Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[Blackdog_kt]

That's actually some very interesting points you're bringing up Winger. I guess the reason most focus on the systems is that the majority, myself included, probably hasn't flown a real aircraft and thus lacks the experience to comment on what's really missing.

In that sense we mostly go by a mix of what "makes sense" from a scientific standpoint and replicating what we read from real pilot accounts. That of course is infinitely easier for a single piece of machinery that's carefully crafted to work within certain parameters and has a small, predictable set of behaviours (like an engine), than it is for the entire combination of an aircraft within the entirety of the flight envelope. Furthermore, an engine in an abnormal range of function is also much easier to observe and understand than the whole plane is at the edge of, or even outside its envelope, as an engine out of control still feels "slower" than a plane out of control as far as human senses go.

In the latter case, this difficulty to explain and even accurately observe and notice all the possible combinations limits us to going by what "feels right" most of the time and taking the word of someone who knows more, like a real pilot or a FM modeller.

So, the reason i personally focus on engines and subsystems is that they make enough sense to me even without hands-on experience, but i've never actually been behind the yoke of a real aircraft to understand the more complex and finer points of how it should feel to pilot one. I guess that holds true for the majority of flight simmers.

Are taildraggers really that demanding on the rudders even without winds and if so, is that a result of a free-castoring tailwheel that can be mitigated by locking it in place?