PDA

View Full Version : How is here flying in reality?



WildeSau1975
10-26-2008, 12:31 AM
Hi guys,

I am just wondering how many of you are flying the real thing (ok, this not necessarily means WWII figher planes but just planes in general).

I have started flying now four months back while staying three months in Mena, Arkansas USA. Unfortunately I didnt finish anything yet and to get the license here in Switzerland is too expensive for me. But anyway, I logged already another hour by flying with a co-worker from an Austrian airport into the Swiss alps - that was a blast.

Anyway, who is flying here and how does the real thing influence your results in flying simulators or the other way round.

Have fun.

Michael

Skoshi Tiger
10-26-2008, 02:00 AM
I've got my private pilots licence (years ago) though ran out of money before doing my navigation training.

It's been a few years since I've gone flying (kids will do that to you!!!) Though the licencing rules in australia mean That I've got my licence for life, BUT, if I want to go flying I need to have a current medical certificate and have done a general proficency test in the last two years (I think)

There is a 90 currency rule than means that if you haven't gone up in the last 3 months you need to go up with an instructor until they deems you up to scratch.

Now after some of the landings I've done in IL2- I think I'ld want to go back for lessons before doing my GPT. I think the instructor/tester would have white knuckles before the end of the flight!

WildeSau1975
10-26-2008, 04:27 AM
Hi there,

I can imagine what you say about the money and what kids can change in your life - but hey, I bet they are worth it.

Since I dont have kids or a wife yet, I hope that I can stick to get the PPL soon.

I want to go back to the USA to finish it there. I am aware of these regulations according to the medical and the one going up with the instructor. But hey, since I dont have the license yet, I will go with the instructor anyway. I was flying too many different types of planes since my CFI owns a maintenance company and does some commercial transport flights as well - that means I was flying often with him with planes of his customers instead of sticking to the little Cessna 152. When then comming back from the Cessna 210 or even a twin engine Beechcraft Baron to the little Cessna, I messed it up at the landing. But hey, it was good experience anway.

And I think that even this game here can give you some training in some ways. It´s a good thing between the real flights for me right now.

I hope you gone get your medical one day so that you can get wings again.

All the best,

Michael from Switzerland

WTE_Galway
10-26-2008, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
I've got my private pilots licence (years ago) though ran out of money before doing my navigation training.

It's been a few years since I've gone flying (kids will do that to you!!!) Though the licencing rules in australia mean That I've got my licence for life, BUT, if I want to go flying I need to have a current medical certificate and have done a general proficency test in the last two years (I think)

There is a 90 currency rule than means that if you haven't gone up in the last 3 months you need to go up with an instructor until they deems you up to scratch.

Now after some of the landings I've done in IL2- I think I'ld want to go back for lessons before doing my GPT. I think the instructor/tester would have white knuckles before the end of the flight!

CASA in Australia are pretty tough. I got grounded with diabetes a few years back and have not flown for a few years.

I am intending to pick up an ultralight licence shortly. The medical requirement in Australia is simply a current motor vehicle vehicle licence and the conversion if you have GA training is relatively cheap and simple.

There are still currency requirements but less onerus than GA.

general_kalle
10-26-2008, 06:59 AM
no i dont fly nor do i have a certificate. but i have a question:

how similar to reality is this game?
if say 10 is completly the same as real life and 1 is waaaayy off where would il2 lie?


oh...i have tried a glider and also got the controls for a few minutes.

VW-IceFire
10-26-2008, 07:26 AM
Been behind the controls once. It was very exciting and I realized how much IL-2 had taught me. It was fantastic...but haven't done it since.

Owlsphone
10-26-2008, 09:32 AM
The IL-2 series has always impressed me with it's sensation of flight.

There are obviously times when weather or money prevent me from flying, so when I want to practice procedures or instrument flying, I fire up Flight Simulator X.

But when I want to practice flying, I play IL-2. With the exception of the real thing, nothing has come closer for me to the energy management, flying by the feel of the aircraft or aerodynamic characteristics of the IL-2 series.

Crikey2008
10-26-2008, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
'...I've got my licence for life, BUT, if I want to go flying I need to have a current medical certificate and have done a general proficency test in the last two years (I think)

There is a 90 currency rule than means that if you haven't gone up in the last 3 months you need to go up with an instructor until they deems you up to scratch.


