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 04-15-2012, 03:55 PM
irR4tiOn4L irR4tiOn4L is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo. View Post
Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.
To be honest I'm not an expert on the realities and FM's of this sim, I repeat what I have read here and experienced myself ingame.

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

So often, people complain about online balance based on inadequacies in server setup or particular incidents they are angry about - and their views take on a veneer of objectivity with more and more discussion. Which is not to say their views lack all objectivity, but it does point toward the danger of using their views to set the patch agenda.

I mean hell, the beta patch out now looks to be the last for Clod, and i'd say there's a hell of a lot of things that i'd like to see changed above trim.

EDIT: Fair point Osprey, but many here talk with a view that seems to want far more than just personal investigation. But even if trim is not accurate as is, its probably about 1/2 the real time anyway and in my view isnt nearly as important as control heaviness, black out resistance modelling, etc, let alone the actual FM's which continue to display much more fundamental problems.

This discussion is interesting, but I wouldn't expect (or want really) it to lead to many changes until greater issues were remedied and adequate data on all planes was collated.

Last edited by irR4tiOn4L; 04-15-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-17-2012, 12:32 AM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L View Post
The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.
Unfortunately the more obsessive online types are also the most likely to appear on the forums and push their point of view doggedly. This seriously skews perceptions of how the community actually views the game and what it wants from it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-17-2012, 02:27 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
how can he dismiss a pilot who works with warbirds,
Where do you come up with this stuff??
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-17-2012, 02:40 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
You guys know what that means in regards to trim, right?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-17-2012, 06:56 AM
irR4tiOn4L irR4tiOn4L is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
You guys know what that means in regards to trim, right?
Actually, no idea. Could you explain please? Does that mean the controls DON'T get heavy at speed?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-19-2012, 12:02 AM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L View Post
Actually, no idea. Could you explain please? Does that mean the controls DON'T get heavy at speed?
No, it means you have a null elevator. Regardless of holding the stick or letting it go, the aircraft is longitudinally stable and will tend to return to the trimmed position.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, this is not always the case for all aircraft or for all loads in a given aircraft. In fact a statically unstable aircraft may offer some advantages. Modern fighters with computer assisted controls are often not statically stable.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-19-2012, 01:28 PM
irR4tiOn4L irR4tiOn4L is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTE_Galway View Post
No, it means you have a null elevator. Regardless of holding the stick or letting it go, the aircraft is longitudinally stable and will tend to return to the trimmed position.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, this is not always the case for all aircraft or for all loads in a given aircraft. In fact a statically unstable aircraft may offer some advantages. Modern fighters with computer assisted controls are often not statically stable.
Thanks for the explanation, but isn't it the case that such statically unstable aircraft are not flyable without modern fly by wire systems? Ie, of course the 109 is going to be statically stable if it is a workable pre-fly-by-wire design? (perhaps not at all loads though)

I guess I fail to see how that is particularly relevant to this discussion or the heaviness of the trim controls when the tail is subject to faster moving air.

Last edited by irR4tiOn4L; 04-19-2012 at 01:30 PM.
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 05:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.