AI vs AI Kill ratio

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by dimlee

But - taking physics model aside - can we really claim what is more "realistic"? Smoother controls of one airsim or shaky ones of another?
I have no experience in CLOD. But then I wonder how many players of CLOD and IL-2 have experience of real life dogfight.

I wrote 'natural', not 'realistic'. This is all about the feel, the illusion of reality. In IL2 I feel the need for a long stick to fly these planes correctly, while CLOD seems to be better optimized for short sticks. Another point at issue is the fine balance between throttle/thrust and air drag. A weak engine with little drag (IL2) give a different feel than a strong engine with strong air drag (CLOD). Strong drag also contributes to a better longitudinal stability and to less wobbling when aiming.

A related issue is torque. When speed is low and the stabilizers don't get enough airflow (typically on the ground, when taxiing or during takeoff), the torque effect is very strong in CLOD (and BoS); but once you get airborne and your speed increases, the stabilizers become more and more effective and minor throttle changes do not result in significant and sudden torque changes as they do in IL2. When you reduce throttle in CLOD (or BoS), the nose drops a bit, but there's no urgent need for applying rudder and aileron to re-adjust your aim, which are responsible for most of the wobbling experienced in IL2.

[Daniël]

Interesting discussion about the feel of flying. I only have 30 minutes of flight in a piston powered airplane, so I guess I can't really comment on the effects of throttle and torque, but I have around 200 flights in gliders now (around 30 hours). In my opinion the flight model in CloD resembles the feel of flight better than Il-2 1946. It's difficult to explain, but I think that Il-2 1946 is not as smooth as CloD (and how a glider feels).

In my opinion by far the biggest difference in the flight models of Il-2 1946 and CloD is the handling on the ground. CloD is a lot more sensitive in that aspect and I think it feels better than Il-2 1946.

I like the flight models of DCS and Falcon BMS too. DCS depends on the module of course and I can only give my opinion about the stock planes, the Su-25 and TF-51 as I don't have any modules for DCS yet, but out of those two I think the SU-25 feels the most natural.

Regarding BoS: The planes in BoS are very sensitive (nothing wrong with that), but I think that they're far too wobbly and I feel that the stall characteristics are not realistic compared to what I have experienced in gliders. In a spin in a glider a wing drops and the plane kind of "flips over". However in BoS the "flipping over" action stops way too early I think. I think that the other simulators that I named do a better job at simulating a spin, including Il-2 1946.

Please bear in mind that I have not flown any of the planes in these simulators in real life so my opinion is probably subjective and influenced from flying gliders and I have not played Il-2 1946 in couple of months, so maybe I don't remember all characteristics exactly. I mainly fly CloD and Falcon BMS at the moment.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Daniël

Interesting discussion about the feel of flying. I only have 30 minutes of flight in a piston powered airplane, so I guess I can't really comment on the effects of throttle and torque, but I have around 200 flights in gliders now (around 30 hours). In my opinion the flight model in CloD resembles the feel of flight better than Il-2 1946. It's difficult to explain, but I think that Il-2 1946 is not as smooth as CloD (and how a glider feels).

There are no gliders (besides AI) in IL-2 unfortunately. But if you attempt unpowered flight, does it feel natural for you? Probably Me 163 is good for such experiment.

[sniperton]

As to the sensitivity issue: what controller do you have? Mine is a mediocre T Flight Hotas X, where I replaced the pots with Hall sensors. I positively know that the sensors produce a linear output between 1V and 4V, so that the output should be all linear between this range. Still, Thrustmaster’s firmware enforces a broad deadzone around 50%, so that it’s all the same what stick deflection you have, you get the same values from -9% stick deflection (relative to centre) to +9%. So what happens when you try to adjust your aim? You move your stick from -9% to +9% hastily, and consequentially you enter the registered zone with a value which is well beyond what is expected there.

[taly001]

Mine is a mediocre T Flight Hotas X,........... Thrustmaster’s firmware enforces a broad deadzone it’s all the same from -9% stick deflection (relative to centre) to +9%

I bought a T.Flight Hotas X but I gave up on it after a week due to the ~9% deadzone, I sold it and bought a T.Flight Hotas 4, on the recommendations of a hardware tester on the internet, Why Thrustmaster does not advertise the VAST superiority of the Hotas 4 over the Hotas X for flight sims is beyond me.