ST...the last I heard on it you might have to do your first 40 hours or so all over again.

WTE_Galway
10-26-2008, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Crikey2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
'...I've got my licence for life, BUT, if I want to go flying I need to have a current medical certificate and have done a general proficency test in the last two years (I think)

There is a 90 currency rule than means that if you haven't gone up in the last 3 months you need to go up with an instructor until they deems you up to scratch.


ST...the last I heard on it you might have to do your first 40 hours or so all over again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not.

Licences issued by CASA remain valid unless suspended or canceled. However they do not qualify you to fly if you are not current.


CASA Website FAQ on old licences where you have not flown for years:
Before you fly you must have a current medical certificate, have a current security check status (if over 18) and undergo a flight review with a suitably qualified instructor.


Staying current with a VFR private pilots licence is not too hard, just turn up every alternate month at your local aero-club flying day and enter a flying competition.

Now keeping your IFR ratings and type ratings current can be VERY expensive. Aside from which, its not always that easy to find a Cessna Citation or Kingair to just go for a few quick circuits in to stay current.

Fortunately simulator time is now counting towards IFR currency.

The real problem as you get older is keeping your medical. If you only recreation fly the ultralight licence is a good alternative. Three axis ultralights have similar performance to a Cessna 150, often are dual UL/GA registered and can actually be quite fun.

T_O_A_D
10-26-2008, 10:01 PM
I'm not a real pilot, and have only had the controls once, a few years back in an AT-6 a WW2 bird.

My comments and thoughts on it are in my sig.

I was given a complement more than once by the real pilot. I have IL2/Oleg to thank for that.

WTE_Galway
10-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Another point of interest I have never got an answer for.

Most warbirds do not have GA/Commercial registration they tend to have some sort of limited 'experimental' registration.

Aside from obvious type ratings, what sort of licence do you need to fly one?

PhantomKira
10-27-2008, 12:24 AM
Real world pilot here, Private Pilot, Single Engine, Land. Rather than money, I ran out of reason to continue, due supposed might/probably will crop up medical issues. When the doctor says "Don't count on doing this for a living"... Oh well.

No, I haven't flown lately. No reason to unless working toward a rating. Otherwise it's just boring holes in the sky and simming is a whole lot cheaper!

So far as most ex-military aircraft are concerned, most don't have type ratings, per se. In the place of a type rating, in the U.S., you are required to get what's called an LOA, a Letter of Operational Authority. This is simply a letter/form (in official form, and all) written by someone who's qualified to write it saying that you're competent with the aircraft. LOA's and type ratings serve the same purpose: making sure you know what you're doing.

This is one of the reasons Crazy Horse is so well known. It's one of the few two seat modified P-51Ds out there, and consiquently it's pretty much the only Mustang new owners are going to get their flight time on so they can get an LOA. (In case you were wondering, yes, two people under a P-51D canopy looks quite silly.)

As for the transferability of skills, yes, it's certainly possible. I could fly as well in the sim as I do the real world. But I find I don't, simply because the consequences aren't there in simming. Bad landing? Hop in another aircraft. Horrible fiery crash? No problem! Besides, I fly Cessna 172s, not P-51s. So there's just a bit of a disconnect there. Basic principles are the same, though, and the aircraft in this game certainly take such things as energy management to the extreme.

If you want to learn the most possible from a simulation, you have to treat it as such. This is a simulation of the real thing, to be treated as the real thing, and not a game. This gives you the incentive not to screw up, and you will become a better sim pilot, and by extention real world skills will come easier if, and hopefully, when, you get the time and money required to do so.

Haigotron
10-27-2008, 12:17 PM
all my life, i've lived in a house that is directly under the final approach path of planes, every 5 minutes - you can see a plane in the sky with wheels down making for the runway... it was since then that i fell in love with planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

alas, all of my flying has been done on the PC, never had the funds to actually learn to fly....

i hope that changes one day, until then, it's the virtual skies for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GH_Klingstroem
10-27-2008, 12:50 PM
I am an airline pilot and fly for a living.I have flown everything from small single engine AC to small multi engine AC to bigger jets..
I must say that il2 comes very close to the real experience.
I am pretty sure that if I put you guys in the cockpit of most planes you would be able to fly them since the bascis are all the same..
What makes flying is difficult is not the actual flying part but more knowing the navigation, procedures and systems...
As for flying, I thin most of you guys would be able to bring down a Cessna 172 to a safe landing if you ended up at the controls of one.

