Flight Modeling vs. Flight Handling.

[Upthair]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

...

You can have two cars with identical performance numbers across the board, top speed, braking, acceleration, lateral Gs, etc... Yet one will have to be bullied into doing it and the other will behave as if connected directly to your brain.

His assertion is that (or seems to me to be that) just knowing the numbers and having the virtual aircraft meet them is not enough, you need the actual pilot's input on how the aircraft behaves in your hands, how it feels, how easy or hard it is to fly and operate.

This is what, to me, is missing in most simulations that I have experience with.

Discuss.

The way I understand it:



There are different paths - an infinite number of them, actually - that connect two or more fixed points (in the graph, points A and B). These fixed points are the performance numbers; those different paths, the distinct handling experiences, or distinct 'feels'.

It would be fortunate if for a certain WWII aircraft modelled the correct 'path' can be picked out by a real-life pilot of it, but in most cases the 100% genuine aircraft does not exist now.

--

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Upthair

It would be fortunate if for a certain WWII aircraft modelled the correct 'path' can be picked out by a real-life pilot of it, but in most cases the 100% genuine aircraft does not exist now.

This would require the same input hardware too.
See? It's not going to happen.

[namroob]

It's not just handling either. When flying a real aeroplane your senses are assaulted by noise, constantly changing g-forces, constantly changing visual stimuli over your whole visual field (as opposed to a screen in front of you), and so on. It's a far more intense experience compared with flying a PC sim, especially aerobatics. Even the weight of a helmet takes some getting used to. And the controls of anything from a light twin up can be physically far heavier than PC controls, requiring a bit of muscle to move.

[TomcatViP]

Of course. But let's play it simple

[JG52Uther]

Well since I got my CH yoke, the Ju88 and especially the Heinkel feel totally different, much heavier and more 'real'. For me the difference between flying a 'heavy' with a light,quick moving Fighterstick and the slower moving, more physical actions of the yoke has made a surprising difference.
So, how much are our peripherals playing a part in the equation.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

Well since I got my CH yoke, the Ju88 and especially the Heinkel feel totally different, much heavier and more 'real'. For me the difference between flying a 'heavy' with a light,quick moving Fighterstick and the slower moving, more physical actions of the yoke has made a surprising difference.
So, how much are our peripherals playing a part in the equation.

Exactly if you include these handling models you have to add pilot exhaustion, from what i have read you had to be quite strong to pull off tight turns in a 109...

This is why I stay far far away from this topic there are just far too many variables to deal with

Such as aircraft from one production facility being deemed poorer that others etc... HUGE can of worms.

[louisv]

For what it's worth, a long time ago I was taking flying lessons on Piper Cherokees. There were half a dozen of those and I flew all of them.

While the big numbers are very certainly similar, the feel was different. They each had their own personalities: sitting higher or lower, tightness in the controls, etc...

So there is indeed a lot of subjective variables here...