Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Bearing in mind the figures are for a 50lbs stick force, how is it possible to reproduce these conditions in a simulator when there is no mechanical simulation? how is it possible to tell you are applying the equivalent of 50lbs on your gaming joysick? I would say 50 lbs in nowhwere near equivalent of a full deflection at the higher speeds which means being able to apply full deflection in the sim will give higher roll rates than the calibrated data.

Pilot's strenght and stamina plus a well modelled Anthropomorphic Controls setting (so that you can use 2 hands on the stick).

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Pilot's strenght and stamina...

Not really, it's meant to be about the fidelity of an aircrafts FM, the pilot does not form part of that.
what I'm saying is simply to compare the roll rates in sim vs recorded test data when it involves calibrations such as physical force is practically impossible unless you are using a professionally built simulator with calibrated feedback through the controlls, force feedback on a gaming joystick is a gimmick to provide immersion but is in no way a true representation.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Not really, it's meant to be about the fidelity of an aircrafts FM, the pilot does not form part of that.
what I'm saying is simply to compare the roll rates in sim vs recorded test data when it involves calibrations such as physical force is practically impossible unless you are using a professionally built simulator with calibrated feedback through the controlls, force feedback on a gaming joystick is a gimmick to provide immersion but is in no way a true representation.

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

I've no problem to outturn a co-energy 109 and getting a firing solution with the Rotol-Hurri.

He must be a crappy pilot because any reasonable one just pulls up the nose and he's gone. Are you sure you're co-e? Doesn't sound like it.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.

I'm not sure I fully get you, a suggestion 109 driver should be able to have 'cockpit off'?....that might be an over compensation.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.

You mean he porked them by allowing you to pull out of a screaming dive without using trim?

I just find it amusing that Kurfurst raises this as a bug for the RAF but no mention of the 109, which is in fact even slower, and he uses his own website as a source!! What a joke.
There are more factors on the aeroplane to consider here, such as rudder trim, and when I do my own 109 test because Kurfurst hasn't bothered to then I will also check the slip ball and drag. Eric Brown commented on the enormous legwork he had to put in during a dive in the 109 to avoid slip.

Rather like G, a level playing field would have to be applied, unless we get into the world of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas where the pilot has a lifestyle which affects his fitness and strength! That said I think a standard stamina bar wouldn't be a bad thing for the sim - so if you enter a long fight pulling lots of G then you get tired physically - this could be reflected in the forces you can apply to the aeroplane, ie it's response worsens. It's a feature.

[Kurfürst]

Instead of yapping your mouth here, why don't you just go and testing?

You constantly mouth about agendas, conspiracies and black choppers circling around your troubled head, red vs blue, make big promises about you are going to test this, how you are going to test ut blah blah blah, then absolutely nothing happens.

We do not get anything from you but this petty fanboyism and bias. I suggest you limit that filth to your own threads if you are not going to contribute anything.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I'm not sure I fully get you, a suggestion 109 driver should be able to have 'cockpit off'?....that might be an over compensation.

No.

I mean that Oleg modelled the late 109s' elevators as it was a control effectiveness issue (IIRC the zekes had this problem with ailerons) rather than a stick force / pilot's strengh one. Can we agree that was a bad solution?

So also without using FF sticks or more expensive hardware I think it can be solved using the modelled pilot's strength + fatigue: combined with the anthropomorphic controls function a pilot can pull the stick over the fixed force limit for some time, since when he use his strength also he's decreasing his stamina until he's exhausted. Many fights ended with exhausted pilots, mentally and physically.

Now I was talking about target visibility because I think that even if we are limited by our monitor size and hardware power, we can still simulate many things without the professional army's resources.

Sorry for the OT.

Again I think it's useless comparing these kind of ingame stuff as roll rate and turn rate to the real tests... the pilot is a too important variable.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

No.

I mean that Oleg modelled the late 109s' elevators as it was a control effectiveness issue (IIRC the zekes had this problem with ailerons) rather than a stick force / pilot's strengh one. Can we agree that was a bad solution?

So also without using FF sticks or more expensive hardware I think it can be solved using the modelled pilot's strength + fatigue: combined with the anthropomorphic controls function a pilot can pull the stick over the fixed force limit for some time, since when he use his strength also he's decreasing his stamina until he's exhausted. Many fights ended with exhausted pilots, mentally and physically.

Now I was talking about target visibility because I think that even if we are limited by our monitor size and hardware power, we can still simulate many things without the professional army's resources.

Sorry for the OT.

Again I think it's useless comparing these kind of ingame stuff as roll rate and turn rate to the real tests... the pilot is a too important variable.

OK yes I get the sentiment and agree, the simulated enviroment will never allow for the real life experience, compromises must be made.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

... he uses his own website as a source!! What a joke.

His source the famous, well knows R.A.E. test reports, made by RAF... Do not be confused, that the drawings is black

Originally Posted by Osprey

Rather like G, a level playing field would have to be applied, unless we get into the world of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas where the pilot has a lifestyle which affects his fitness and strength! That said I think a standard stamina bar wouldn't be a bad thing for the sim - so if you enter a long fight pulling lots of G then you get tired physically - this could be reflected in the forces you can apply to the aeroplane, ie it's response worsens. It's a feature.

I think, the reds hate this idea more, than the blues The energy fight isn't stressful. Sometimes you need to pull up at high speed (help with Trim), there is not a lot of difficulty. The constant, high G turning, that is hard