What is NOT realistic in game is flying the multi engine AC. IRL when u lose on engine the power of the remaining engine almost wants the plane to flip over especially when u run it at high power. In this game u can fly, say the Me110 on one engine without much difficulty. There is not much need for trimming in game and she is not that different to fly when one engine i slost. Not so in real life!
In general, tourque must be increased in game for the planes to become more realistic, but if that happened ALOT of people would struggle to fly them!
well just my 5 cents....

StellarRat
10-27-2008, 01:03 PM
Funny you should mention increasing the torque. I remember in the earlier versions of the game the torque was quite a bit higher. A lot of people were flipping their planes over while trying take off. So many people complained that it was reduced. Oleg was right the first time.

TX-EcoDragon
10-28-2008, 02:13 AM
Commercial pilot here - my focus is on competition and freestyle aerobatics, but I love flying anything, which includes R/C and sims of course.

On the 1-10 scale I guess I'd give IL-2 a 5 or 6 for realism. . .but most other sims are closer to a 3 so that's not as bad as it sounds!

slipBall
10-28-2008, 03:24 AM
I must say that il2 comes very close to the real experience.
I am pretty sure that if I put you guys in the cockpit of most planes you would be able to fly them since the bascis are all the same..


I agree, and have said this in the past. Because IL2 is so close to real, it has always given me much joy

STENKA_69.GIAP
10-28-2008, 06:42 AM
Having started flight training in the ATC while at school I gave up on it as being too expensive and over regulated.

35 years later and after flying IL2 for 3 years I decided to start RL flying and get a licence.

Having hundreds of flying hours on IL2 certainly helped so I was solo in 9 hours and licenced in around 20. I would give IL2 5/10 which is good. It doesn't have the physical feedback, its treatment of wind is negligable and there is something about the landing and take off that just doesn't feel right... maby a lack of ground effect?

However, you would be surprised at how it does help. Firstly, a light modern aircraft is so much easier to fly than most aircraft in IL2 that it gives you a lot of confidence. They don't bite back and spin viciously. Secondly, when you have been hopelesly lost in IL2 and can't find your aerodrome you can live through the panic and learn lessons on how to deal with it without danger. I would have hated to have experienced that "omigawd I'm lost" feeling for the first time solo in a real plane. Navigation has killed a lot more pilots than machine guns.

If you are in Switzerland you might want to look at flight training and licencing over a border. One of my squad mates who lives in Berne found it cheaper/easier to come to France for a training course.

Flying is not that expensive. I fly most weekends weather permitting for between 30-60 minutes. This ends up costing on average 150 Euros a month. Which is less than I used to spend on cigarettes before I gave up and half what I will often spend filling a trolley in the supermarket.

AWL_Spinner
10-28-2008, 08:34 AM
PPL, multi with about 200hrs.

As one of the other previous posters says: FS-X for IFR and procedure and IL2 for 'feeling of flight'.

It's pretty good; it's not perfect but it's by far the best out there for general handling (having said that, I've never flown a modern fighter jet - if I had, I suspect Flaming Cliffs might take the crown).

Biggest WTF moment for me - aerobatics in a Nanchang CJ-6 (back seat). Up into the top of the loop, I automatically looked up to track a ground feature like I would have done in IL2 with my TrackIR.... yes, sometimes real life is just like that.

JG53Frankyboy
10-28-2008, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
no i dont fly nor do i have a certificate. but i have a question:

how similar to reality is this game?
if say 10 is completly the same as real life and 1 is waaaayy off where would il2 lie?


oh...i have tried a glider and also got the controls for a few minutes.

i would say, a 3 or 4 as best.
the total lack of the force while doing manouvers in the air is the reason.

i can remebr my flying lesson in doing spins and stalls - NOTHING in comparison to a game !
in game you "dancing" around in the sky without anything.

