Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2011, 01:22 PM
JG27_PapaFly JG27_PapaFly is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 115
Default Are flying characteristics more realistic?

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.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Viper2000 Viper2000 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 218
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2011, 01:50 AM
DC338 DC338 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: God's country
Posts: 62
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2011, 03:09 AM
BlackbusheFlyer BlackbusheFlyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 105
Default

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.

Last edited by BlackbusheFlyer; 04-09-2011 at 03:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2011, 04:32 AM
RAF74_Winger RAF74_Winger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 46
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2011, 04:58 AM
Viper2000 Viper2000 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 218
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.