FM and real flight

[BP_Tailspin]

Originally Posted by jf1981

Hi,

I'm wondering about if the dev team could implement a FM closer from reality in terms of behaviour and all the small instabilities that occur particularly when flying low as the groud disturbs the laminar flow of wind when you get closer from the ground.

Particularly, I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one making approachs.

I wonder how much complex and realistic is the FM engine, and about the wind turbulences al low altitude, but I have the feeling that it could be even closer from reality.

Jean-François

Great post Jean, your light years ahead of most of these boneheads.

But careful what you wish for, LOL

There’s a few differences between the “real world” and a “game world” In the real world the pilot can Feel what the airplane is doing, in the game world we can’t feel the aircraft so we can’t anticipate what the aircraft is doing, we can only see what the airplane has already done. In the real world the pilot has Depth Perception (a 3D world around them). In the gaming world we see every thing in a 2D world through our monitor with no Depth Perception or your use of your Peripheral Vision.

A pilot needs to feel and see the world around them in order to react to the conditions you are describing. Without having a seat-of -the-pants feel for the aircraft, depth perception or peripheral vision combined with trying to fly looking though a little port hole (your monitor) it’s a wonder we can fly at all.

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

[...]

Hello Tailspin,

Yes, I this was also on my mind, I do agree with you. Rendering closer than this is virtuose's job.

I was not dreaming about asking for 3D, but now that you write about it, this is true that the idea is good, nowadays it makes it way apparently.

Regards,

J-F

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

that's a totally uncalled for message Grunch, if you really want to know feel free to PM me..

I don't really care, it still doesn't excuse your unfailingly antagonistic attitude... Just calm down a bit, 's only a forum.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

I don't really care, it still doesn't excuse your unfailingly antagonistic attitude... Just calm down a bit, 's only a forum.

I'm perfectly calm, it's a fact, just like the fact that you are an agitator..
If you want to dispensate hints on forum behaviour, you might as well give the good example and use tact, but hey, I suppose this doesn't match with your provocative attitude.. at least I don't make a mystery of mine..

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

Great post Jean, your light years ahead of most of these boneheads.

But careful what you wish for, LOL

There’s a few differences between the “real world” and a “game world” In the real world the pilot can Feel what the airplane is doing, in the game world we can’t feel the aircraft so we can’t anticipate what the aircraft is doing, we can only see what the airplane has already done. In the real world the pilot has Depth Perception (a 3D world around them). In the gaming world we see every thing in a 2D world through our monitor with no Depth Perception or your use of your Peripheral Vision.

A pilot needs to feel and see the world around them in order to react to the conditions you are describing. Without having a seat-of -the-pants feel for the aircraft, depth perception or peripheral vision combined with trying to fly looking though a little port hole (your monitor) it’s a wonder we can fly at all.

I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

Hi,

I think he means that going into that direction is pretty difficult dev's job actually, and this is quite true.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by jf1981

Hi,

I think he means that going into that direction is pretty difficult dev's job actually, and this is quite true.

it's not difficult, it's impossible. Fatigue is something you can't simulate, and that's the biggest difference from real life, but you still have force feedback that can give you a fairly decent representation of the aeroplane behaviour.. ok, surely not complete, but better than feeling no forces at all!

[BP_Tailspin]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

random remark?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

random remark?

..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

[Buzpilot]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

So, with your experience with warbirds and vintage planes, you would say the Spit approach at ~100 is quit real, or maybe even worse than in reality?