BOA_Allmenroder
10-28-2008, 12:03 PM
Real pilot here as well, both military and civilian.

Visually, IL2 is very, very good. The way a/c look up close, in formation, is the high point of this game.

As was mentioned earlier torque effects are very undermodelled; the firewalling you see online as people takeoff should roll most of these aircraft right on their backs.

The engine management (systems, temps etc etc)is well, to put it mildly, just not even close.

Also, this game allows you to be 'ham fisted' on the flight controls; something you just don't do in real life.

Weather/visibility? Not realistic at all.

As a 'simulation' of flying MSFS is better because it forces you to configure the aircraft for start etc etc: however, I would limit the 'better' comment to IFR flying. MSFS is very good for practicing instrument flying procedures/approaches etc.

IL2 is currently the best combat aviation game: I wouldn't call it a simulation.

Codger1949
11-02-2008, 06:01 AM
I have 1200 hours total time with a commercial, instrument, multi eng. and CFI licenses in fixed aircraft with a commercial and instrument ratings in rotary wing aircraft. Finally, I obtained the Turbo jet powered flight engineers ticket on the Boeing 707. With all that I can not definitively say how accurate the flight modeling is in this game/sim, never having flown a ww2 fighter. However, flying the Cessna 150 in the Microsoft sim. I can say the feel is pretty close but not dead on. The lack of stick and g forces is also a consideration. But, hell what can you realistically expect from a game that costs about 20 bucks. Real sims for military or heavy commercial jets run into the millions and if you can learn to fly the aircraft type in the sim. you can fly the real deal.

I guess the bottom line is for such an old game Il-2 is absolutely beautiful and a pretty darned good approximation of the aspects of flight Nothing else currently available to we gamers can compare in the ww2 air combat genre.

Crikey2008
11-02-2008, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
...The engine management (systems, temps etc etc)is well, to put it mildly, just not even close...


il-2 aircraft seem to get close to oil temp measurement in overheating on the ground (small under-read), but in the air they overheat much too quick IMHO

mortoma
11-02-2008, 08:25 PM
I got my PPL in 2000 but quite in Oct. 2003 but now wanting to get back into it by next spring. Plan to study all my PPL books and CD-ROMs this winter. Get my medical in March, then get up to speed with an instructor.

buzzsaw1939
11-04-2008, 12:41 AM
Maybe a 3!... but it's fun aint it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

PanzerAce2.0
11-04-2008, 12:59 AM
I'm planning on getting a sport license and instruction when I get out of college. For awhile I don't plan on anything more than an ultralite, but I want to atleast get the instruction to handle something slightly more advanced.

Codger1949
11-04-2008, 02:58 AM
I owned a "Weedhopper" ultralight 20 years ago. Got it cheap used for 2 grand. Now they cost over 8 thousand. Easy to fly. My training consisted of taxiing around the tarmac and when the instructor felt that I was comfortable rolling around in it he said give it full throttle and off I went. One scary thing happened in flight. The flap of cloth that holds the wing spars in place unstuck (velcro) and two wing spars started to slide out of place several hundred feet in the air. The only problem with these things is you can't take them up when the wind is greater than 5 knots. Another strange aspect of this particular ultralight is it didn't have ailerons. You had to skid yourself into a turn. About the closest to flying like a bird that you can get.

Bremspropeller
11-04-2008, 05:39 AM
Flying gliders so far.

I'm studying Aeronautical Engineering.

The biggest a/c I've "flown" was wa Saab 340 back in 1992 (I was a lil dwarf back then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) - I was turning the heading-selector knob on the autopilot-panel. Was quite entertaining back then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The largest a/c I've flown manually for a while was a cuban An-2. They let the passengers on the first-officer's seat in-flight.
As the captain got to know I was flying gliders, he let me fly the An-2 for a while and I was even allowed to sit in the F/O-seat during landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Codger1949
11-04-2008, 05:59 AM
That is the biggest single eng. bi-plane I have EVER seen. That must have been an awesome experience.

