What is "aircraft stability" - IN VIDEO

[Crumpp]

They cant even get the speed and engine boosts

Sure they can get it right. They already have the relative performance correct and it is the best simulation of WWII combat piloting to date.

What makes you think they can't get this right too?

In fact, I think they have been looking like most of us, for the characteristics that made these aircraft equal dogfighters.

You won't find it just looking at raw performance numbers.

[Igo kyu]

Dogfights mostly didn't result in a victory.

In a dogfight, most of the time, both pilots escape with their aircraft.

Which is why most victories come from surprise.

Which is why it didn't really matter that the bf109 was a useless dogfighter.

[Crumpp]

What are you fishing??

[JtD]

Capoeira has poor longitudinal static stability? Taken from the "Never back down" documentary, it must be true.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by macro

I want realism same as you. I like flying the 109. I don't want "fantasy" fms on any plane.

Bingo!

The problem with accepting 'relative performance' is it can change the sim in un-expected ways such that it is no longer a representation of reality

For example

Take a WWII P-51 and Fw190 and scale up (multiply) the Top Speed, ROC, and Roll Rates of both planes by say 1.5

In doing so you have maintained the 'relative performance' of both planes..

But now the accuracy of the performance of both planes is off by that amount..

For example the tops speed of the P51 goes from around 426mph to around 639mph..

Due to the inaccuracy of the planes 'performance' it can change the style of dog fighting..

In short you have made this WWII 'prop' flight sim act like a KOREAN 'jet' sim..

Where the sim users will more than likely adjust their style of flying accordingly..

Which in turn will more than likely change the tactics from WWII prop style to KOREAN jet style..

All because of something as simple as an inaccurately simulated top speed..

Same is true if the speeds are scale down..

Only in this case, you have made this WWII 'prop' flight sim act like a WWI 'prop' sim..

In short we should not set the bar so low that we accept 'relative performance'..

In that it is just an excuse for not taking the time to do right..

But if that is all that you require..

Than there are plenty of Xbox WWII shoot-em-up flight sims out there for you to choose from..

But for us hard core simmers..

I think we can all agree that we 'require' a bit more 'realism' than that!

Originally Posted by macro

As i wonder how you come to this conclusion

That is just it..

With regards to flight modeling performance accuracy let alone relative performance..

The only thing we know for sure is that no one has provided proof to say one way or another..

All we have thus far are a few tests of a few things done by a few people that hint at some errors in accuracy of flight modeling..

But nothing that anyone would or could say is conclusive let alone complete..

Heck even 1C has stated the flight models have issues that they are working to resolve..

In summary, the user testing thus far and the fact that 1C admits there are issues should be enough to cause all to take pause before making any statements of FACT on how accurate the flight model is simulating performance let alone relative performance!

[macro]

seen that vid before, brilliant.

I seen the question in the community communication thread asking if fm's would change but not seen an answer to say they had been worked on.

hope they have

[Crumpp]

WWII 'prop' flight sim act like a KOREAN 'jet' sim..

Not at all, power producers and thrust producers have completely different aerodynamics as well separate methodology for determining most performance parameters.

The whole premise is completely ludicris regarding a computer game.

Who cares how fast or slow a virtual gameshape is going as long as the it acts in relation to the other objects in the game in a reasonable facsimile of what it is trying to simulate.

In otherwords, it must behave somewhat like the real thing.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Which is why it didn't really matter that the bf109 was a useless dogfighter.

I think the truth of this statement depends greatly on which aircraft you're comparing it to, and the precise definition of "dogfighter".

[JtD]

I don't think it depends on anything, it's just wrong.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I think the truth of this statement depends greatly on which aircraft you're comparing it to, and the precise definition of "dogfighter".

Of course it's relative, all warplane performance is relative to other concurrent warplanes.

The German for "fighter" in WW2 was "Jager", but if you translate that back, it comes out "hunter". For the Germans at the time, hunting was stalking big game with a rifle, not the British style of hunting which involved chasing foxes with hounds.

It's a different attitude, and a different style, and the bf 109 fitted the style.