Bouncy Axis controls

[BlitzPuppet]

Hey all!

I made a thread on the BoS forums to try and discuss the bouncy pitch controls of the Axis planes, and to see if this was supposed to be like this, or was a bug. I made this video for the thread, but sadly it was closed before I could post it.

All planes compared:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BLmFr55LTq4

Original Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUyjF-hAL9c

I like the fact that I was able to somehow get the 190 into an inverted spin....that was fun.

[JG27-Gaidin]

I always wondered this myself.

Gaidin

[Hood]

Probably closed because the subject has been flogged to death.

It'll be interesting to see how an F4/G2 and A3 react in DCS compared to BOS.

The best thing to do is move the joystick as it would in reality i.e. not instant movements and see what happens - this is what I do and I have no bounciness at all. In DCS my D9 was very bouncy until I resolved the curves.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

I use a expencive yoke I do not recognize this at all, I heard that some tweaks are needed for those using digital joystick. It does not nesserserarly mean the fm itself is wrong

[BlitzPuppet]

I use a expencive yoke I do not recognize this at all, I heard that some tweaks are needed for those using digital joystick. It does not nesserserarly mean the fm itself is wrong

Weird, I use a CH Fighterstick and have been good to go out of the box with DCS and CloD. No adjustments needed to those.

Oh well, it is a beta and I hope they tweak the controls a bit...better yet maybe I'll mess around with them. From what I saw in the controls it's 1:1 as far as input goes as it stands.

[Kwiatek]

You should also show negative huge stick push betwenn DCS and BOS in Fw 190 ( 109).

Still rudder is overdone in BOS in DCS much better modeled.

Im waiting for DCS K-4 i really wonder how they make FM for it.

[BlitzPuppet]

You should also show negative huge stick push betwenn DCS and BOS in Fw 190 ( 109).

Still rudder is overdone in BOS in DCS much better modeled.

Im waiting for DCS K-4 i really wonder how they make FM for it.

Good point, I'll make that in another video. I was going to show a comparison with TF CloD, but couldn't get fraps to record the game (only got audio).

DCS is pretty on par with CloD TF, so that is a good thing. BoS on the other hand is WAAAAY out there.

[Hood]

BOS models 1:1 joystick so with any non-full length stick you need curves to mimic the real thing. That or hardly move the stick.

Waaaaay out there depends how much you understand the differences between the games.

Hood

[ATAG_Bliss]

BOS models 1:1 joystick so with any non-full length stick you need curves to mimic the real thing. That or hardly move the stick.

Waaaaay out there depends how much you understand the differences between the games.

Hood

I don't get what you mean. Every single flight sim I've ever played models the joystick 1:1. That means if my joystick is in the middle the elevator is perfectly in the middle. It also means that if my joystick is moving forward, the elevator is moving inversely proportional to my joystick, right up to the point of the end of my joystick travel which will be the end of the elevator travel. Same with ailerons. Same with ruder pedals etc.

So essentially all my control surfaces that are controlled via the joystick are in the middle of their travel when my joystick is and also at the end of their travel when my joystick is. Are you saying BoS doesn't do this and needs a curve to make up for it? That's a pretty bad design flaw then.

[trademe900]

.

[Kwiatek]

Hehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones :P

[BlitzPuppet]

Hehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones :P

It's definitely true. Not sure if they are being biased or what, but I do remember them saying "we're going to do things in the name of historical accuracy, never in the name of 'balance' "

One of my buddies that I fly with is an old timer and has flown a lot of sims since the old days. He says "The german planes are hard as hell to fly, while the russians fly like a f'n canary!"

[LuseKofte]

Well I read that many have to tweak their sticks in bos , and this give a better handling. We may make a big discussion over it or just ride along.
However it would be nice for once to get a report if it worked out. So I do not have to give this vague tip to anyone else if it does not work.
I totally understand everyone with a issue against bos site and the game itself, it haven't yet proven itself the way I hoped for either.
However betting on only one limping horse to keep up this hobby , I take one more any time

[Hood]

I don't get what you mean. Every single flight sim I've ever played models the joystick 1:1.

I was talking about BOS specifically. I'm sure others do too. But my subjective feeling is that other games have programming to ameliorate the 1:1 relationship to allow for people using 6" to 10" sticks as opposed to the real thing. Inbuilt curves if you will otherwise why would they all be some different?


So essentially all my control surfaces that are controlled via the joystick are in the middle of their travel when my joystick is and also at the end of their travel when my joystick is.

Quite right. That is what 1:1 means in my context - you do understand.


Are you saying BoS doesn't do this and needs a curve to make up for it? That's a pretty bad design flaw then.

Every flight sim I've played has needed curves for me - IL2, CloD, DCS D9 and BOS. Every flight sim must have bad design flaws then. Or maybe that's my fault for never using a full length plus FFB stick.


I believe the joystick curve that Winkle Brown set to replicate controls for IL2 was way lower than what most used. Probably a good idea to take a leaf from his book to get something closer to real handling.

Hood

[Hood]

One of my buddies that I fly with is an old timer and has flown a lot of sims since the old days. He says "The german planes are hard as hell to fly, while the russians fly like a f'n canary!"

But was that actually the truth? The Spitfire was awesome because not only was it a great plane but it was a great plane for the inexperienced pilot to fight in. The 109 took a lot more taming.

Yet everyone is claiming the 109 is an easy ride - so who is correct?

But as I say, play with the curves and everything is nice and smooth.

Hood

[ATAG_Bliss]

I was talking about BOS specifically. I'm sure others do too. But my subjective feeling is that other games have programming to ameliorate the 1:1 relationship to allow for people using 6" to 10" sticks as opposed to the real thing. Inbuilt curves if you will otherwise why would they all be some different?

What does stick length have to do with a having to set curves for a 1:1 relationship? Any good programming with flight sims will obviously cater to the fact that a usb joystick has a center and an end point in all directions. Regardless of length, the movement of the axis at the base is what matters.

When you combine the fact that most joysticks (high quality one's at least) have a range of motion to include around 300 points around an axis in it's entire range of movement, then you'll also see that having a longer stick only means you are having to move the top of the stick further to do the same job (reach one of those 300 points) That is exactly why you don't have a mouse pad that's the size of a kitchen table to go from every single edge of your screen with the mouse pointer. And that is because people can control fine movements quite easily with devices made to do just that.

The fact of the matter is, if you have to move curves around to slow down/speed up this 1:1 relationship then it's obviously not very well done to begin with. I buy good joysticks/Hotas so I don't have to do that EVER for any game.


Quite right. That is what 1:1 means in my context - you do understand.

Of course I do. As stated above, I think you are the one not understanding this. If you have to adjust curves to get a proper 1:1 relationship between the control surfaces, then something is most definitely wrong with either the game or your stick.


Every flight sim I've played has needed curves for me - IL2, CloD, DCS D9 and BOS. Every flight sim must have bad design flaws then. Or maybe that's my fault for never using a full length plus FFB stick.

I would say it's most definitely the quality of your stick then, or possibly it could be your hand coordination with small movements etc. I don't do it. I had to with ROF because planes like the SEA5 were not programmed with the elevator in the neutral flying position, when your joystick was in the neutral position (right in the middle). Instead the elevator was pointed at such a way that the plane would basically loop on it's own without touching the joystick. Everyone set curves for that or had some major wrist pain.


I believe the joystick curve that Winkle Brown set to replicate controls for IL2 was way lower than what most used. Probably a good idea to take a leaf from his book to get something closer to real handling.

Hood

You're now comparing a real life flight column and stick to a usb joystick? Just to let you know, the stick forces of any FFB stick, let alone the majority of sticks that have a generic spring in them, will NEVER EVER come close to the feedback, let alone force, that a pilot will feel on a real life flight column.

So please don't think that someone's real life curve for flying a real life plane will in anyways be anywhere close for someone that's putting his hands against some FFB device or a cheap charlie joystick spring. This is probably one of the worst advices you could give to someone.

[ATAG_Bliss]

But was that actually the truth? The Spitfire was awesome because not only was it a great plane but it was a great plane for the inexperienced pilot to fight in. The 109 took a lot more taming.

Yet everyone is claiming the 109 is an easy ride - so who is correct?

But as I say, play with the curves and everything is nice and smooth.

Hood

I think you need a bit more reading on the subject. The 109 was often spoke about as one of the easiest and most stable planes in the air. The main problem with the 109 always stemmed from takeoff/landing. But the actual flying dynamics (which is what we are talking about here) is obviously incorrect in big way in BoS.

You mentioned earlier about a dead horse on the subject. You can probably see why that horse gets beaten to death now. It's obviously quite wrong and many people are complaining about it. Sad to see they are banning people because of bringing up the issue though.

[dburne]

There is no question , at least in my mind, there is a severe rubber banding type of effect.
It used to be so on all the planes, they have cleaned up the Russian planes somewhat and made them much better, but not so much in the German planes.

Now understand I do like and fly BOS, maybe not as much as Cliffs but I do enjoy it , for what it offers. I am really glad they improved on that in the Russian planes as that is what I mainly fly , still some there but no where near what it was. I do think the German planes need some attention in this regard.
But this of course, just my humble opinion.

[LuseKofte]

I never had the impression of any rubberband effect on Russian planes, they got and had not historical fm to some degree.
Like I said earlyer, my floormounted yoke give me a totally different expirience about german planes and their conduct. I do not like their behavior, but in totally different way explained here.
Based on my impression the behavior on axis planes are too straight forward,

[Hood]

Sorry Bliss I really have no idea what you're on about.

A 1:1 relationship means that any % movement on a joystick equates to the same % movement of the linked control surface. No doubt you'll agree.

To mimic the movement of a full length stick a standard un-extended joystick would have to be moved tiny amounts and requiring such fine motor/hand control it is probably not possible for the majority of simmers. This is without factoring in the physical force needed to move the stick in reality.

To clarify, I can't remember where I read it but a loop in a Spit required pulling back the stick around 5cm. On a pc joystick that would equate to maybe 5mm (I'm too lazy to do the actual math for a number of joysticks).

If you read my post again you will see that I do not say you have to play with the curves to get a 1:1 relationship. I'm not sure why you'd think that at all. What you need to do is play with the curves to get away from the 1:1 relationship so as to improve control.

Regarding Winkle Brown why do you think they were his curves for flying a real aircraft? In reality he'd be stuck with however the real aircraft was set up. His IL2 settings were:

Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

I suppose this was because full deflection on the pc joystick would equate to 1/3 (pitch) movement of a real stick. You'd have to ask him his reasons though. I tried but didn't like them - too slow for me, though I ended up with the Spit limited to 60 and the 109 to around 85, and it was extremely rare that I went out of control.

Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to stick with the game settings if they can find a curve that helps them fly more like the real thing. I have a Warthog so it's a decent stick. It's also one of the longer pc joysticks out there, but curves are a massive help. To anyone that says that their aircraft bounces in BOS, change the curve to get it more "real".

This brings up another point - how far could a pilot actually deflect a combat aircraft joystick. There are accounts of pilots heaving on sticks to pull out of a dive, or having to use trim to do so. Does this mean they could not physically deflect the joystick at all? What about in level flight at 400km/h - could you really instantly push the stick all the way forward? Rather than 100% deflection could you only deflect the stick say 10% and more as you slowed? Yet we can yank on a stick and do all sorts of things real life pilots couldn't or wouldn't, yet complain when things happen "wrong".

For the SE5a this was modeled correctly as the real aircraft had 10 degrees forward stick needed to level the elevator. Maybe they shouldn't have got it right if people needed curves to be able to use it...

And another aside -

"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."


Hood

[LuseKofte]

Hehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones :P

The one reason for me like flying BOS is the excelent characteristics of the Russian planes, in my opinion Nothing in cod are as good

[Kwiatek]

Yea russian planes in BOS fly much more natural way then German ones - dont have such strange behaviour like with negative push flick roll or rubberband effect.