Bremspropeller
11-04-2008, 06:47 AM
Yeah, that was pretty cool.
The captain had to remind me to keep alt though - I wasn't used to maintain alt going straight as gliders rarely do that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

She was kinda heavy on the controls, but I was 15 back then. Of course anything feels heavy when your reference was a Ka 8. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif
http://www.luftbilderweb.de/fotoalbum/airtoground/others/photos/Ka8_Landung_Schnee.jpg
Ka 8

WildeSau1975
11-05-2008, 09:26 PM
Good to see that many people here have real flight experience.

I think that this game is not bad to get some flying feeling that comes somewhat close to the real thing - at least for parts of it. I really love to fire it up and have some fun in planes I will never be able to fly in reality (isnt it a pity...).

Hopefully my next real flight will happen somewhen next week. Cannot wait for it.

Have fun.

Michael

WhiteKnight77
11-06-2008, 12:04 AM
I once got about 10 minutes stick time in a Piper Sundowner back in the 70's, I must have been 15 at the time. I was born on a SAC bomber base that does not exist anymore and still live near a military base (across the street from NAS Atlanta and Lockheed Martin where they make the F-22).

This was me 27 years ago.

http://www.whiteknight77.net/inmages/crew.jpg

This was my bird except it was green.

http://www.whiteknight77.net/inmages/4799.jpg

Codger1949
11-06-2008, 03:35 AM
The picture of the CH-47 Chinook you included in your post is the last helicopter I was rated to fly. Army pilots had two nicknames for this bird, "The flying s**thook" and "The flying hydraulic leak".

WhiteKnight77
11-06-2008, 11:03 AM
If you flew Chinooks then you would know that the pic I posted is not one.

Codger1949
11-07-2008, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
If you flew Chinooks then you would know that the pic I posted is not one. You're right, it isn't. It's the 46 model. I flew the 47. I overlooked the nose config. and missing eng. nacelles.

I flew the 47 alright. I have one vivid memory of actually making the aircraft go 90 knots forward flight to 90 knots sideways flight in under 2 seconds, breaking loose some storage box from its nylon straps. I succeeded in scaring the hell out of the instructor pilot and two pilot trainees in the aft compartment.

I was learning how to control the a/c with the stability augmentation system switched off. In this configuration the bird is extremely difficult to handle. The controls are stiff as if you didn't have hydraulic boost on, although that's not accurate because you couldn't control the a/c at all without hydraulics. It just gives you an idea how hard it is to move the cyclic and anti-torque pedals.

Anyway, the nose started to yaw left, I panicked and misread the turn and slip indicator and stomped, and I mean stomped the left pedal. And there we were, flying sideways. My instructor took the controls and wouldn't let me fly for about 5 minutes until he got his heartbeat under control. I felt like a complete idiot.

But now that you mentioned it and included photos, I'm curious. Did you fly the 46 or were you a crewchief and for what military service. It it was U.S. it would be the marines or navy, I guess. I flew the 47 about the same time you flew the 46.

WhiteKnight77
11-07-2008, 11:42 AM
I was a crew chief. I was with a training squadron teaching PUIs their final bird and yes, a 46. SAS off flight was always fun as well as main mount landings (we did it one time in the Santa Ana mountians with a 3000' drop). I was a Marine. I just loved creating false emergecies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Codger1949
11-07-2008, 08:13 PM
Ok. Here's one thing that detracts from the reality of this game and it's bothersome. You just don't feel the immense size of these birds.

Looking how massive the p-47 is, from pictures you see all over, the pilot looks small in the cockpit. You don't feel that in game. Same with the Tempest, good lord, the prop on that thing is TWELVE foot tall.

You just can't feel that when you spawn sitting in the cockpits of one of these giants. Too bad somebody couldn't apply the code from one of those ground pounder games where you could have a troop walking up to one of these big *** bastids, clambering up unto the wing and crawling into the cockpit. THEN you could appreciate the size of these machines.


As an aside, I must admit sometimes picture don't portray the real deal. We've all seen the B-17 pictures, sitting on ground and in the air. They look really big. Fact is, not really. One time while on some highway in the dry, dusty San Joaquin Valley somewhere I saw off road a lone B-17. I did a turnaround and dragged my protesting wife to the site. After telling her what little history I knew even she was amazed at how TINY this aircraft was. It was sitting right next to an F-4 Phantom and I'll be damned at how much NOT smaller that Viet Nam fighter jet was to the 17. You just don't sense that in pictures either.

