Are flying characteristics more realistic?

[JG27_PapaFly]

I'm curious about the finer nuances of the FMs. Do you see any improvement there?

Groundloop tendency on t/o and landing.

Spin entry + recovery.

Different types of spins: upright vs. inverted; flat; accelerated.

Is a 1g power off stall possible without spinning? Spin entry is pretty hard-coded in FB.

Are proper snaprolls possible? IL2FB lacks massively in this regard. I have some japanese WW2 era footage of a real KI43 doing incredibly snappy 1/2 and full snaprolls, followed by a very crisp recovery. The full snaproll takes one second from entry to exit, and the plane looses a maximum of 2m of alt! This is btw. the only warbird i ever saw doing a snaproll. By comparison, all planes in IL2 are too sluggish on entry and exit. Something's wrong with the modeling, as in IL2FB you really have to stall, whereas in reality it's enough to increase aoa to near-stall, and the sudden yaw will let the inside wing drop into a stall. So, in IL2FB you have to dig into it deeply, and that slows down entry and exit a lot.
By comparison, the KI43 in fighter ace looks spot on, just like in the original footage i saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22QJ8lmqV-Q

[Viper2000]

The subjective experience of flying is better; the models are not yet developed properly and exhibit questionable behaviour.

However, by the time the sim is as mature as IL2-1946 I expect that most of the problems will have been solved and the general performance will be excellent.

[DC338]

Would be nice to have the Su-26 to at least attempt to verify the FM engine. The FM does seem to be doing some weird stuff, but as viper says I think they will get there, the bones of the sim are there it just needs refining. except as long as there no big problems in the FM coding such as the FB engine using TAS instead of IAS for limiting pitch rates.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

It's a good approximation of real world flying however of course there are so many limitations with a computer. Personally I find real aircraft easier to fly on the whole, except for aerobatics, on a sim they are a doddle when your eyeballs are not filled with blood one moment and trying to escape your skull the next.

Landing is arguably easier than real life in some respects. Really gusty days with downdrafts is very hard to represent because you are not bouncing around a cockpit.

I gave up comparing a simulator to reality along time ago as really it is apples and pears.

[RAF74_Winger]

Well, my opinion is that CoD exhibits the same flaws as IL2, but to a lesser extent. The spin entries are still very odd - the aircraft still seem to enter that strange flat rotation where the nose of the aircraft will go through the horizon a couple of times before settling into a stable spin.

Trying to change the characteristics of the spin doesn't work, they won't flatten or accelerate. I suspect (though this is just a suspicion, not based on evidence) that the tailplane/rudder and adverse yaw effects are not modelled with sufficient accuracy.

I say this because I've noticed the following things:

1. Swing on take-off requires hardly any rudder to correct.

2. Adverse yaw is conspicuous by its absence.

3. Tailslides are very benign - i.e. there's no violent snapping of the aircraft into the nose-down position once the aircraft begins to travel backwards.

All the above is my opinion only, and based on my experience of aerobatic flight in much lower powered aircraft (Decathlon, Pitts, Firefly and a few hours in R2160's)

W.

[Viper2000]

It's probably unrealistic to expect realistic behaviour at crazy alpha & beta at low Reynolds number. This isn't CFD, and if it was then you'd need a supercomputer to run it in real time.

[Zappatime]

What's anyone elses view on how fast a bomber, say the FW200, can roll , to me they all seem to lack inertia - I would have thought a 4 engined bomber in particular had quite a resistance to rolling, the shear mass and air resistance of its wings would surely have an inertial affect on the speed with which it can roll from side to side.

I was watching a damaged FW200 and it was rolling to and fro with about a 1 second frequency - like a small single engined plane would/could do. I always thought the same of il2 in this respect, some bombers would pull manouvres that would embarass a Spit - any thoughts?

In the movie the OP is using ailerons so he's not actually doing snap rolls. A snap roll is just a horizontal spin, entered at a slower speed by grabbing full elevator while kicking full rudder snapping the rudder-side wing into a stall (I usually jam on the juice at the same time for more control authority - it MUST RASPECT THA AUTHORITEH).

I don't have CoD so I can't comment on it, but 1946 didn't model initial roll rate, all aircraft reach their maximum roll rate in the same amount of time (something like 1/2 second - I haven't timed it). So a P-47 with no ammo or ordinance reaches its max roll no quicker than a P-47 with ammo and a pair of 500 pounders. In the stalls the CG feels like it backs up about six feet -lol- no further comment.

[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by zipper

In the movie the OP is using ailerons so he's not actually doing snap rolls.

He does use ailerons, but there's also the pitchup expected from a snaproll. It does look like very decent snaprolls, and the timing is exactly like in the real plane.
Many RL aerobatics pilots use some amount of ailerons, depending on the aircraft, and on whether it's an inside or outside snap. Usually you want your ailerons to go in the direction of the snap, as a little rolling momentum before the stall will help increase alpha on the dropping wing, which will stall faster.

Check out this extra300:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu3BfXKstJ4

Fact is that there are aspects in IL2FB that I like very much: propwash, torque and gyroscopic forces are there, shielding effects are modeled (fully forward elevator shields rudder nicely in an upright spin, accelerating it), adverse yaw is there, i can flatten or accelerate/decelerate spins at will.
I have the impression that not much is missing to really allow unlimited style aerobatics. I hope this will be possible, and that the SU26 will be added and functional unlimited-style

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by JG27_PapaFly

Fact is that there are aspects in IL2FB that I like very much: propwash, torque and gyroscopic forces are there, shielding effects are modeled (fully forward elevator shields rudder nicely in an upright spin, accelerating it), adverse yaw is there, i can flatten or accelerate/decelerate spins at will.
I have the impression that not much is missing to really allow unlimited style aerobatics. I hope this will be possible, and that the SU26 will be added and functional unlimited-style

I understand that desire, but aero's in CoD are really nothing like the real thing, for one thing you have no seat of pants feel to correctly coordinate top rudder, particularly at high G. Really it is a piece of cake in IL2. Personally I think if you want to do competition unlimited aerobatics go rent a Pitts or an Extra as it is worlds apart.