[ATAG_Colander]

"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."


It still is. Not because the spit is much easier to fly but because:
1.- A spit can turn to get you out of trouble. A 109 can't
2.- It takes practice to learn how to BnZ (required for a 109).
3.- It takes experience to not get sucked into a turn fight in a 109 (see #1)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Sorry Bliss I really have no idea what you're on about.

A 1:1 relationship means that any % movement on a joystick equates to the same % movement of the linked control surface. No doubt you'll agree.

To mimic the movement of a full length stick a standard un-extended joystick would have to be moved tiny amounts and requiring such fine motor/hand control it is probably not possible for the majority of simmers. This is without factoring in the physical force needed to move the stick in reality.

To clarify, I can't remember where I read it but a loop in a Spit required pulling back the stick around 5cm. On a pc joystick that would equate to maybe 5mm (I'm too lazy to do the actual math for a number of joysticks).

If you read my post again you will see that I do not say you have to play with the curves to get a 1:1 relationship. I'm not sure why you'd think that at all. What you need to do is play with the curves to get away from the 1:1 relationship so as to improve control.

A real control column in most WWII fighters actually has much less range of motion than, for instance, my CH stick which is around 100 degrees. So if you put a very long extension on that stick it would be even further from a realistic column which has an axis that moves much less than 100 degrees. If a control stick in a real 109 had 100 degrees of axis movement (from end to end) the only way that would be even possible is if the real stick was pushed right through the dash in one direction, or sticking through the pilot's body on the other side of the axis.

So while a lesser quality/less range of movement stick might have less range of movement and require someone to add an extension to it to be able to use it properly, realize there are devices out there that compensate for this right out of the box.

That is why I told you you don't need a mousepad the size of a kitchen table to move your mouse around and be precise on a large computer monitor. It's the same principle. While I'm sure there are people that have their mouse setup to move it several inches to go from end to end of their screen, mine is setup about a 1/3 of that.

On top of that, ROF/BOS does not model stick forces correctly and never has. That is why you could slam the control column forward in ROF and the elevator would slam forward at about the same speed. Where as in games like DCS/CloD, there is programming built in to make up for the stick forces and the strength and time it would take to actually be able to move the stick in full deflection, all based on speed, AOA etc.

I'm sure you've seen enough of the BoS videos showing this funky chicken dance all the planes seem to do with just going front to back with the stick. Now try that in any game that actual models real stick forces, (or try it in a real plane for example), and you'll see how impossible that is.


Regarding Winkle Brown why do you think they were his curves for flying a real aircraft? In reality he'd be stuck with however the real aircraft was set up. His IL2 settings were:

Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

I don't think you understood what I said. I stated you can't compare the feeling, stick forces, etc., of a real control column to ANY joystick. Without those stick forces and without a good quality stick, as I've already stated, I could see someone needing to use curves. But since I'm a flight simmer, playing flight sim games, and will never get that same stick forces transferring through my arm, I use a joystick that's very precise and designed specifically for flight sims. Again, if I need to modify my joystick, or massively change it's settings to be able to fly a flight sim correctly, BOS/ROF would be the only flight sim I've ever played that required it. Perhaps other flight sims are programmed around the fact that people use usb joysticks to fly them and not real controls?


I suppose this was because full deflection on the pc joystick would equate to 1/3 (pitch) movement of a real stick. You'd have to ask him his reasons though. I tried but didn't like them - too slow for me, though I ended up with the Spit limited to 60 and the 109 to around 85, and it was extremely rare that I went out of control.

Again, my joystick has more range of axis motion than virtually any Warbird. The exception would probably be the side to side spade grip in a spitfire. But that exception would go for any other usb joystick comparing to the side to side spade grip as well.


Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to stick with the game settings if they can find a curve that helps them fly more like the real thing. I have a Warthog so it's a decent stick. It's also one of the longer pc joysticks out there, but curves are a massive help. To anyone that says that their aircraft bounces in BOS, change the curve to get it more "real".

This brings up another point - how far could a pilot actually deflect a combat aircraft joystick. There are accounts of pilots heaving on sticks to pull out of a dive, or having to use trim to do so. Does this mean they could not physically deflect the joystick at all? What about in level flight at 400km/h - could you really instantly push the stick all the way forward? Rather than 100% deflection could you only deflect the stick say 10% and more as you slowed? Yet we can yank on a stick and do all sorts of things real life pilots couldn't or wouldn't, yet complain when things happen "wrong".

This is a good point, and why I stated earlier DCS/CloD/and even old IL2 models stick forces per speed/AoA etc. Lets hope BoS/ROF will finally that part down as well.


For the SE5a this was modeled correctly as the real aircraft had 10 degrees forward stick needed to level the elevator. Maybe they shouldn't have got it right if people needed curves to be able to use it...

Perhaps you were late to the game, but the real SE5a had elevator trim, something it took the ROF team almost 3 years to finally put in the game. So yes, curves were needed to compensate for the lack of trim in ROF. Had the trim been there, the elevator position would have been easy to control without having to hold the stick forward all the time. So once they did finally get it right, curves could be removed just to be able to fly the thing.


And another aside -

"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."


Hood

Keep researching. Maybe find out the difference between flying a Lagg and a 109 (what we are talking about in game), instead of a spitfire which noone is doubting was ever a non-forgiving or easy to fly plane.

[Chuck_Owl]

It still is. Not because the spit is much easier to fly but because:
1.- A spit can turn to get you out of trouble. A 109 can't
2.- It takes practice to learn how to BnZ (required for a 109).
3.- It takes experience to not get sucked into a turn fight in a 109 (see #1)

While the Spitfire can turn to get you out of trouble, a 109 can just dive or climb his way to safety as it outperforms the Spit in both these aspects. The reason why people think that the Spitfire was such an "easy" plane to fly is mainly because turning and burning was a concept that was accepted and enforced in RAF units since the early days of World War One. New pilots already had a general idea of what turn fighting was as it was the preferred way to fight. The 1930's Luftwaffe, on the other hand, had cherry picked its fighter pilots since much earlier and their air warfare doctrine was adapted since the early days of the Spanish Civil War where they often had to face fighters that were very good turners too (specifically thinking of the russian I-16 "Rata"). The Luftwaffe doctrine encouraged fighting in the vertical plane, which is where the 109 excelled and which is why the RAF and VVS got given such a thrashing during the Battle of France and Operation Barbarossa. The idea of fighting in the vertical plane was considered "new", or at least somewhat unconventional at the time as monoplane fighters were a novelty that had yet to be combat-tested and adapted to their combat environment.

The training of a Luftwaffe pilot was very different in the training of a RAF pilot: they were not taught to fight the same way. The 109 was not considered "difficult" to fly if you received proper training. In fact, the 109 was pretty stable and had an aerodynamically sound design. The major cause for accidents was on takeoff and landing, where the undercarriages made it difficult to be stable on these half-assed french field airfields.

An interesting note: the Allied pilots fought mainly in the horizontal plane from '39 to late '41 because it is what their aircraft were designed for (as a result of design requirements). From '42 or so, fighters' design was adapted to fight in the vertical plane as well. The late Spitfire marks were not as good turners as the early marks, but had much better climbing capabilities. The cause of this shift in strategy is simply due to Fighter Command adapting their obsolete tactics to the Germans', which were more cost-efficient in terms of lives and materials. (whether or not they were successful at it is another story entirely)

[BlitzPuppet]

A solution on their forums was a user suggesting to remove some of the range from your joystick....that's a problem:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/10507-how-solve-rubberbanding-or-wobbling-109/

[Hood]

Adding a long extension to the joystick makes it more like the real thing precisely because it limits the throw. Put a full extension on a Warthog and you wouldn't be able to use 100% range of travel unless you had some weird setup that involved being able to castrate yourself if you pulled all the way back. With the limit in throw you can mimic more life like joystick control.

I'm thinking 109 here as some aircraft were different of course eg the Spit aileron control or P38 yoke etc. Limit the throw and you can get into 1:1 territory.

For the vast majority they can't afford a justify such a setup hence why programming baffles are added to help or to add virtual stick forces etc.

I used the Spitfire comparison as an example of the 109 being hard to master (tame) and was told read more. The conclusion of BoB pilots seem pretty conclusive to me.

I have no idea how VVS planes handled in reality though the videos of the test pilot produced by BOS were a little instructive. Maybe they were worse, maybe better but that might all be based on subjective opinions of the pilots themselves.

As for the 109 in all games it seems pretty steady to me and I experience none of the sensations that other people report, even when bunting which with rudder input allows a straight bunt rather than flip-floppiness.

Hood

[BlitzPuppet]

As for the 109 in all games it seems pretty steady to me and I experience none of the sensations that other people report, even when bunting which with rudder input allows a straight bunt rather than flip-floppiness.

Hood

The strange thing is, seen in the video I posted, the wobbly/floppy/rubberbandy behavior is really only seen with pitch/elevator input. Aileron input remains very stable when pilot input is abruptly ended and the stick is centered.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Adding a long extension to the joystick makes it more like the real thing precisely because it limits the throw. Put a full extension on a Warthog and you wouldn't be able to use 100% range of travel unless you had some weird setup that involved being able to castrate yourself if you pulled all the way back. With the limit in throw you can mimic more life like joystick control.

Limiting the throw of the axis just eliminates precision. Since virtually all USB joysticks are digital or analog, there are only so many points the hall effect / potentiometer devices are going to pick up across the range of motion. If you have 300 points of precision across the entire axis of your joystick, removing any amount of throw, also removes the number of pickup points for that throw.

While it may appear more realistic to fly that why, I can assure you by removing those precision points that are built in to the joystick to get as much precision across the entire range of an axis, you are also giving up more precise movements. So go ahead and do that as you like. I'd much rather use the precision that came with my joystick in the 1st place, and not take it away for some reason.


I'm thinking 109 here as some aircraft were different of course eg the Spit aileron control or P38 yoke etc. Limit the throw and you can get into 1:1 territory.

Again it appears you don't understand what 1:1 means. That means, as said above, if there are 300 points of precision in an axis, and the game has 300 points of movement in an axis (just for easy math sake), every single pickup point that is read through the hall effect / potentiometer of your joystick also relates to a single moving point in reference to the control surface you are controlling.

There is no such thing as making a real life plane 1:1 to a video game as neither are tied in to each other. So if a game has 1:1 input/output on it's devices and control surfaces it's actually talking about input/output devices in the computer world (usb devices interacting with software) and not some made up mythical number of 4 inches of travel of my stick = 1:1 for this aircraft.


For the vast majority they can't afford a justify such a setup hence why programming baffles are added to help or to add virtual stick forces etc.

It sounds like you are the one using programming baffles to limit your joystick to make it work right. I and many others do not have any need to adjust curves as my joystick to the software it's attached to have always been 1:1 naturally.


I used the Spitfire comparison as an example of the 109 being hard to master (tame) and was told read more. The conclusion of BoB pilots seem pretty conclusive to me.

So you were researching BoB pilots (RAF pilots?) about a 109's flight characteristics? And this is for 109's in BoS? Just a guess, but that might be your 1st problem with the research. Here's some actual 109 pilots talking about the 109. You'll notice how many of these speak about how nice and easy the 109 was to fly. This was just a quick google search, if you need some references from real books from 109 pilots (not RAF pilots) about the ease of flying a 109, please let me know and I can help you with your research.

Me 109 G:
"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Me 109 G:
Aircraft was confidence inspiring, one felt like being the king of the skies when sitting in the cockpit. All controls were in logical order and in the reach of the pilot.
The plane responded to your piloting like a dream, from takeoff to landing. It is still the plane of my dreams.
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Me 109 G-2/G-6:
The Messerschmitt was good to fly and beautiful - I wish I could fly it one more time…
- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-6:
One thing that was absolutely good about it, was the wild performance of the aircraft. Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
When Me109 came to the squadron it was without a doubt the best tool in use. The La-7 and Yak-9 that were introduced into service in summer '44 were equal or in some areas somewhat better than Me109.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.