I know, totally off topic but I just thought it was an interesting experience.

WhiteKnight77
11-08-2008, 12:46 AM
If one looks at the pic of the 46 I posted above, with the blades unfolded, the length is 84' or about everything you see in that picture plus a couple of feet. That is just longer than the length of a B-17 and if you look inside the crew door, you can see the crew chief standing there to give you an idea of size. The aft portion of a B-17 fuselage isn't much bigger than what the 46 has.

Thekid321
11-08-2008, 08:25 PM
As for the fact that I'm only 15, I haven't flown a real plane yet (my family might get an ultralight soon so thatll change) but my dad was taking flight lessons a few years back, and I got to go up about 8 or 9 times, I've always wanted to fly, but the minute I went up in the 172, I love it more than anything. If I had the money, I would be soloing by next october. I think money is the biggest reason most of us can't fly. But as for the ultralight, I might be flying regularly within a few years. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WildeSau1975
11-08-2008, 11:53 PM
Hi guys,

I think its very interesting to see how many of you got either directly into the pilot seat itself or very close to it by being in the military. Since the Swiss airforce is very small (most of you guys have more planes i.e. at the little airforce base in Fort Smith, AR, USA than our whole army has as pure fighter planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif) I cannot say the same for myself. But anyway, my uncle was flying in the Swiss airfore - he died in a mid aircrash back in 1955 when flying the DH Vampire 100 - the first jet plane the Swiss airforce got. At least some link to that stuff.

I soon should be able to fly a very special version of the Pilatus PC-7 - there is only one left of these planes. Looking forward to it...

I wish you guys all happy flying.

Cheers,

Michael from Switzerland

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2008, 12:50 AM
Some honesty from a fan. Well said! http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/Clap.gif

BOA::
Real pilot here as well, both military and civilian.

Visually, IL2 is very, very good. The way a/c look up close, in formation, is the high point of this game.

As was mentioned earlier torque effects are very undermodelled; the firewalling you see online as people takeoff should roll most of these aircraft right on their backs.

The engine management (systems, temps etc etc)is well, to put it mildly, just not even close.

Also, this game allows you to be 'ham fisted' on the flight controls; something you just don't do in real life.

Weather/visibility? Not realistic at all.

As a 'simulation' of flying MSFS is better because it forces you to configure the aircraft for start etc etc: however, I would limit the 'better' comment to IFR flying. MSFS is very good for practicing instrument flying procedures/approaches etc.

IL2 is currently the best combat aviation game: I wouldn't call it a simulation.
Its not a bad Dogfight simulator, at least for a very few highly disciplined players on private servers or LAN. There are no really great air combat sims out there, so this is not a slam.

Yeager (paraquote):: "Its the pilot, not the flight model"
Who said this?:: "He who sees first, wins."

ie...to a very high degree no matter the flight model.


Flight models are not what is needed. What makes this combat sim, and EVERY other combat sim, fail is total lack of air warfare environment modelling that would reflect Yeager's and Unknown's experiences.

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2008, 01:08 AM
Sau::
I cannot say the same for myself. But anyway, my uncle was flying in the Swiss airfore - he died in a mid aircrash back in 1955 when flying the DH Vampire 100 - the first jet plane the Swiss airforce got. At least some link to that stuff.
Thirdwire's next jetsim in their series, always "lite" out of box in some ways, is based around the Suez war. We assume the Vampire will be flyable. Flyable Vampire would be a flight sim *first* ... at least out of box from a Dev. We have a 3rd Party mod now, external model only.

Some pre-pics pre-releaced ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5695

WildeSau1975
11-09-2008, 01:31 AM
LEXX:

Many thanks for that hint. I will certainly check it out. I didnt know yet about that company at all.

Cheers,

Michael

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2008, 01:34 AM
Codger::
Ok. Here's one thing that detracts from the reality of this game and it's bothersome. You just don't feel the immense size of these birds.
Man I see the other way.

To me, its the basic handling..."twitchiness" vs "sluggish" might describe it.