The T.Flight Hotas 4 has a tiny deadzone and I'm perfectly happy with it. The Hotas 4 even has a dedicated port to directly connect the T.Flight Rudder Pedals, and updateable firmware!

[sniperton]

Then you perhaps can tell me whether the Hotas 4 also has a center deadzone on the Throttle. Because, most absurdly, the X has. Yes, in the center of the throttle!

[Daniël]

I've done some tests with the Me-163 and I have to say that I'm actually impressed with the feel of Il-2 1946. I haven't flown this simulator for months, but I think I might fly it a bit more now

I have done some testing with two sensitivity profiles. The first one all sensitivity bars to 100. With that setting I felt that the sensitivity was too "jumpy" in the centre. The second sensitivity setting was 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 and it felt about right. The joystick that I use is an old Saitek Cyborg 3D Rumble Force and I have Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals.

The stall in a Me-163 feels really similar to what I have experienced in gliders. The buffeting seems realistic and it increases when the speed drops and you keep pulling on the stick.

I felt that the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in Il-2 1946 are very forgiving, but it's possible to force a spin by pulling the stick back and to one side and with the pedals in the same direction. The spin recovery felt natural. I don't think that I can comment on the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in particular bacause I haven't flown the real thing , but it might be a bit too forgiving because the stall should start at the tip because of the backward swept wing. I've tried to find data on the airfoil of the Me-163 to find out if the wings were twisted to prevent the tip from stalling first, but I couldn't find data about that.

I still think that CloD for instance has a better feeling of flight, but it's quite close.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Daniël

I still think that CloD for instance has a better feeling of flight, but it's quite close.

I agree, but this may have something to do with the visually and acoustically richer environment. At the same time I feel CLOD is the most forgiving as to how you fly, I rarely need to practice my spin recovery skills there, while in BoS it happens to me quite frequently (the LaGG is really nasty in this respect). IL2 is somewhere in between.
I'm relatively new to CLOD and BoS, and what struck me was that a perfect three-point landing is much easier than I experienced in IL2. Although in BoS I can overshoot the runway, in CLOD I don't even have to watch my speed. Planes decelerate very well in CLOD, perhaps too well, I don't know.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Daniël

I've done some tests with the Me-163 and I have to say that I'm actually impressed with the feel of Il-2 1946. I haven't flown this simulator for months, but I think I might fly it a bit more now

I have done some testing with two sensitivity profiles. The first one all sensitivity bars to 100. With that setting I felt that the sensitivity was too "jumpy" in the centre. The second sensitivity setting was 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 and it felt about right. The joystick that I use is an old Saitek Cyborg 3D Rumble Force and I have Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals.

The stall in a Me-163 feels really similar to what I have experienced in gliders. The buffeting seems realistic and it increases when the speed drops and you keep pulling on the stick.

I felt that the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in Il-2 1946 are very forgiving, but it's possible to force a spin by pulling the stick back and to one side and with the pedals in the same direction. The spin recovery felt natural. I don't think that I can comment on the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in particular bacause I haven't flown the real thing , but it might be a bit too forgiving because the stall should start at the tip because of the backward swept wing. I've tried to find data on the airfoil of the Me-163 to find out if the wings were twisted to prevent the tip from stalling first, but I couldn't find data about that.

I still think that CloD for instance has a better feeling of flight, but it's quite close.

Thank you. I love Me 163 and it's good to know that her gliding in IL-2 is "approved" by real pilot.

Airfoil - this one?
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/deta...foil=goe765-il

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by taly001

I bought a T.Flight Hotas X but I gave up on it after a week due to the ~9% deadzone, I sold it and bought a T.Flight Hotas 4, on the recommendations of a hardware tester on the internet, Why Thrustmaster does not advertise the VAST superiority of the Hotas 4 over the Hotas X for flight sims is beyond me.

The T.Flight Hotas 4 has a tiny deadzone and I'm perfectly happy with it. The Hotas 4 even has a dedicated port to directly connect the T.Flight Rudder Pedals, and updateable firmware!

Thanks for mentioning Hotas 4. I used Thrustmaster Hotas sticks/throttles for many years but stopped to follow their products and was not aware about this new model. Probably it's time to upgrade from Hotas X.