I have no idea how VVS planes handled in reality though the videos of the test pilot produced by BOS were a little instructive. Maybe they were worse, maybe better but that might all be based on subjective opinions of the pilots themselves.

And that's part of the problem. If we are discussing the 109 vs Russian planes and their flight characteristics (you know the thing the OP was talking about in his complaints about how the 109 is floppy, rubber banding etc., compared to the Russian counterparts), it would probably be a good idea to know the problem he is talking about by knowing the planes in comparison to each other.


As for the 109 in all games it seems pretty steady to me and I experience none of the sensations that other people report, even when bunting which with rudder input allows a straight bunt rather than flip-floppiness.

You must be playing a different BoS than all those that continue to complain about the 109 behavior vs the Russian counterparts. It's quite obvious, especially when guys are taking away range of motion in their axis with different curves etc., in order to alleviate the problem in the 1st place, that there is indeed a problem. It's been talked about numerous times on the forums and must be such an embarrassment for them when they are starting to ban people for even bringing it up. Lets hope they can get it sorted out.

[ATAG_Colander]

The only way to fully use a joystick with less angular movement would be to build some reduction gears into it. That way you would keep the full resolution with less overall movement.

I guess a neat way to do it would be with pulleys (idea for some cockpit makers ;) )

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Bliss is correct, the 109, once in the air, was a very predictable and easy aircraft to fly... due to the slats, the stall was very mild and forgiving.

The problems new pilots had with it were in the areas of takeoff and landing... the off camber wheels and narrow undercarriage caused issues with the aircraft changing direction during ground rolls and ground-loops were common.

Vis a Vis the Soviet types, the LaGG-3 should be quite difficult to fly, its wing design was such that it tended towards abrupt departures without much warning... this was the reason slats were installed on later models and why the La-5, which used the same airframe, also used slats. Once the slats were installed, both the types with these were very similar in behaviour to the 109's. The Yaks had relatively low wingloading, which meant a low stall speed, but they were not as lightly loaded as a Spitfire or Hurricane, the design intent was to allow for a good rollrate, and good instant turn rate rather than sustained turn rate. If pushed, they also displayed a more abrupt departure than a 109.

The FW190 had quite high wingloading for the era, thus had a high stall speed, and was prone to snap stalls if pushed too far in high G turns. But its landing and takeoff characteristics were excellent, due to its wide set undercarriage and predictable stall with landing flaps deployed. The 190's high speed maneuver characteristics were the best of its era. One of its advantages was the rudder trim was almost unaffected by changes in speed, so not much adjustment was required.

[Hood]

Lol Bliss when you look at how many people there are with full length sticks I wonder why they did it? If you fly 1:1 without curves well you must be making tiny movements - good for you. If your joystick allows you to fly 1:1 then either the software allows for it being a short stick or you have some fancy setup.

If you see what I say I say "mimic" a real stick. You don't lose precision as I've tried a number of long stick setups and they've been fine. Why don't you chuck up a poll to see how many use curves?

I also don't understand the fuss about the 109. There are probably thousands of anecdotes about how nice it was to fly. For the Finnish pilots it had to be better than what they had before, but I agree it is a delightful thing to fly which is why it's my mount of choice and why t's the subject of most of my aviation books. However, that is different from saying it is easy to master, or in my words, tame.

VVS - never flown them in BOS and don't intend to. Unfortunately most information from the pilots is sparse though a lot say early stuff was awful and late stuff was lovely. All I want to know is how to shoot them down.

Re Spitfires - it was being used to make a point and the experiences and opinions of WWII pilots shouldn't be discounted even if subjective and coloured by their experiences - you will see Ekkehard Bob contributed and from what I recall of the programme he was the one that said it was harder to master. Lovely gent. It's probably on Youtube.


Hood

[ATAG_Bliss]

Lol Bliss when you look at how many people there are with full length sticks I wonder why they did it?

They do it for immersion. Just like people that have separate levers on a different control box that you reach out in order to do something like raise and lower the landing gear. Other people just have a little button they press on the throttle/joystick etc., that still permits both hands being on the most important devices of your hotas while in flight (stick and throttle). One way is more realistic and immersive while the other way is better for performance and control.


If you fly 1:1 without curves well you must be making tiny movements - good for you. If your joystick allows you to fly 1:1 then either the software allows for it being a short stick or you have some fancy setup.

I suggest re-reading my comments again. I've already precisely explained exactly what 1:1 means. I'm at a loss that you don't seem to have a clue what it is?

Also, do you know how far of a throw 100 degrees is? At an 8 inch top to that throw (factory setup mind you) and you have all sorts of movement. I simply can't understand why you would say there's no travel. Again, is your mousepad the size of a kitchen table? Are you not able to control your mouse to click on things quickly and efficiently with a mouse pad of normal size? If not, then I can understand why someone like yourself would need a longer stick to make up for the lack of hand/eye coordination. But I have no problems at all making precise movements with devices specifically made to be able to make precise movements. Sorry about your luck.


If you see what I say I say "mimic" a real stick. You don't lose precision as I've tried a number of long stick setups and they've been fine. Why don't you chuck up a poll to see how many use curves?

I can only suggest doing some research and learn about a potentiometer or a hall effect device and learn how many precision points of resolution there are within a certain distance of travel. Real simple logic for you to help you out. If you have a 2" device that has 500 points of pickup, what happens to the amount of pickup points when you take away 1" of that original 2" device? In case you haven't figured it out yet, you'll be left with 250 points now instead of 500.

So again if you cut down on the length, and therefore cut down on the resolution of those devices ran off of potentiometers / hall effect devices, you obviously cut down on precision as those points are what makes up the programming for the movements in the 1st place. I'm astonished that even after the 3rd time of saying the same thing, you fail to understand the most basic of concepts. I'm just kinda laughing in astonishment atm.


I also don't understand the fuss about the 109. There are probably thousands of anecdotes about how nice it was to fly. For the Finnish pilots it had to be better than what they had before, but I agree it is a delightful thing to fly which is why it's my mount of choice and why t's the subject of most of my aviation books. However, that is different from saying it is easy to master, or in my words, tame.

You don't seem to understand much of anything in this topic. It's not surprising that you are once again lost on what the OP is about.


VVS - never flown them in BOS and don't intend to. Unfortunately most information from the pilots is sparse though a lot say early stuff was awful and late stuff was lovely. All I want to know is how to shoot them down.

I suggest reading the post above yours. It's a pretty good assessment that also discussing the instability of early VSS planes compared to their counterparts.


Re Spitfires - it was being used to make a point and the experiences and opinions of WWII pilots shouldn't be discounted even if subjective and coloured by their experiences - you will see Ekkehard Bob contributed and from what I recall of the programme he was the one that said it was harder to master. Lovely gent. It's probably on Youtube.

Again, this discussion has nothing to do with Spitfires or the BoB. I'd ask you to read the OP again, but judging from your lack of understanding on just about everything you've said I think it's pointless at this time.

[Chuck_Owl]

So you were researching BoB pilots (RAF pilots?) about a 109's flight characteristics? And this is for 109's in BoS? Just a guess, but that might be your 1st problem with the research. Here's some actual 109 pilots talking about the 109. You'll notice how many of these speak about how nice and easy the 109 was to fly. This was just a quick google search, if you need some references from real books from 109 pilots (not RAF pilots) about the ease of flying a 109, please let me know and I can help you with your research.

Me 109 G:
"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Me 109 G:
Aircraft was confidence inspiring, one felt like being the king of the skies when sitting in the cockpit. All controls were in logical order and in the reach of the pilot.
The plane responded to your piloting like a dream, from takeoff to landing. It is still the plane of my dreams.
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Me 109 G-2/G-6:
The Messerschmitt was good to fly and beautiful - I wish I could fly it one more time…
- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-6:
One thing that was absolutely good about it, was the wild performance of the aircraft. Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
When Me109 came to the squadron it was without a doubt the best tool in use. The La-7 and Yak-9 that were introduced into service in summer '44 were equal or in some areas somewhat better than Me109.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


I noticed that you quoted exclusively Finnish pilots. For most of the war, they flew P-36 Hawks before they were handed 109s. It's no wonder they think the 109 is the best thing ever invented since bread and peanut butter...

[ATAG_Bliss]

I noticed that you quoted exclusively Finnish pilots. For most of the war, they flew P-36 Hawks before they were handed 109s. It's no wonder they think the 109 is the best thing ever invented since bread and peanut butter...

As I said earlier, I just quoted a whole bunch of pilot accounts from a long list straight from google search. You can undoubtedly find the same praise from German pilots as well. Let me know if you need examples.

[Chuck_Owl]

As I said earlier, I just quoted a whole bunch of pilot accounts from a long list straight from google search. You can undoubtedly find the same praise from German pilots as well. Let me know if you need examples.

There is no need to take that patronizing tone with me, you know I know that you know what I meant. ;)

It's just interesting to see pilots' perspective on an aircraft based on what they flew before. The Finnish pilots were superb, but so were the Poles too. The Poles thought the Hurricane was a marvel of a plane (in comparison to their previous PZL P.11), while the Germans considered the Hurri to be a much lesser plane.

[ATAG_Bliss]

There is no need to take that patronizing tone with me, you know I know that you know what I meant. ;)

It's just interesting to see pilots' perspective on an aircraft based on what they flew before. The Finnish pilots were superb, but so were the Poles too. The Poles thought the Hurricane was a marvel of a plane (in comparison to their previous PZL P.11), while the Germans considered the Hurri to be a much lesser plane.

Oh trust me I know :D

It just gets very old having to repeat the same thing over and over again about things that could easily be researched, studied, and/or learned within a few simple mouse clicks. Oh well.

[Hood]

I'm not sure what the issue is Bliss and why you have to be so patronising. I perfectly comprehend how joysticks work and how they differ between pc and real life joysticks. I'm not sure what relevance a mouse and mouse mat has though. I also disagree that you need all possible points of control input to be as precise as necessary - in practice you can be good enough.

You have completely ignored the point that curves work for me. If you can play a flight sim without touching the input settings well great. I and many others do touch them to our benefit and in all flight sims. The need to do so doesn't indicate bad programming or incompetence on my/our part.

You should follow your own advice, read the OP again and my response. My suggestion is that to avoid the bounciness play with the curves. The OP can accept or reject that suggestion - his choice.

I'll dust off my patronising comments in readiness for your response.

Hood

[ATAG_Bliss]

I'm not sure what the issue is Bliss and why you have to be so patronising. I perfectly comprehend how joysticks work and how they differ between pc and real life joysticks. I'm not sure what relevance a mouse and mouse mat has though. I also disagree that you need all possible points of control input to be as precise as necessary - in practice you can be good enough.

I'm patronizing you because every single time you say something as true, once shown it's not true, you change what you are talking about.

So from my last response to you.. this is what you said: "If you fly 1:1 without curves well you must be making tiny movements - good for you. If your joystick allows you to fly 1:1 then either the software allows for it being a short stick or you have some fancy setup."

The fact that you say the part in bold tells me you don't have the 1st clue how joysticks work as every single joystick I've ever owned allows you to fly at the very least, 1:1 with regards to movements on control surfaces. Then you go on saying that the only reason it allows 1:1 is because the stick is short or some fancy setup.

The potentiometers/Hall effect devices + the programming is what allows that sort of interaction with the game software. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with length of the joystick. 1:1 (this relationship) is a software thing. It is not a physical limitation. So, no, you don't know f' all about joysticks obviously. And when I've repeated the same thing 4 times now, you still probably won't learn how it works.

If your only response to me telling you this 4 times in a row is "boo hoo I'm getting patronized" the thought that should be crossing through your head is to either disprove what I'm saying (which is kinda impossible) or to accept the fact that what you said earlier is obviously completely wrong. Yet, you choose to keep coming back and making ridiculous statements about stuff you obviously don't have the 1st clue about. You deserve every patronization you get.

