Realism or accessibility, what decision should be made?

[SEE]

realism? Would that include restrictions on rear view ability even when loosening shoulder straps. Heads on swivels?

Lets face it, 6DOF, mouse lookaround and check yer six POV hat assignments are equally unrealistic with little penalty for being 'unstrapped' in combat even in full switch!

Just wondering how far people would be prepared to go or do they have a cut off point? In which case the arguments 'for and against' are not quite so black and white!

[IvanK]

As posted elsewhere The changelog text referring to "some users" etc was an unfortunate use of words (maybe a language thing). This lead to those silly total BS "they are dumbing the game down for a few" statements.

Two Issues seem to have incited this hysteria the -Ve G cut out tweak and the RPM needle bounce. Again poor wording there. The needle bounce or lack therof is now more accurate than it was before. 2 Videos videos have been posted (1 in a Hudson and a one in Lancaster) that clearly show what a real British Tacho looks like and the fact that it doesn't bounce all over the place. There is a little hunting (+-10RPM) but no wild undamped phougoids we were originally seeing.

With respect the -Ve G cut out (interesting name isnt it ? even all the documentation refers to it as Negative G cut out not Reduced G Cutout sorry for that digression). The initial effect was plain and simply way to sensitive. We know this from practical piloting experience and direct statements from at least 2 current Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who fly early generation carby aircraft (AVT32 Carbys I think). The numbers initially used by the Sim to trigger the onset looked right from the very skimpy technical documentation available on the issue. However in practice in the Sim it was just too sensitive(Again refer to the Hurricane pilots statement). The initial attempt going to 0G has gone too far the other way. So tweaking I am sure will continue to get a response that replicates as best as is possible the real world effect inside the Sim environment.

The Devs aim is to always strive for the best level of accuracy possible using the best set of references and experience they can draw from.

Originally Posted by IvanK

With respect the -Ve G cut out (interesting name isnt it ? even all the documentation refers to it as Negative G cut out not Reduced G Cutout sorry for that digression). The initial effect was plain and simply way to sensitive. We know this from practical piloting experience and direct statements from at least 2 current Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who fly early generation carby aircraft (AVT32 Carbys I think). The numbers initially used by the Sim to trigger the onset looked right from the very skimpy technical documentation available on the issue. However in practice in the Sim it was just too sensitive(Again refer to the Hurricane pilots statement). The initial attempt going to 0G has gone too far the other way. So tweaking I am sure will continue to get a response that replicates as best as is possible the real world effect inside the Sim environment.

The Devs aim is to always strive for the best level of accuracy possible using the best set of references and experience they can draw from.

Good to hear that the current status on the neg-g thing is not final. Me still thinks the former behaviour just needed a bit of inertia and it would have been fine. I do miss the smoke coming from the Merlin when it is pushed a bit.

About the needle thing I must admit I don't have any data supporting any postion. I though liked the old ways better as it made me feel inside a vibrating cockpit and sitting behind a huge power machine. I miss that now very deerly.

[Letum]

Look at the DCS sires.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by SEE

realism? Would that include restrictions on rear view ability even when loosening shoulder straps. Heads on swivels?

Lets face it, 6DOF, mouse lookaround and check yer six POV hat assignments are equally unrealistic with little penalty for being 'unstrapped' in combat even in full switch!

Just wondering how far people would be prepared to go or do they have a cut off point? In which case the arguments 'for and against' are not quite so black and white!

How would people like this for realism? The first time you crash and die you are booted back to the desktop and the game is automaticly deleted off your hard drive and you are unable to re-install it ever again.

[frenchfly]

Originally Posted by SEE

realism? Would that include restrictions on rear view ability even when loosening shoulder straps. Heads on swivels?

Lets face it, 6DOF, mouse lookaround and check yer six POV hat assignments are equally unrealistic with little penalty for being 'unstrapped' in combat even in full switch!

Just wondering how far people would be prepared to go or do they have a cut off point? In which case the arguments 'for and against' are not quite so black and white!