Never flew P-47 much, but the IL-2 seems "large" (for Russian), even more so the bombers. My 2nd fave WW2 plane, I-16, seems small, because its so sensitive to controls. I-153 as well. Bf-109s seemed small to me as well, especially the earlier (and more fun) models. However, I think there's a Psycho aspect to it as well, you KNOW the plane is large or small, and you look for basic handling that appears to reflect that.

These smaller early war aircraft are what gives life to this sim. I wish Oleg made a "1941" to finish off the real Easter Front instead of 46.

Gandy_Katarin
11-21-2008, 08:01 PM
I used to be a monthly visiter to the 93rd bombgroup museum in hardwick in the uk when i was a kid. ( My neighbour took me haha ) There is a small airfield there. At the time they had a airworthy harvard (at-6) and an auster ( the little observation planes). The owner of the auster let me sit with him while he taxied down the run and let me hold the stick.

lol being about 10 years old at the time it was amazing. I can remember the incredibly noise and smells and vibrations as he powered the little plane down the strip.


Thats the closest ive ever been haha.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Owner and pilot.

IL2 is not close to reality. Not to burst anyone's bubble but trying to compare it is just wishful thinking. None of these type games are although FSX is great for practicing procedures.

All of these games have the physics completely wrong. They can't even get the forces of flight correct!

http://www.zazzle.com/design/popuprealview.asp?realview...o%3D1.4&max_dim=1000 (http://www.zazzle.com/design/popuprealview.asp?realview_url=http%3A//rlv.zcache.com/isapi/designall.dll%3Faction%3Drealview%26pdt%3Dshirt%26 pending%3Dfalse%26pid%3D235461658668248978%26rvtyp e%3Dproduct%26view%3Dback%26max_dim%3D1000%26bg%3D 0xffffff%26square_it%3Dtrue%26draw_relative_size%3 Dtrue%26style%3Dbasic_raglan_longsleeve%26color%3D lightbluenavy%26size%3Da_l%26context%3Ddarren%26si de_front%3Dhorz%26side_back%3Dhorz%26drawareabound ingbox%3Dfalse%26drawsafearea%3Dfalse%26view_auto% 3D1.4&max_dim=1000)

All the best,

Crumpp

Viper2005_
11-22-2008, 02:25 PM
How can any explanation of the forces of flight fail to include paperwork???

I have a PPL, and also fly gliders, though I don't get to do either as often as I would like.

Personally I think that IL2 is the best flightsim I've flown for general "feel of flight"; it certainly helped me to get my tailwheel ticket quickly.


What is NOT realistic in game is flying the multi engine AC. IRL when u lose on engine the power of the remaining engine almost wants the plane to flip over especially when u run it at high power. In this game u can fly, say the Me110 on one engine without much difficulty. There is not much need for trimming in game and she is not that different to fly when one engine i slost. Not so in real life!
I have found that IL2 is much improved by having a good control setup with more realistic control forces. IME stick forces are responsible for the vast majority of the urge to trim.

One of the biggest issues with my current control setup is that my rudder pedals (an otherwise wonderful set of simpeds) require a relatively tiny force for full deflection, more representative of gliders than the powered aircraft I've flown. This obviously makes single engined flight very much easier on the legs than it would be IRL or in a "real" sim.

Feel can have a very powerful effect upon one's perception of performance. I suspect that if IL2 were connected to a control system matched to the control force assumptions implicit in the flight model then it would give a very different experience.

From a performance perspective, the lack of high Mach number effects in IL2 is unfortunate. As has already been stated, the lack of systems modelling is also rather unfortunate, especially the engine "overheat" model.

I suspect that many of the aircraft probably have optimistic glide performance, but I haven't got any data which would enable me to conduct tests.

Divine-Wind
11-22-2008, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We assume the Vampire will be flyable. Flyable Vampire would be a flight sim *first* ... at least out of box from a Dev. We have a 3rd Party mod now, external model only.
CFS3 had a flyable Vampire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

slipBall
11-22-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


One of the biggest issues with my current control setup is that my rudder pedals (an otherwise wonderful set of simpeds) require a relatively tiny force for full deflection, more representative of gliders than the powered aircraft I've flown. This obviously makes single engined flight very much easier on the legs than it would be IRL or in a "real" sim.





I solved this problem by attaching anchored bungie cords to my CH pedals...work's great!