Then you go on to make even a more ridiculous statement about how you don't lose any precision on a joystick that is longer that has part of it's physical axis taken away: "You don't lose precision as I've tried a number of long stick setups and they've been fine. Why don't you chuck up a poll to see how many use curves?"

And in a lengthy technical discussion, one again, that I already lead you by the hand twice, with the 3rd time explaining the theory of how you get joystick precision in the 1st place. You outright say "I don't lose any precision" which is about as black and white wrong as saying the sun doesn't produce light. Once again, showing you don't know f' all about how a joystick works. Just because you don't feel the loss, possibly again because of your need for a longer stick, doesn't mean it's not less precise. The programming and theory behind how it all works isn't some mystical force. It's pretty black and white.


You have completely ignored the point that curves work for me. If you can play a flight sim without touching the input settings well great.

No I haven't. Once again you fail to read and comprehend what's been said. I said this in direct response to you needing to use curves "I can understand why someone like yourself would need a longer stick to make up for the lack of hand/eye coordination. But I have no problems at all making precise movements with devices specifically made to be able to make precise movements."

So I fully understand that curves work for you and why you need them. Just realize there are plenty of other people out there playing flight sims and using joysticks that are very precise and have very precise hand controls that don't need them. How is this ignoring you again?



I and many others do touch them to our benefit and in all flight sims. The need to do so doesn't indicate bad programming or incompetence on my/our part.

Many times, just like the thread Blitzpuppet has shown where a sim pilot is trying to fix the issue with curves is because of bad programming like in BoS's case. And if you read the comments, especially from those that actually appear to know about joysticks, there's even guys chiming in about how stupid it it is to take away your length of throw because your precision goes with it. Huh? Who'd a thought?


You should follow your own advice, read the OP again and my response. My suggestion is that to avoid the bounciness play with the curves. The OP can accept or reject that suggestion - his choice.

Making curves for a game problem doesn't fix the problem. It only puts a band-aid on the real issue. As the OP kindly pointed out, he doesn't have this problem with any 109 he flies in ANY other flight sim other than BoS. Probably going to go out on a limb and say it's not his joystick or curves fault the problem exists. Again, this is using some simple logic and reasoning skills. Don't want to go way out in left field or anything.


I'll dust off my patronising comments in readiness for your response.

Neato. Perhaps next time you can actually respond to exactly the words I've said instead of another strawman argument where you are, once again, shown you don't know what you are talking about. That would be nice as you can clearly see I respond DIRECTLY to what you say. That's how good most normal conversations go btw. Just a hint as this is pretty much your normal routine when posting here and shown each and every time you are clueless.

[AbortedMan]

Not happening here from you. This is the 4th time you've circumvented a ban.

Just because you are still upset that everyone made fun of you doesn't mean you can keep coming back here and shovel your shit.

Here's a reminder of your posting grace: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33718&page=4

[BlitzPuppet]

Made another video tonight comparing all the planes. The lagg 3 doesn't have any wandering what so ever in a negative pitch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLmFr55LTq4&

[LuseKofte]

Now that 1c banana forum was one reason for me to walk away from sim community , but right in it you see the problem with clod. That brings the reasons for me hoping BOS get bigger and people actually can choose servers.
ATAG got a amazing server and site running, but being the only one populated it gets monopolized, it would serve ATAG and the community well if there where more servers populated in cod.
The response in that tread , go play in another server is bullshit. In cod we only got this one. If you get unpopular in it cod is over for you. TS is inclusive 99% of the time, but I have witness the opposite, mainly caused by a frustrated moment of anger.
It is not easy growing a bigger community in current state, to many leave it as some new fellows come. It is not ATAG´s fault, their doing a great job, important job.
It is mostly the gravity effect, people get drawn to servers that is most populated.

I see many people talking about rubber band behavior, so I know it is there. I have just not experienced it myself. This I figure must be why I conclude that my replica yoke are perfect for this sim

[Hood]

Let me try simpler language.

Flying 1:1 does not equate to flying a real aircraft with a real joystick (obvious I know).

Yes, every pc joystick allows you to fly 1:1.

Yes the interaction between software and peripheral is important but given the number and variety of different control devices some facility to alter a setup is necessary.

No, flying 1:1 in a pc game is not suitable for everyone because not everyone has the same joystick or hand/eye co-ordination or whatever, and the software may not be suitable in its unedited form for the individual using it.

1:1 is likely, in the absence of real-life forces or programming baffles designed to limit control surface movement depending on speed etc, to allow control surfaces to be deflected outside of what would be possible in reality.

No, the need to use the software facility to adjust the control sensitivity does not in itself equate to poor programming or lack of hand/eye co-ordination on the part of the user.

A very simple logical proposition is that assuming 300 sensors equidistant around the recordable range of motion at the base of a joystick, reducing the range of movement (however this is done) will restrict the sensor usage to those that are activated by the range of movement that remains.

[In respect of magnetic field sensors I do not know how many my Warthog has and where they are positioned - are they clustered mostly around the initial range of motion or equidistant - this would be interesting to know.]

No, restricting sensor usage does not necessarily affect the precision of control necessary to fly and fight in a virtual environment. If you only ever use 80% of a joystick's range of motion and remove the 20% that you never use, does it make the stick less precise for you? No.

A logical proposition. If you need to alter a joystick curve to mimic (note that this does not mean make it "real") real life control, but reducing the range of motion would have the same effect, then either should suffice without any corresponding loss in real-world precision.


A rhetorical thought - would reducing the range of motion more correctly mimic real life given that it would reduce the range to that ordinarily allowed by the environment eg wind at higher speeds.

A subjective note - I use curves in all flight sims including CloD and DCS World - to me this does not indicate poor programming on the part of those games.

And a suggestion I made to the OP can be acted on or not.

Bliss I quite like your condescending/attack/patronise routine as it brightens my day. I'm looking forward to your response.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

Cod and bos are both following mainstream. Most here want a fingertip accuracy in their control column. It is called a dilemma while the community want everything to be "realistic"
but they don't want the realism making them miss the target.

[vranac]

Hood, if you need to adjust curves to your joystick something is wrong:

1. with your joystick

2. with a sim

3. with your coordination

There is no other reason. Please, don't get me wrong. If applying curves is helping you that's fine with me.
But with that you're loosing resolution/responsiveness like Bliss and others tried to explain it for you.

Aircraft controls are linear. All of the joystick producers try to achieve that linearity. Linear potentiometers are quite linear and those are used in the most of the joysticks.
Hall sensor is better because of the non contact nature (so less wearing out), but have some problems with linearity.
You can see that with x52, you can find graphs from joytester when someone try to draw a circle it would look more like a square.
Hi end joystick producers like VKB went with magneto resistors mainly because of better linearity that they provide even if it's more complicated to implement them
and they are more expensive (3D Hall sensor in Warthog is ~3$ and one MaRs ~13$).

And now you're trying to say that all of that effort is unnecessary because when you apply a curve you're making a nonlinearity with that.

Any filtering is bad if your joystick is in a good condition. Filtering just brakes that 1:1 equation that you're talking about.

[Hood]

No problem Vranac I take your comments as meant.

:thumbsup:

The joystick is fine.

The software is fine (DCS and CloD in particular - BOS is still in development so cannot comment on final version).

My co-ordination is fine but, and it's a big BUT, I doubt very much if I move the joystick as one would in a real plane and I fully appreciate that I may be using more deflection then would be used in reality.

A made up example - if a 5cm movement on a full stick would allow a loop, converted to a pc joystick might mean a 1cm movement, but I move it 2cm therefore inputting double the control input that would normally be used.

Thus I use curves and in doing so I reduce responsiveness but conversely increase my precision around the central movements of the stick. This is simply how it is for me.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

That is your cardinal mistake, nothing is simple here ;)

[BlitzPuppet]

We can hope that they fix this, as shown in the video I uploaded last night the FW190 is pretty bad as well as the 109G.

I honestly don't know if they ever will, but I will say that I will be fully content with DCS and CloD:TF.

[ATAG_Colander]

That is your cardinal mistake, nothing is simple here ;)

Nothing is ever simple anywhere :)

[LuseKofte]

Well For us that is not I hope and actually start to believe this will be a ok sim, flew for a long time in Syndicate server and had a lot of fun in the Heinkel.
DCS is so far from being anything I will use concerning WW2. When there is actually possible to have a objective in it I will look at it again.
I really hope the control options will be more like cod in BOs . I will not get started on the mess in DCG

[Mastiff]

"Do not despair people; come back, come back, we haven't even negotiated with Long Shanks yet.."

but I digress, the FM, and DM's are still being fine tuned believe me...

[talesc]

In my opinion in BoS the aircraft are wobbling a lot around the longitudinal axis. You should try to strafe some ground targets too see this! I made this complain in their forum and i received some bad responses from the fan boys! Not a single from the DEVs. I have not so much hope that they will address such things until the final version.

My opinio is that the aircrafts are flying so much that the RoF ones.

[talesc]

Well For us that is not I hope and actually start to believe this will be a ok sim, flew for a long time in Syndicate server and had a lot of fun in the Heinkel.
DCS is so far from being anything I will use concerning WW2. When there is actually possible to have a objective in it I will look at it again.
I really hope the control options will be more like cod in BOs . I will not get started on the mess in DCG

The problem with DCS is the aircraft visibility. It is very difficult or even impossible to spot a target at distance. This is a great issue for a WWII sim. How can you engage something you cannot see? I expect that in the future they should address this, but i do not expect it in the near future. Its a pity!

[Bezar]

They do it for immersion. Just like people that have separate levers on a different control box that you reach out in order to do something like raise and lower the landing gear. Other people just have a little button they press on the throttle/joystick etc., that still permits both hands being on the most important devices of your hotas while in flight (stick and throttle). One way is more realistic and immersive while the other way is better for performance and control.



I suggest re-reading my comments again. I've already precisely explained exactly what 1:1 means. I'm at a loss that you don't seem to have a clue what it is?

Also, do you know how far of a throw 100 degrees is? At an 8 inch top to that throw (factory setup mind you) and you have all sorts of movement. I simply can't understand why you would say there's no travel. Again, is your mousepad the size of a kitchen table? Are you not able to control your mouse to click on things quickly and efficiently with a mouse pad of normal size? If not, then I can understand why someone like yourself would need a longer stick to make up for the lack of hand/eye coordination. But I have no problems at all making precise movements with devices specifically made to be able to make precise movements. Sorry about your luck.



I can only suggest doing some research and learn about a potentiometer or a hall effect device and learn how many precision points of resolution there are within a certain distance of travel. Real simple logic for you to help you out. If you have a 2" device that has 500 points of pickup, what happens to the amount of pickup points when you take away 1" of that original 2" device? In case you haven't figured it out yet, you'll be left with 250 points now instead of 500.

So again if you cut down on the length, and therefore cut down on the resolution of those devices ran off of potentiometers / hall effect devices, you obviously cut down on precision as those points are what makes up the programming for the movements in the 1st place. I'm astonished that even after the 3rd time of saying the same thing, you fail to understand the most basic of concepts. I'm just kinda laughing in astonishment atm.



You don't seem to understand much of anything in this topic. It's not surprising that you are once again lost on what the OP is about.



I suggest reading the post above yours. It's a pretty good assessment that also discussing the instability of early VSS planes compared to their counterparts.



Again, this discussion has nothing to do with Spitfires or the BoB. I'd ask you to read the OP again, but judging from your lack of understanding on just about everything you've said I think it's pointless at this time.

Just came here for Bliss :P
I don't want to burden here, but I might understand two of you. Bliss take a look
11598

With longer stick, moving to the edge of freedom is further, that's why in my opinion longer is more precise as Hood said.

