstick on ground to you really ahve to make a hell of a force at 600 km/h.

I have piloted only twice, and thats my observation. The stick is handle with two relaxed finguers and very sensitive. Problem is joysticks are not so good with that small inputs.

Same goes to MS sidewinder ffb2. I would not fly anymore without ffb.

+1 agree,G940 doing great;)

That's very interesting, but I think I will stick with my modded centre stick warthog, it kicks ass :D

AGREED, but only regarding straight and level, nav turns and so on. High maneuverability flight and, of course combat (DF) flight, require much bigger inputs and therefore greater forces applied to the controls.

i dont have much experience with prop A/C. I have mainly flown A/C with hydraulic assisted or FBW controls, but I beleive forces needed in WWII A/C (specially at high speed) were even bigger that the ones required on modern jets.

what's this mod about, mate?

S!

I think he has removed the big spring inside the stick for better feel, quite an easy "mod" to do.

I tinkered for some time with the idea of making a long stick and proper rudder pedals, but never got around to do it. It dramatically affects stability, and you can be way more accurate with controls.

:twisted:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=29158&page=2

yep, as airspeed increases you need to apply stronger force, but it's mainly for pitch control, since roll is favoured by the gyroscopic effect of prop. I have done aerobatics with the Yak 52 and T-6, and you can appreciate the difference in input as you travel faster.

Things are inversely proportional with rudder control for instance: the faster you're going the less input you will need, but then again you might need slightly stronger pressure.

One thing that I haven't still met in sims is the tendency of high performance propeller aircraft to torque themselves out of low airspeed situations: when reaching the top of a loop, even on a T-6 or Yak you really need to keep the plane in position, otherwise the torque induced by the propeller would turn you upwards and out of the manoeuvre. This was particularly strong in the P-51, albeit I could only "feel" it as a passenger.

Hi, could you please post your settings? I have G940 and it is too hard through whole speed range or too light, but I can´t make it be limb at stall speed and full force at Vne.

Thanks

I'am not a pilot, but i used to fly with a friend so i'll talk from passenger/co-pilot stand point.
For me the infamous haze is actually pretty good, skies are most of the time very poor in video games, you often feel trapped in a box, moving the sky with the stick, while here you have this feeling of distance and openness - the "i wanna go there!" factor. this peculiar need to cover distances, when your above, which is all about aviation. (FSX had it but not many others).

Regarding the lightning/sun, first this is one of the best feature of cod (with DM, imo).
it adds a lot of immersion but it tends to be a bit to sharp, it could be the case when your flying above the clouds, high up in a perfect sky, but i'd like something more diffuse and less bright above the channel even if the sky seems to be blue.

The dynamical weather was one of the main clod's new features, since the game was axed
i'am still wondering how far it can go.

my 1c.