I think since we don't have the benefit of peripheral vision, some compromises have to be made in regards to views. Unless you have a 360 degree projection system set-up?

[RAF74_Winger]

Just another viewpoint, I'm all for more realism - but it has to be accurate. The issue with the needles (and there still remains an issue with the ASI and Altimeter) and the negative G cut-out thing really revolves around a perception of what should be realistic and not experience of what really is.

For all I know, the original 0.25 and 0.5g figures for the cut-out may well be absolutely correct, I suspect that the problem arose from the inertia of the carburettor components not being considered - resulting in the rather strange cut-outs in turbulence.

The bouncing needles thingy is a bit strange too - though I'm not really qualified to talk about mechanical tachometers, all the aircraft I've flown have used tachogenerators AFAIK - but it is somewhat perplexing that the ASI and Altimeter behave in the way that they do, and the VSI doesn't - though it should be even more sensitive than the other two instruments

The fact is that these instruments don't behave in the way they're depicted here. Before anyone jumps in to say 'Aha - but these were old fashioned instruments!'; the technology hasn't changed much since the 20's - except if you're talking about really modern stuff with ADCs etc.

So what would I like to see in terms of realism?

Well; I think that although the landing phase probably has to be modelled with a bit less fidelity than could actually be achieved in order to retain playability, I think it could do with being bumped up a few notches in this game - the aircraft here are much too tolerant of poor touchdown technique and roll out very straight (I've not noticed any tendency to an impending swing in any of my landings).

Another thing would be the tailplane effects (I've mentioned this before), the aircraft seem very sluggish to swing over the top in a humpty or stall turn, and there's not much swing on take-off - though I do appreciate the fact that the rudder is immediately effective, unlike the original IL2 where you'd actually have to get a bit of airspeed on before it would do the job.

Just my opinion, make of it what you will. Certainly won't stop me flying the sim.

W.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by ubermachtig

Dear comrades,
. Electrical measurements system replaced the original mechanical gauges, because they were considered too difficult for some players.

No, it's because their depiction in the game was simply incorrect.

Now I know where this will go. You will ask "Have you ever flown a Hurricane in real life?"

No, but here is the real shocker, neither has Luthier. For all we know he has only been around the pattern in a clapped out Yak 52 that couldn't get an airworthiness certificate anywhere in the West, and based his tacho needle hi-jinks on some worn out ex-Soviet trainer.

We have heard from real Spit and Hurri pilots who say that the needles don't bounce around like they did in the sim, but damn, we are all knowing flight simmers and can't ever take the word of real pilots, because, well, because we can't.

[GOZR]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Accessibility can be reached with proper difficulty settings options. Turn off the more advanced options = more accessible All on = hard core. Simple.

Yes

+1

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

Well, there is a real problem.
Whatever the "full real" settings become, these will be "enforced" to everyone in top-level servers/coops/online wars.
So, we got to be carefull in setting the "most diffcult level", because this will be the guide for many cases.

On the other hand, we do know that game can't become realistic.
We can simulate a lot, but to be honest, we actually have a lot of advantages and disadvantages over real situation.
On Saturday I was flying over the British Channel and enjoyed a fantastic view and visibility and I said to myself: "real pilots could see much more than what we see in our small monitors". Then again, I watched the information screen in the Airbus and I saw the external temperature at 10.000m, which was something like -70 degrees Celcius (I don't recall the exact number, but it was really cold) and I said to myself "I've been several times at +10k on my IL-2 BF's and....it wasn't cold ".

You do get the point, don't you?

So, the question should not be whether we prefer realism or not, because we will never get realism in a PC flight simulator.
The question should always be: how do we make the game as close to reality as possible, without making it silly difficult (i.e. is there a reason to start walking or running to the plane and then climb-open canopy-seat inside-put belts...etc., you get the point, don't you?).

In my opinion, developers completely understand this need and they do their best to accommodate it, so I have trust in them (until I discover that red planes are uber and then start yelling at them because I get shot on my BF ).

+1