[talesc]

Then i should necessarily to buy a joystick (and a joystick that allows it) extension to fly the aircraft properly? I do not know but i think this a FM problem not a joystick one. Even adjusting sensitivity does not solves the problem.

[Bezar]

Then i should necessarily to buy a joystick (and a joystick that allows it) extension to fly the aircraft properly? I do not know but i think this a FM problem not a joystick one. Even adjusting sensitivity does not solves the problem.

No, no, I didn't mean it. Just apart from the topic. :idea:
:recon:

[LuseKofte]

The sensitivity settings are really nothing more than reducing or increasing dead zones and I for one don't think it make it better messing with it, I got this yoke
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1364.0;attach=1037 2;image
And it gives a perfect feel to the controls . obviously I enjoy the 1:1 settings. But it is a 1600 $ setup.
So I believe they need to tweak the control settings for joysticks , it is many with your problem, and many means power

[Hood]

Just came here for Bliss :P
I don't want to burden here, but I might understand two of you. Bliss take a look
11598

With longer stick, moving to the edge of freedom is further, that's why in my opinion longer is more precise as Hood said.

Yes.

And in the same way, using curves to reduce responsiveness can lead to an improvement in precision. My best personal example is setting exponential on my radio controlled aircraft.

Hood

[Remon]

Yes.

And in the same way, using curves to reduce responsiveness can lead to an improvement in precision. My best personal example is setting exponential on my radio controlled aircraft.

Hood

The problem with curves on the other hand, at least for me, is that it can disassociate the two axes, x and y. For example, let's stay I'm holding the stick back. That means that it has passed to the steeper part of the y axis curve. On the x axis though, it's still in the center, which means it's in the shallow part of the curve. So, at that moment, the x and y axes have different sensitivies. Hope you understand what I mean, it's a bit hard for me to explain it correctly.

Extensions certainly are better than using curves, but the problem is that few sticks (only Thrustmasters?) support them.

[Hood]

The problem with curves on the other hand, at least for me, is that it can disassociate the two axes, x and y. For example, let's stay I'm holding the stick back. That means that it has passed to the steeper part of the y axis curve. On the x axis though, it's still in the center, which means it's in the shallow part of the curve. So, at that moment, the x and y axes have different sensitivies. Hope you understand what I mean, it's a bit hard for me to explain it correctly.

Extensions certainly are better than using curves, but the problem is that few sticks (only Thrustmasters?) support them.

I understand. I tend to only adjust the elevator curve (and rudder in DCS D9 but may change that now the game has been tweaked) but I have no problem with that and leaving the ailerons curve untouched.

I think that some joysticks are better able to support extensions, mostly Thrustmaster, but some have made some fantastic mods for others including one full length FFB stick using 2 Microsoft Sidewinder FFB bases. I cannot find the link to that but the engineering is beyond my capabilities.

Hood

[LBR=H.Ostermann]

I understand. I tend to only adjust the elevator curve (and rudder in DCS D9 but may change that now the game has been tweaked) but I have no problem with that and leaving the ailerons curve untouched.

I think that some joysticks are better able to support extensions, mostly Thrustmaster, but some have made some fantastic mods for others including one full length FFB stick using 2 Microsoft Sidewinder FFB bases. I cannot find the link to that but the engineering is beyond my capabilities.

Hood

S!


Are you talking about this: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3494855/all/Two_MS_FFB2_merged_into_one_wi

??

[Hood]

S!


Are you talking about this: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3494855/all/Two_MS_FFB2_merged_into_one_wi

??

That's it - some people are mighty clever.

Hood

[BlitzPuppet]

tried playing again this weekend, the controls are absolutely stupid. I've never seen such instability in aircraft before when at high speed...that isn't caused by the high speed itself.

[Hood]

Don't play it and problem solved.

:)

Hood

[BlitzPuppet]

Don't play it and problem solved.

:)

Hood

Sadly that's most likely what I will have to do. Just a shame that $90 went to waste when I was so excited with the early game results...then things changes for the worse.

CloD and DCS will have to keep me entertained as far as flight sims go I guess.

[1lokos]

I supose that a extend stick make more easy fly, but help in aim?
Because in this case is need make big movements for small corrections, that can lead for overcorrection.

Taking a example a CH Fighterstick, the COTS stick than have more trow, from gimbal to top his measure about 22 cm/9in.

In their standard form the X axis movement is about 12cm/4.5in on top or ~30º for each side.

If set a extension that make then like a WWI/II stick - Petrovich argument - ~65cm/25.5in from gimbal to top based on the Russian drawing bellow, the result movement on top is impractial for use, unless the "office chair"* pilot assume a "gynecological position". :D

http://i58.tinypic.com/10pr3ue.jpg

So is need limit the stick movement, that leads in decrease the stick resolution - CH use 2000 standards: 8 bits - 256 points, these actual hardware like MFG, VKB, Warthog... use ~12 bits - 4096 points.

* Notice too that the WWII pilot site more low/reclined that a typical "office chair" pilot.

On Stuka stick (drawing on left side) a movement in grip dont result in a 1:1 movement on elevator, due use of intermediate levers the movement is amplified.

Now a curious conclusion from this matter: we have a 2014 game that aim be popular, make to be controlled preferably by a almost inexistant/expensive hardware - in true are some helicopter cyclic stick (https://www.facebook.com/KomodoSimulations) available on market, and a Wartog plus modification (and a rudder pedal) is not really affordable...

[Hood]

Some of the WWII pilots did ok with a full length stick.

Restricting the range of movement does not decrease the stick resolution over the range of movement the stick has remaining to it - that remains constant. Example - if a stick can move over 100 sensors and you limit the range to 50, it is still just as sensitive over that 50 as it was before.

I can't follow the Stuka diagrams as they make no sense to me. The Stuka did have a huge elevator though so I'd expect air over it to make it hard to use - maybe this is why they had the linkage?





Now a curious conclusion from this matter: we have a 2014 game that aim be popular, make to be controlled preferably by a almost inexistant/expensive hardware...

A faulty conclusion as that could be applied to all flight sims. More like:

A 2014 game of air combat simulation that aims to be popular and played on a variety of inexpensive or expensive hardware. After all, many are doing just that and some folks I know are having a blast with the Thrustmaster T-16000M and that is not expensive.

Accessibility is key but how far a person takes that is up to the individual. I repeat that adjusting curves makes me more precise in flying and shooting - far less over control. Reducing curves doesn't mean poor software design though.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

Well I for one are very happy with the controls , but I understand something has to be done. And personally I thing it will. Latest patch did refuse the degree of flammable ac thus many in here claimed they was not going to do anything no more with damage model. Well they do. And guess what it is still a beta, intact it has just gone from alpha to beta.
So I find it very peculiar that you of all deem this game on this early stage.
Because just about everyone with negative assumptions here are and have been proven wrong.
They want people to like their sim, believe it or not. When people cry out they will not make it better , time shows they actually do.
Let me tell you something else, Lofte simplified sight in this game are not any more simple than lofte in clod, the only difference is my brand new panels cannot be used and you do not have to bind any keys for it. It is harder to get your bombsight lined up , because the lousy autopilot are exactly what it was lousy, while in clod it is really just floating into position.
I am sure they will fix the control issues, because like it or not they have actually moved to the right directions on all matters coming from the community.

[BlitzPuppet]

Tried playing again this weekend after the forced uninstall/reinstall (made a different folder to be sure it was fresh).

After going through and setting up all my controls it's still the same crappy bouncy elevator input. Sorry to say I believe I am going to completely uninstall until I hear some good things about the sim. And after hearing about the single player catastrophe I really think it's going to be a while.

[dburne]

Tried playing again this weekend after the forced uninstall/reinstall (made a different folder to be sure it was fresh).

After going through and setting up all my controls it's still the same crappy bouncy elevator input. Sorry to say I believe I am going to completely uninstall until I hear some good things about the sim. And after hearing about the single player catastrophe I really think it's going to be a while.

As a single player here, I have to say I am very disappointed with what I am seeing now.

[Blitzen]

I had been trying to use a MS FFB stick( which did & does work fine with Il-2 ,RoF,and CloD,) with this sim but the darned thing couldn't seem to cut it.Yo-yoing,esp. after slight to extreme turns or trying to center in on a target or just steady flight were problematic even with Custom settings.Trim &/or stabilizer settings did little or nothing to help.It was obvious wth Campaigns rquiring Normal settings I would need a new stick.I bit the bullet & bought a very nice new LogitechExtreme 3dPro. I set it all up ,but am sad to say it doesn't improve things all that much.I get more or less steady flight out of the bombers ( of course they did handle like trucks...really I've flown a B-25 & know...) but the fighters are still a mess in Normal settings,esp.in rudder /aileron turns. Near the termination of the turn ,the nose of the plane wobbles all over the place.I've tried trim settings & not at all sure these are even working...ditto deadzone settings on all 3 axis,but again I'm not sure I'm helping or hurting the problems or for that matter whether they work or not.
I know WW2 fighters wre a hand full ,but this is ridiculous.Take-off & landings are just possible but drawing a bead n a moving turning target & getting hits is a matter of spraying the general are & hoping for one hit in fifty.
Is there a solution? I've given up my favorite stick,but results seem minimal.When missions turn into 3o plane free for alls my goose is cooked..:recon:

[II/JG3~Siggi]

I had been trying to use a MS FFB stick( which did & does work fine with Il-2 ,RoF,and CloD,) with this sim but the darned thing couldn't seem to cut it.Yo-yoing,esp. after slight to extreme turns or trying to center in on a target or just steady flight were problematic even with Custom settings.Trim &/or stabilizer settings did little or nothing to help.It was obvious wth Campaigns rquiring Normal settings I would need a new stick.I bit the bullet & bought a very nice new LogitechExtreme 3dPro. I set it all up ,but am sad to say it doesn't improve things all that much.I get more or less steady flight out of the bombers ( of course they did handle like trucks...really I've flown a B-25 & know...) but the fighters are still a mess in Normal settings,esp.in rudder /aileron turns. Near the termination of the turn ,the nose of the plane wobbles all over the place.I've tried trim settings & not at all sure these are even working...ditto deadzone settings on all 3 axis,but again I'm not sure I'm helping or hurting the problems or for that matter whether they work or not.
I know WW2 fighters wre a hand full ,but this is ridiculous.Take-off & landings are just possible but drawing a bead n a moving turning target & getting hits is a matter of spraying the general are & hoping for one hit in fifty.
Is there a solution? I've given up my favorite stick,but results seem minimal.When missions turn into 3o plane free for alls my goose is cooked..:recon:

The solution is to ditch the arcade POS and go with a proper sim (CloD). Or DCS. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it expresses the pragmatic reality of the situation.

[Archie]

Han posted today that the FW190 FM was finalised a month ago...

[dburne]

I know WW2 fighters wre a hand full ,but this is ridiculous.Take-off & landings are just possible but drawing a bead n a moving turning target & getting hits is a matter of spraying the general are & hoping for one hit in fifty.
Is there a solution? I've given up my favorite stick,but results seem minimal.When missions turn into 3o plane free for alls my goose is cooked..:recon:

Both the pitch and the yaw have been way too sensitive in BOS from the beginning, and it was the topic of many heated discussions. Even trying to smooth it out with a curve did not yield great results. Now to their credit, they did adjust it some, mainly in the Russian planes - but still too sensitive imho.

There are players that will argue that it is they way it should be, more like the real thing, but in the real thing one is flying with a much longer stick handle than what we have for our computer games - at least for those of us that do not invest in custom stick extensions. Some have purchased extensions that were available for their particular stick, and have stated it makes it better. Not everyone is going to be able to do this, in fact the vast majority will not do this, and certainly not what I perceive to now be their target audience.

I personally think this should be allowed for, and adjusted in the sim, but it does not appear the developers are going to do anything further in this regard.

Many of the way more experienced virtual pilots will be able to work with this, get it tweaked and get used to it enough they will be very proficient, but alas I do not think this is going to bode well for the target audience they are going after.
I think many of these, will give it a try and get frustrated and give up on it.
Once it has officially " Released", just watch the reviews, and see if this isn't a hot topic.

