Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

For #1, dont make the controls adjustable, the pilot has to adapt to the plane, not the other way around.(only in game adjustments for axes, no native software)

#2, calculate the difference from the different steering columns to a average joystick and use this values for all.

#3, can't be simulated at the moment, same for all, no advantage for anyone.

#4, buffet can be simulated with head shake and g with increasing tunnel vision.

#5, must be 'Joe Average' for all pilots, in a few years maybe a body scan and a computerized fitness test in the setup. (With the body scan some pilots i know couldn't fly 109's anymore )

Just a few ideas, because it is easy to come up with problems, less so with solutions.

It will be the developers, not the one posting the bug-tracker, who have to make all of these calculations - assuming that there is a uniformity of equipment, and even player styles throughout the IL2 community - while trying to deal with all of the other bugs flowing into the bug-tracker report. I can just see them lining up pleading to tackle this so-called issue...

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

It will be the developers, not the one posting the bug-tracker, who have to make all of these calculations - assuming that there is a uniformity of equipment, and even player styles throughout the IL2 community - while trying to deal with all of the other bugs flowing into the bug-tracker report. I can just see them lining up pleading to tackle this so-called issue...

See my previous post, then. If they're not going to fix it, why have you and your cronies been fighting so hard against it?

[bolox]

I was staying out of this thread but joysticks/control hardware is something i'm very interested in, See http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29958
As much as anyone I want 'as realistic as possible' control behaviour, however I see some problems:-

For #1, dont make the controls adjustable, the pilot has to adapt to the plane, not the other way around.(only in game adjustments for axes, no native software)

Bit of a problem here as not all sticks have the same response.
Expensive sticks can have the ability to change curves outside the game(even on the fly). Therefore 'Joe Bloggs' with a 'cheap' stick is at a potential disadvantage. Personally the reduced range of control of sensitivity in CoD compared to IL2 is already quite good at preventing sticks being used in a totally non historic way.
Spiking pots would be a bigger problem

#2, calculate the difference from the different steering columns to a average joystick and use this values for all.

Umm... so someone who spent ~£1700 for a simcontrol spitfire column won't be able to 'tighten' his response to get the new realistic behaviour- or will l'ong stick' users be accused of cheatibg?

#3 opens up a whole can of worms, so I agree, leave it as is

#4, buffet can be simulated with head shake and g with increasing tunnel vision.

good sound cues here also.

#5 A full medical- nah- there'd be hardly anyone left

because it is easy to come up with problems, less so with solutions.

Very much so, but is also often easier to come up with solutions that are worse than the problem

Also, why in this entire thread has no real mention been made of the other two axes?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

See my previous post, then. If they're not going to fix it, why have you and your cronies been fighting so hard against it?

Why are you, and your cronies, trying so hard in having it implemented?

It certainly not a bug.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

If it's just a limitation of PC hardware, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?
If the developers will never implement it, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?
If there are more important things to fix, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?

Ah, I see where you are confused..

Allow me..

You are confusing me saying this is not a bug with me saying this did not happen in the real world

Two very different things!

All I am pointing out is there are limits to what a $1,000 PC can do!

For example.. As your pulling 4g's in the simulation, your not physically feeling the effects of 4g's while sitting in front of your computer screen

You not feeling the effects of 4g's is NOT a bug but a limitation of what the PC can do (simulate)

Hope this helps! S!

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

The vicious lashing out against this issue and people who support realism in this regard has been eye-opening to say the least.

No more eye opening than when the 109 pilots viciously lash out at the mention of the elevator being stuck in cement comes up!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

Those 130 accidents also don't include those losses, where after a few insignificant machine gun hits, or even only tracers around the cockpit, the pilot overreacted and went in with his ride because of over-g or a spin, which shurely has happened a few times.

It shurely then was accounted under losses because of enemy action.

There were quite a lot Spitfires lost during the BoB and not all had been shot to pieces.

And glider, nobody has said anything about the Spitfire being weak!!!

Only that the Spitfire controls made it relatively easy to reach the structural limits.

It is a simple fact that if it was relatively easy to reach the structural limit then the limit would have been reached and a lot more would have broken up.

I am sorry but all the evidence is that they didn't. Despite being flown in combat often by inexperienced pilots in the most testing situations, they didn't break up.

When the limit was reached at the end of the war the wings tended to bend not break.

You build into the game a factor that makes it easy for the Spitfire to break up it will be a huge error.

40ish falures in combat, in thousands of aircraft, over the entire war in millions of flights isn't the sign of an aircraft that is easy to break structurally

The comment about some lightly damaged aircraft crashing because an inexperienced pilot over reacted is misleading because it obviously must have happened, but the same logic applies to any fighter in any airforce. Even here, its worth remembering that the Spitfire was easier to fly than the Me109 so logic would say that it was less likely to happen to a Spitfire.

[41Sqn_Banks]

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed 100%

[Glider]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Of course Glider, but I wanted you to focus on the bolded part.

That "reported to us" is what gives me doubt about the numbers of total accidents.

It should be really interesting to read those reports: we ignore the investigation's method of the AABI and of course if, as you say, the known accidents were investigated again.

The question is why did you want to focus on the bolded parts. Its always, always the entire picture that counts.

I hope at least that we have dealt with the comments about the Spit wings that bent and needed repair.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed, but the elevator was not only light but also sensible. (short travel-large reaction)