This is just of course, my humble opinion.

[II/JG3~Siggi]

I have a 10cm extension on my Warthog and the BoS 109s are still utter pigs to fly. And as far as I'm concerned it's deliberate.

[Blitzen]

The solution is to ditch the arcade POS and go with a proper sim (CloD). Or DCS. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it expresses the pragmatic reality of the situation.

Well I already "fly"CloD and thanks to the people here at ATAG I enjoy it & game play immensely,but I'll probably putter along with BoS.I do have an investment in it and its eye-candy is impressive.Its early days yet...RoF was pretty rough around the edges ( as was CloD) when it debuted, but it did get better ( esp now with 3rd party Mods& skins..) So we'll see.If controlability issues continue ,I'll be spending alot more time with the (also) beatuiful CloD as problems are solved & new maps,missions & campaigns are slowly added...:salute:

[Hood]

I have a 10cm extension on my Warthog and the BoS 109s are still utter pigs to fly. And as far as I'm concerned it's deliberate.

I find it delightful and I almost feel untouchable when I'm in the F4. It's nice to have that feeling for a change.

It seems to me that BOS isn't the problem here.

Hood

[Mastiff]

I find it delightful and I almost feel untouchable when I'm in the F4. It's nice to have that feeling for a change.

It seems to me that BOS isn't the problem here.

Hood

I agree most post are user end problems with the game.

they don't know how to use a computer.

[LuseKofte]

I have a 10cm extension on my Warthog and the BoS 109s are still utter pigs to fly. And as far as I'm concerned it's deliberate.

You must be joking, I find it really hard to take that statement serious, normally I would ignore it. But you have been pretty active with that statement.

There are many that have problems with the joystick settings. I got a mate with TM warthog with similar problems, I know others that have no problem at all.
There must be a solution for it

I like cods interface, it seems to have the ideal control settings , DCS is very disappointing, only allow 3 usb extra witch are pretty old fashion

[II/JG3~Siggi]

You must be joking, I find it really hard to take that statement serious, normally I would ignore it. But you have been pretty active with that statement.

There are many that have problems with the joystick settings. I got a mate with TM warthog with similar problems, I know others that have no problem at all.
There must be a solution for it

I like cods interface, it seems to have the ideal control settings , DCS is very disappointing, only allow 3 usb extra witch are pretty old fashion

It's all relative I guess. I'm comparing 109s to LaGG3, Yak and La5. Taken alone some might (and do) find the LW FMs tolerable but I don't. Regardless of my extension on the Warthog I have to fight to keep the 109 doing what it should be doing with a static input. It's like stirring a bowl of porridge.

[Cassius]

Have not seen? Fw 190-A3 can do a cobra. On 0.26 and 2.24. It was possible? :stunned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncfPu3XS24

[hnbdgr]

I'm not sure this will be of any help, but if you need custom curves on joysticks that don't come with programming software like TARGET etc.; this is worth looking into:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6497&highlight=joystick+curve

The prerequisite for this is that BoS must allow changes to control mapping through some sort of ini or xml file. Otherwise you won't be able to hook up your virtual joystick (that carries the altered curves) into the game.

I use it on my MS FFB 2 in CoD, works like a treat.

:salute:

[Bewolf]

Have not seen? Fw 190-A3 can do a cobra. On 0.26 and 2.24. It was possible? :stunned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncfPu3XS24

WTF? Is that for real in the game? Or some realism settings disabled?

[II/JG3~Siggi]

Ah, the BoS 190, a lame sheep in wolf's clothing.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Ah, the BoS 190, a lame sheep in wolf's clothing.

Comments such as this are trollish and not acceptable in this forum. If a negatively provocative pronouncement like this is to be made, at least show the respect to your fellow forum members as to why you feel this way. Otherwise, this is just sim bashing, plain and simple.

For the benefit of everyone, this will be the second-to-last post in the ATAG Forum bashing BoS or any other sim.

Salute,

Snapper :salute:

[LuseKofte]

Spent some time in the fw190 , it is really not bad. But its advantage in low to medium altitude are in my expirience taken away from it.
There should be some historical differences between the counterparts, witch I feel lacking.
But I been shot down quite a few times by them, so it might be me

[Continu0]

WTF? Is that for real in the game? Or some realism settings disabled?

As it is, you can do ABSURD stuff with the 190. 02:20 is also just beyond any realism. Some of the strange stuff has been corected, but this YT-chanel gives you a basic idea about the BoS-FM-problems....

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDnvT6Ly7nTJbPlMflVLxIQ

[LuseKofte]

Well flying full realism I cannot do that at all. That is for sure

[II/JG3~Siggi]

Comments such as this are trollish and not acceptable in this forum. If a negatively provocative pronouncement like this is to be made, at least show the respect to your fellow forum members as to why you feel this way. Otherwise, this is just sim bashing, plain and simple.

For the benefit of everyone, this will be the second-to-last post in the ATAG Forum bashing BoS or any other sim.

Salute,

Snapper :salute:

Well, I guess I thought by now we all know the reasons, so it was just an off-the-cuff conversational remark. It's a sheep in wolf's clothing because the real Fw190 was surely a wolf of planes but the BoS version's FM is so neutered and wrong (the LaGG3 out-rolls it for crying out loud) it's been made a sheep. And we now have one of the devs demanding players send him documents via PM that prove the 190's roll-rate was as exceptional as the "anecdotal evidence" claims.

Flying full-realism I have had two planes (109s) go down vertically with zero forward air-speed while straight and level after doing a combination of maneouvers.

[Continu0]

Well flying full realism I cannot do that at all. That is for sure

And I just checked, I can. Fly level, then abrupt but sustained full elevator, full aileron and full rudder input at the same times delivers you funny results. Use the F3-sight...

[Hood]

Have not seen? Fw 190-A3 can do a cobra. On 0.26 and 2.24. It was possible? :stunned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncfPu3XS24



Lol I can do all of that. Not on purpose, and usually 50m in the air for a bout .5 sec but it's easy.

Hood

[II/JG3~Siggi]

There was something equally weird in the original IL2. Anyone remember the infamous bat-flip/bat-turn?

[LuseKofte]

never really tried, I tend to fly like one should

[PFT_Endy]

never really tried, I tend to fly like one should

The point is, even if you tried it, the plane should not behave like that. The fact that it does means there's something very wrong with the FM.

Of course, you can ignore it and say that it does not concern you because you don't do that, but how just many bugs are you willing to ignore just because you "tend to fly like one should"?

[LuseKofte]

Well unlike anyone else here, I found peace in the fact that I can enjoy this game for what it is, I have given up hoping for improvements after reading Han's respectless answers to those adressing this issue.
Sure I Could uninstall the game in protest, but for what?
I am fed up with cod atm , I somehow currently enjoy DCS Dora and. Russian planes in BOS more,

[Bewolf]

Well unlike anyone else here, I found peace in the fact that I can enjoy this game for what it is, I have given up hoping for improvements after reading Han's respectless answers to those adressing this issue.
Sure I Could uninstall the game in protest, but for what?
I am fed up with cod atm , I somehow currently enjoy DCS Dora and. Russian planes in BOS more,

I am a bit confused about you, LuseKofte. I certainly understand your desire to have a growing community mostly focussed on one product. I guess we all do. I also understand you are tired of CoD. I had those phases myself before coming back. All that time only ever seeing the Channel and the same 3 or 4 missions on ATAG is not exactly perfect for long term motivation either, even though to this very day the server regulary reaches it's limit. Just because you are tired you can't argue on the premise that all others are, can you?

To put up with this kinda stuff presented in BoS really takes a lot of faith. Respect to your tireless attempts to talk people into it nevertheless, but I hope you understand a lot of simmers look for higher standarts. Me personally I was always a bit sceptical towards BoS due to the former RoF expiriences, but was willing to give it a try after release. But to be honest, that has moved to the future now after what has been shown so far. Hopefully a lot of the issues presented will be fixed, but the devs attitudes and the former expirience in RoF leaves me a bit in doubt. Let's see what comes of it.

[Hood]

... how just many bugs are you willing to ignore just because you "tend to fly like one should"?


"All of those that don't affect you or you don't see" would be my answer.

Does anyone know if the FW190 could or could not do what has been shown i.e. full back, full opposite rudder and ailerons etc to get a vertical pointing/forward motion? I've managed to inadvertently get 109s in most games doing it in an uncontrolled windmill kind of move but not a straight vertical one.

Hood

[Bewolf]

"All of those that don't affect you or you don't see" would be my answer.

Does anyone know if the FW190 could or could not do what has been shown i.e. full back, full opposite rudder and ailerons etc to get a vertical pointing/forward motion? I've managed to inadvertently get 109s in most games doing it in an uncontrolled windmill kind of move but not a straight vertical one.

Hood

Torque at that low speed right after take off would make you kiss the ground faster then you could say "oh shi..", not talking about immidialty stalling out with the low wingload FW190 at that speed.
The 190 was infamous for it's sudden snaproll tendencies if you pulled up too sharply, no amount of rudder input could compensate for that. Some pilots even used that as an evasive maneuver.

[PFT_Endy]

Does anyone know if the FW190 could or could not do what has been shown i.e. full back, full opposite rudder and ailerons etc to get a vertical pointing/forward motion? I've managed to inadvertently get 109s in most games doing it in an uncontrolled windmill kind of move but not a straight vertical one.

Hood

Snap roll is something very different than a cobra maneuver. While you may have done a snap roll with a 109 or P51 and it's very possible, cobra would be impossible for most prop planes except the modern stunt planes which have the weight of a sheet of paper and an engine the size of a barn. You would not be able to do a cobra in any WWII plane and even most jets as well, especially the early ones.

As for your take on bugs, if something is not important then sure, but there's nothing more important in a flight sim than FM, so bugs like that can't just be ignored.

[II/JG3~Siggi]

I think the BoS devs have clearly revealed themselves as liars and cheats but you can take that as just my personal opinion. But I step back and look at the totality of the BoS experience so far and after hearing their outrageous claims concerning the fidelity of the FMs and comparing them to the Fw190's cobra I don't see an accident or over-sight. The Fokker Dr1 in RoF was never able to do the famous flat turn on a dime and BoS uses the same engine (Digital Nature). But we all fell for the "It's Enhanced!" BS.

The FMs are not only sub-par in terms of how well the code can be made to perform but are also game-balanced to give allied planes a clear advantage. Take that also as a personal opinion. Bottom line is it no longer really matters, considering they killed the game's chances of success dead with the arcade campaign design and tying it to MP. We've all learned that these things get only one chance to succeed and that's right on release. CloD alone has taught us that, otherwise the TF magic should have resurrected it and seen hundreds, if not thousands, returning to it.

But our beleaguered genre (hard-core simming) is full of desperate hope and longing, hence the tortuous length and breadth of these kinds of debate. Golfers and anglers really do have a lot about which to feel smug.

[LuseKofte]

They havent revieled anything else than bad communication skills and arrogance. You point the finger toward people you yourselves got personal problems with.
They have not lied, the problem is their lack of interest on what the customers want. They work and go straight forward toward their own goal, disregarding customers wishes.
In a odd way that is the oposite of a lie, it is stubborn resistant belief in what you do, even if it means loosing customers

Btw I dont try to get anyone into this game, I just disagree in people when they do like you campaigning against something.
I do the same for cod in other sites, there Are many doing this against cod, I give them resistance

[II/JG3~Siggi]

Like I said, it's my personal opinion. And the game's dead already so it's all pretty moot at this point.

[Hood]

Like I said, it's my personal opinion. And the game's dead already so it's all pretty moot at this point.

Gosh you're so persuasive.

I'm not sure where you get the allied aircraft bias bit from as it bears no resemblance to what I've seen.

Hood

ps: Lt. Cronyn wrote Voss whipped around in an extra ordinary way, using no bank at all but just throwing his tail behind him. Voss expertly utilized the pitching & the acrobatic qualities of his rotary-engine triplane to his full advantage, against the faster but heavier and slower-turning S.E.5s. He accomplished this by kicking in full rudder, adding opposite aileron and adding a little elevator, so as to keep his aircraft level. All of this was completed in the blink of an eye. When Voss recovered from his unorthodox maneuver...

[PFT_Endy]

You just quoted a description of a usual, efficient method for slowing down the plane quickly although during WWI everything was new :) Try that yourself, you'll see the effect and it's got nothing to do with BoS FM weirdness :)

[II/JG3~Siggi]

I call it bias because I can see no legitimate reason why the atrociously bad characteristics of the three LW fighters do not apply to the VVS ones. Are we supposed to believe it's just chance? And if so why has it still not been fixed in the LW planes? Twitchy, over-sensitive to control inputs and rubber-banding. And I'm hardly the only one complaining about it. Never mind gross inaccuracies in the Fw190's engine-power, roll-rate, high-altitude performance and etc.

Hence my conclusion it's deliberate and thus bias. The reason is easy to understand, the devs figure the arcade crowd will mostly be for the allied kit and are pitching the FMs accordingly for the sake of sales. You are aware they've publically stated this is not intended to be a historical hard-core sim and sales are their primary concern?

[Hood]

You just quoted a description of a usual, efficient method for slowing down the plane quickly although during WWI everything was new :) Try that yourself, you'll see the effect and it's got nothing to do with BoS FM weirdness :)

It is a description of a turn that may or may not have been true. There is a lot of debate as to whether it was actually possible but we'll never know the truth.

It was posted because Siggi posted about it - I agree it has nothing to do with BoS save that BoS uses an altered version of the DN engine.

Hood

[Hood]

...atrociously bad characteristics of the three LW fighters... do not apply to the VVS ones. Are we supposed to believe it's just chance?... Twitchy, over-sensitive to control inputs and rubber-banding... Never mind gross inaccuracies in the Fw190's engine-power, roll-rate, high-altitude performance and etc.

Hence my conclusion it's deliberate and thus bias. The reason is easy to understand, the devs figure the arcade crowd will mostly be for the allied kit and are pitching the FMs accordingly for the sake of sales. You are aware they've publically stated this is not intended to be a historical hard-core sim and sales are their primary concern?


Problem in chair, not in computer. I have none of those problems whatsoever having got my controls set up just right.

FW190 - http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/

Bias? Reds under the bed?

Arcade crowds tend to head for the best stuff, not the worst, so they'll go LW.

The developer's public statements have always been consistent. Hard-core isn't better or worse than any other type of game play, and hard and other core play is possible in it. Stuff like clickable cockpits don't make a game "hard-core". And of course sales are their primary concern. What point making a technically amazing product that nobody buys.

I'm afraid your own bias makes any rational dialogue impossible so I'll leave this as my last word.

Hood

[II/JG3~Siggi]

You're flogging a dead horse Hood, there are plenty of very respectable old-hand simmers who say the LW FMs are bent. But if they work for you, great.

[Chuck_Owl]

I think the BoS devs have clearly revealed themselves as liars and cheats but you can take that as just my personal opinion. But I step back and look at the totality of the BoS experience so far and after hearing their outrageous claims concerning the fidelity of the FMs and comparing them to the Fw190's cobra I don't see an accident or over-sight. The Fokker Dr1 in RoF was never able to do the famous flat turn on a dime and BoS uses the same engine (Digital Nature). But we all fell for the "It's Enhanced!" BS.

The FMs are not only sub-par in terms of how well the code can be made to perform but are also game-balanced to give allied planes a clear advantage. Take that also as a personal opinion. Bottom line is it no longer really matters, considering they killed the game's chances of success dead with the arcade campaign design and tying it to MP. We've all learned that these things get only one chance to succeed and that's right on release. CloD alone has taught us that, otherwise the TF magic should have resurrected it and seen hundreds, if not thousands, returning to it.

But our beleaguered genre (hard-core simming) is full of desperate hope and longing, hence the tortuous length and breadth of these kinds of debate. Golfers and anglers really do have a lot about which to feel smug.


Looks like metacritic is corrupt to the core. Somebody there been bunged a brown envelope by Williams...?


These cowboys really need to be sacked en-masse. Disgusting behaviour.

I think you REALLY didn't get Snapper's message, didn't you?

[II/JG3~Siggi]

Uh? I have no notifications. :S

[Chuck_Owl]

This one


Comments such as this are trollish and not acceptable in this forum. If a negatively provocative pronouncement like this is to be made, at least show the respect to your fellow forum members as to why you feel this way. Otherwise, this is just sim bashing, plain and simple.

For the benefit of everyone, this will be the second-to-last post in the ATAG Forum bashing BoS or any other sim.

Salute,

Snapper :salute:

[II/JG3~Siggi]

I believe he was talking about off-hand one-line comments that provide no complementary explanation. Or maybe you think he meant no negative conversation should be had at all? I consider that highly unlikely.

[Chuck_Owl]

That's true, you are clearly NOT sim-bashing with every single bloody post you've made on this forum so far.

#sarcasm

We got your point the first time. I fail to see why you need to repeat it over and over and over and over and OVER again.

If you're not willing to bring anything constructive to the table, it seems like you're deliberately looking to pick a fight. Grow up.

[LuseKofte]

You're flogging a dead horse Hood, there are plenty of very respectable old-hand simmers who say the LW FMs are bent. But if they work for you, great.

You got by far the most selfish attitude I ever seen, I wonder what wrong with clod and what you would do to "kill" it if you ever got banned from here.
As usual the small stuff destroy the game because of mass hysteria among all the community.
The only wrong in this case is the poor way 777 has handled it. But calm down , bos is far from dead, their intimidating posting about closing down are just their way of response.
Witch brings us to the core of the problem.

By all the things you have been saying lately , I presume you have no clue about anything on how a sim work. BOS is a very good sim, it is just not at the moment anywhere near its real potential, mostly because of 777 stubborn resistance to change their ways. I have no doubt it will be abandoned somewhere along the way if there is not anything to earn from it.
But people like you mostly active in 1c forum did this to cod also, this is why I am very surprised by the treatment it get from here.
This scenario repeated again, showing for all future possible ww2 sim developers that flight sim is just suicide. This is #2 of 2 trashed by its own audience and the ironi just make me want to laugh

[Tycoon]

The Fokker Dr1 in RoF was never able to do the famous flat turn on a dime

Was the Dr1 really capable of doing that? A full 180?

[II/JG3~Siggi]

That's true, you are clearly NOT sim-bashing with every single bloody post you've made on this forum so far.

#sarcasm

We got your point the first time. I fail to see why you need to repeat it over and over and over and over and OVER again.

If you're not willing to bring anything constructive to the table, it seems like you're deliberately looking to pick a fight. Grow up.

Looks like you're the one trying to pick a fight. I said nothing to you until you started in on me. "Grow up" indeed.

[Hood]

Was the Dr1 really capable of doing that? A full 180?

It's not clear. There is a description of Werner Voss doing it but that is open to debate etc. It's such a tricksy plane I'd like to believe it did it, but save for that one instant there is nothing to say it was possible.

Hood

[II/JG3~Siggi]

You got by far the most selfish attitude I ever seen, I wonder what wrong with clod and what you would do to "kill" it if you ever got banned from here.
As usual the small stuff destroy the game because of mass hysteria among all the community.
The only wrong in this case is the poor way 777 has handled it. But calm down , bos is far from dead, their intimidating posting about closing down are just their way of response.
Witch brings us to the core of the problem.

By all the things you have been saying lately , I presume you have no clue about anything on how a sim work. BOS is a very good sim, it is just not at the moment anywhere near its real potential, mostly because of 777 stubborn resistance to change their ways. I have no doubt it will be abandoned somewhere along the way if there is not anything to earn from it.
But people like you mostly active in 1c forum did this to cod also, this is why I am very surprised by the treatment it get from here.
This scenario repeated again, showing for all future possible ww2 sim developers that flight sim is just suicide. This is #2 of 2 trashed by its own audience and the ironi just make me want to laugh

You really don't seem to get it. It's not a sim, it's a shallow arcade blaster. So if it dies what are we losing? Something that was worth having? A proper sim? If it was that it wouldn't already be dead or about to die, would it. Everyone would be raving about it. It's in the position it is right now BECAUSE it's not a sim and is of zero value to simmers. It's loss will be no loss.

[Hoots]

You really don't seem to get it. It's not a sim, it's a shallow arcade blaster. So if it dies what are we losing? Something that was worth having? A proper sim? If it was that it wouldn't already be dead or about to die, would it. Everyone would be raving about it. It's in the position it is right now BECAUSE it's not a sim and is of zero value to simmers. It's loss will be no loss.

Blimey, thanks for speaking for all of us, and there was me thinking I might have my own views.

[LuseKofte]

You really don't seem to get it. It's not a sim, it's a shallow arcade blaster. So if it dies what are we losing? Something that was worth having? A proper sim? If it was that it wouldn't already be dead or about to die, would it. Everyone would be raving about it. It's in the position it is right now BECAUSE it's not a sim and is of zero value to simmers. It's loss will be no loss.

It is a game, I use sim so I do not have to say flight game. Just like cod, I hate to disappoint you. Flying 109 here, does not mean you actually can fly a 109. You would not even manage to crank the engine, you are being patronizing and rather tasteless in your ways.
The thing is, if I do not like a game, I still can relate to the fact that other might, and my subjective opinion of that game is not interesting per se.
I actually respect peoples right to like a game, and I would not do anything to hurt something other people like.
You are not constructive, you are rather hateful in your ways of campaigning against this game.
I advice you to ignore things you do not like.
As it seems 777 is quite capable to destroy itself, all by themselves, without your help. I am btw currently banned or on observation status there now

[II/JG3~Siggi]

Does it not occur to you that all the people panning this game are sending a clear message to the industry: "Don't sell us arcade dreck masquerading as a sim"? Isn't that a good thing? To maybe prevent it happening again? Neither 1C or 777 deserve to get away with this kind of chicanery. And they haven't. Their fault, their responsibility. We, as the purchasers, have every right to voice our displeasure, and to maintain that voice so long as fanboys try to drown us out. It's a two-way street, not a drag-strip for fanboys.

[Hood]

Does it not occur to you that all the people panning this game are sending a clear message to the industry: "Don't sell us arcade dreck masquerading as a sim"? Isn't that a good thing? To maybe prevent it happening again? Neither 1C or 777 deserve to get away with this kind of chicanery. And they haven't. Their fault, their responsibility. We, as the purchasers, have every right to voice our displeasure, and to maintain that voice so long as fanboys try to drown us out. It's a two-way street, not a drag-strip for fanboys.


Up to a point, but how much is fuelled by spite and bitterness? How about the manner in which a point is expressed. Have you actually truly really considered that what you're getting is in fact what they promised?

Sad.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

There are no industry , there will not be any industry . If this goes down the drain it will be the second in 4 years publicly slaughtered by its own customers. It is not like people ignore it , they bash it. And they act in a very dramatic way. No matter how 777 or Maddox treat the customers , it is the demise that will be remembered.
No matter what you think you are doing, you are not doing anything better with the hysteria you spread. You hurt the genre as a whole, you see it was done by your likes towards cod 4 years ago, so I know. If any game in this genre will come, it is DCS. And I am not convinced it will ever become a complete game. I hope so but the complexity and time works against it. But god how I hope it will

[Hoots]

Does it not occur to you that all the people panning this game are sending a clear message to the industry: "Don't sell us arcade dreck masquerading as a sim"? Isn't that a good thing? To maybe prevent it happening again? Neither 1C or 777 deserve to get away with this kind of chicanery. And they haven't. Their fault, their responsibility. We, as the purchasers, have every right to voice our displeasure, and to maintain that voice so long as fanboys try to drown us out. It's a two-way street, not a drag-strip for fanboys.

And what about those in the middle of the road? That are neither haters nor fanboys and actually quite like the game and would like to see it continue? You're quite happy to get it stopped and deny them the game?

[LuseKofte]

And what about those in the middle of the road? That are neither haters nor fanboys and actually quite like the game and would like to see it continue? You're quite happy to get it stopped and deny them the game?

There right there, that is where I am. I just want a couple of minutes of fun

[Bewolf]

Siggi has a point, though. And let's also not forget that bitterness and hate does not develop out of thin air, it usually is a failure in propper communication and different mindsets.
CloD failed for various reasons, attributing those just to the nay saysers (and I fought the nay sayers tooth and nail back then), really does not do the whole issue justice in regards to recent Sim development. The same now holds true for BoS.

What really strikes me in this regard is that DCS, the other elephant in the house, avoided such major debates despite not even offering a comprehensive Multiplayer expirience. But then again everybody knows exactly what to expect from this Sim.

I said it before, Storm of War made the mistake of using the IL2 suffix. This comes with certain expectations. They should have used the RoF legacy instead and you can bet a lot of the issues, especially before the fallout today, would have been avoided.

[Hood]

Sorry Bewolf I'll disagree with you.

Look at Siggi's concerted attack because of his belief that the developers have somehow biased the FM towards the VVS. No evidence whatsoever save for problems he and a few others have with controlling the LW aircraft. That I and others don't have the problem has never been addressed. If you're a developer faced with that kind of mindset do you think you can communicate? Why should you?

Again, look at the earliest development updates - this sets out exactly what they planned to do. Nothing hidden, no agenda, nothing, and they have delivered what they promised. So why the bile and vitriol?

I can't see that using the IL2 brand is justification to drag it down either. They never said they would make a study sim or anything else like that. The original wasn't a study sim either. Sure it had some good points that haven't been bettered since, but overall it was simple to use and operate. If people wanted old IL2 in a new IL2 whose fault should that be?

You're right about DCS though. For WWII at the moment it is a nothing game, but that is what people expect about the multiplayer element of it.

Hood

ps Tvrdi - fanboy? You're absolutely correct. I'm a fan of all flight sims (except MS CFS). I'm not blinkered in my outlook though - there's a difference.

[Bewolf]

Sorry Bewolf I'll disagree with you.

Look at Siggi's concerted attack because of his belief that the developers have somehow biased the FM towards the VVS. No evidence whatsoever save for problems he and a few others have with controlling the LW aircraft. That I and others don't have the problem has never been addressed. If you're a developer faced with that kind of mindset do you think you can communicate? Why should you?

Again, look at the earliest development updates - this sets out exactly what they planned to do. Nothing hidden, no agenda, nothing, and they have delivered what they promised. So why the bile and vitriol?

I can't see that using the IL2 brand is justification to drag it down either. They never said they would make a study sim or anything else like that. The original wasn't a study sim either. Sure it had some good points that haven't been bettered since, but overall it was simple to use and operate. If people wanted old IL2 in a new IL2 whose fault should that be?

You're right about DCS though. For WWII at the moment it is a nothing game, but that is what people expect about the multiplayer element of it.

Hood


No need for apologies, we all have our opinions. And just because I agreed to Siggis last post does not make me appreciate extreme attitudes, of that you can be sure. In this case I just agreed that you can't just blame the community for all the trouble the IL2 series is in.

However, I doubt most people look at BoS through the lense of it's development plan, but simply see the IL2 brand and immidiatly connect certain expectations with it. I certainly did in the beginning, that includes lots of planes and theatres, a max of accessebility, constant free updates, you name it. The way BoS currently runs simply follows more of the RoF path then the original IL2 one. That does not need to be bad, RoF after all is the most successfull WW1 out there. It's just a different philosophy/business modell compared to the original IL2, even a contradictionary one. Mixing those two up was a bad move, at least in my opinion.

I also think that the CloD debacle created a lot of bitterness, a bitterness that was transferred with the IL2 tag from CloD to BoS in one way or the other, especially given the fact that BoS actually includes assets originally created for the CloD follow up. Lots of the folks that were hostile towards each other now ended up on differnt sides of the fence, CloD/BoS, all in the believe to play the "better" new IL2. Justified or not, you always will have to deal with simple human nature, even in business matters.

Finally, that the IL2 community is a very vocal and opinionated one is not exactly a secret for anyone that spend a bit of time with the flight sim community. The RoF devs must have known that. The more suprising it is to see them act as helpless and react as extreme in the face of even civil criticism. In the end, it's not so much the game itself that put me of, but the reputation the devs have created for themselves now.

In regards to DCS, let's see where we are in 2 years.

[II/JG3~Siggi]

There are no industry , there will not be any industry . If this goes down the drain it will be the second in 4 years publicly slaughtered by its own customers. It is not like people ignore it , they bash it. And they act in a very dramatic way. No matter how 777 or Maddox treat the customers , it is the demise that will be remembered.
No matter what you think you are doing, you are not doing anything better with the hysteria you spread. You hurt the genre as a whole, you see it was done by your likes towards cod 4 years ago, so I know. If any game in this genre will come, it is DCS. And I am not convinced it will ever become a complete game. I hope so but the complexity and time works against it. But god how I hope it will

So if nobody had 'bashed' CloD four years ago it would somehow have auto-magically transformed itself into a fully functional and most excellent piece of software? Instead of remaining an un-useable bus-wreck? WE turned it into a wreck? By 'bashing' it?

And ditto BoS? Our 'bashing' it has turned it from a sim into an arcade game?

What are you actually trying to say, that we should all remain silent lest no more companies make anymore bus-wrecks or arcade flight-combat games? If so you'll have to explain to me, as if to a slow child, how that serves our purpose. We'll still have no hard-core sims because whatever company decides to make another game will figure the silence = approval and give us more of the same kind of pap.

We have nothing to lose here. If no company makes anymore of this stuff, so what? We lose nothing. We're no worse off than we already are. But maybe you're saying an arcade game is better than no sim at all? Be grateful for whatever arcade stuff we can get? As a hard-core simmer I'd rather pack away my hardware again, as I did after CloD. Wait a few years, wait for a miracle, a company with the balls and artistic integrity to take a chance and do it right.

[II/JG3~Siggi]

And what about those in the middle of the road? That are neither haters nor fanboys and actually quite like the game and would like to see it continue? You're quite happy to get it stopped and deny them the game?

No. I simply believe it is the height of snide dishonesty to begin by peddling the software as a proper sim, the "best WW2 sim ever", and then, after taking all the money they could suck out of the trusting community, reveal it to be an arcade blaster.

Some of you still have a very high tolerance for being taken for mugs. Not to mention being prepared to see your fellow simmers treated like shit on a north-korea styled forum for doing nothing more than criticizing the fraud. Do you have any idea how many people have been banned for doing nothing more than voicing sincere negative opinions? Oh, but they didn't decorate their criticisms in the state-sanctioned garlands of respectful daffodils? That's always been a pathetic excuse for silencing people.

The wretched self-pitying attitude of the devs has been publically posted, that they think they are "doing it all for you" (us, the players). As if it's a freebie, done out of charity and devotion and blah blah blah. It's not, of course; it's a hard-headed money-making exercise and nothing illustrated that more obviously than the deliberate ambiguity when they were pitching for our EA dollars. "This game's not for you!" Their words. Bald as brass. "Screw you!"

If you're prepared to lay down for that, are able to, and still enjoy the game, good for you. You have the game so do just that, go and enjoy it. Nobody's stopping you. You don't have to be here reading all the stuff you say you hate. But don't tell us, those who aren't willing and/or able, that we have to suck it up in silence. We want better for our dollar. We want what we were led to believe we were going to get, a SIM.

[Hoots]

No. I simply believe it is the height of snide dishonesty to begin by peddling the software as a proper sim, the "best WW2 sim ever", and then, after taking all the money they could suck out of the trusting community, reveal it to be an arcade blaster.

Some of you still have a very high tolerance for being taken for mugs. Not to mention being prepared to see your fellow simmers treated like shit on a north-korea styled forum for doing nothing more than criticizing the fraud. Do you have any idea how many people have been banned for doing nothing more than voicing sincere negative opinions? Oh, but they didn't decorate their criticisms in the state-sanctioned garlands of respectful daffodils? That's always been a pathetic excuse for silencing people.

The wretched self-pitying attitude of the devs has been publically posted, that they think they are "doing it all for you" (us, the players). As if it's a freebie, done out of charity and devotion and blah blah blah. It's not, of course; it's a hard-headed money-making exercise and nothing illustrated that more obviously than the deliberate ambiguity when they were pitching for our EA dollars. "This game's not for you!" Their words. Bald as brass. "Screw you!"

If you're prepared to lay down for that, are able to, and still enjoy the game, good for you. You have the game so do just that, go and enjoy it. Nobody's stopping you. You don't have to be here reading all the stuff you say you hate. But don't tell us, those who aren't willing and/or able, that we have to suck it up in silence. We want better for our dollar. We want what we were led to believe we were going to get, a SIM.

Wait, what? So now because I don't get all bent out of shape over a game I'm a mug? Nice. Actually, if you put aside the shear amount of vitriol around it is an ok game (not brilliant by any means) and the planes fly nicely, there's problems but show me a game that hasn't got any. The developers delivered what they said they would, you wanted something different. I think the superlatives used are what some people may call "marketing" and you fell for it, lesson learned, move on etc.
As for the forum / meta critic wars, Jesus just listen to yourselves. At the end of the day you are trying to collapse a company, something that generates stuff, provides peoples with jobs and income and your amazed when one of them gives you some back on a forum? You're right I don't have to come here and read this and that's the most sensible thing you've said. I shall take that advice.

Anyway, carry on with the crusade, looks like you're having a great deal of fun.

[LuseKofte]

We have no simulators in this genre, if any is close, it must be dcs. They made an effort to make it real.
I havent been to fond of it myself. Since I did not have the time to the tidious setup. But I was wrong, now I cannot get enough of it
Maddox games also had a very poor relationship with its customers.
I start to believe this got to do with cultural and languagebarrier. We in Norway got a very direct way to comunicate, but have slowly learned to moderate ourselves on international arenaes. I think Russians are a bit more of the sort.
Anyway, I think this will blow over

[II/JG3~Siggi]

We have no simulators in this genre, if any is close, it must be dcs. They made an effort to make it real.
I havent been to fond of it myself. Since I did not have the time to the tidious setup. But I was wrong, now I cannot get enough of it
Maddox games also had a very poor relationship with its customers.
I start to believe this got to do with cultural and languagebarrier. We in Norway got a very direct way to comunicate, but have slowly learned to moderate ourselves on international arenaes. I think Russians are a bit more of the sort.
Anyway, I think this will blow over

Really? CloD isn't a simulator but DCS is? I'd say CloD is the only simulator in this genre currently. Very restricted in time and scope but it has an authentic map and all the main protaganists of the era it represents, along with highly accurate FMs, complex systems and a DM worthy of them. With superb graphics and sounds to match.

[hnbdgr]

I just wish people would stop bickering over this. So much time wasted here.

Clod is being nursed back to health it's a long term project by volunteers, DCS has potential as a combat sim and BoS isn't quite what people expected. Each one is a computer program, a game and in some definitions a simulator.

Proper simulators look like this: http://www.ecafaros.com/en/simulator/flight-simulators-flight-simulators-ftd-flight-trainer--flight-trainer-device-boeing--/53.htm

http://community.warplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/simulator2.jpg


CloD, DCS & BoS will each make some people happy. Expectations of some have not been fulfilled by Bos. I bought it and expected more, but what's done is done. If they fix it great; if not - I say we count our losses and move on. Otherwise it's not productive and it's certainly not fun to read anymore.