Well, if you want to play a sim that penalizes you for getting too close to an SA-6, shouldn’t that sim also penalize you for flying in a ham-fisted way at 200’? I mean, you shouldn’t be able to just yank as hard as you want if you are looking for a semblance of realism. That said, I don’t object to relaxed flight models - playing a sim in game mode or whatever is totally fine. Based on the videos I’ve seen of combat in Vietnam and the Gulf War, there is a very real possibility of flying your aircraft beyond its limits when avoiding missiles or pulling off bombing runs. It makes sense to at least try to approximate those edges of the flight envelope and make them hurt you if you don’t respect them…
5 Likes
With two pilots of roughly equal ability, it’s not uncommon for air combat maneuvering to end in a very nasty confrontation well into or just at the edge of post-stall on the deck. If it ends earlier (barring snapshots and all-aspect missiles) that means someone left speed or altitude on the table while they died.
So, for prop planes, where guns are the only air to air weapon, I’d say getting post-stall close enough is pretty important to complete the experience.
2 Likes
S’cuse me… I’m a bit nauseous…
Seriously, this is what I was so impressed with years ago. Not very useful in a BVR engagement, eh? The closest I can get in the p-51 is the snap roll and some colourful flat spins.
1 Like
Well there are a few things that should concern a virtual prop combat pilot even if the acro stuff isn’t of interest. One is what happens when you or your adversary reacts badly at low speed? You do want your sim to at least get it somewhat close. Another is the appropriate modeling of simple skills like slipping. This is something all prop pilots must do on occasion. But sims tend to get it wrong because a lot is happening when the wind is striking the wing at a longitudinal angle, hitting the fuselage from the side and interacting with the vertical stab. All of this stuff is esoteric but it has some bearing on accurate flight even when flying within the envelope.
4 Likes
Don’t get me wrong, I expect there to be consequences for going past the edge. I’m just not overly concerned how accurate it is past that point.
Should the plane spin inverted? Should it flat spin? Should it be easily recoverable with neutral stick or require pro-spin input?
I really don’t care as long as it’s clear what you’re supposed to do.
For the most part, sim departure is equivalent to a minigame in other games like Skyrim or Bioshock where you have to pick a lock or hack a turret. First you’re doing the main game activity (flying to X, fighting Y, exploring Z), then you’re taken to another part of the game where the objective is specific and you must succeed to return to the main game. Without it, it’s too easy if “open door” is the same whether it’s locked or not. So instead you have this other task to complete before you can get past it. Or you can find a key. 
I know picking a real lock is nothing like picking it in Fallout 4 or Thief. I know hacking a safe is nothing like it is in Deus Ex or Bioshock. If recovering from departure in a sim isn’t accurate for that plane model, so what? I don’t really get worked up about it.
I DO get worked up about departures that make no sense. Prime example–radial engined planes backflipping in the old Il-2. Strafe in the Fw190, pull up, pull up a little more, a little more…oh no, I pulled up a fraction too hard, snap 180 roll and now I’m pulling into the ground. 
Ditto the P-47. The inline planes didn’t do it to nearly that extent, actual torque be damned, it was just radial engines. So while I loved strafing in the 47 and 190 in previous WWII sims (trains, airfields, ships, you name it), in Il-2 I stopped because instead of the plane simply failing to pull up more when I pulled back on the stick, it snap rolled 180. Every. Time. Yet I’ve watched a lot of WWII footage and watched those planes pull much harder turns than Il-2 let me manage. So I just quit flying them. I had to fly the 110 for a German heavy fighter and a P-38 for the US (even though neither were really equivalents).
2 Likes
I had few flights in 52 and it’s a very nice training aircraft. I wish ED good luck with it…
1 Like
Oh, they’re absolutely wonderful. I want one.
Late reply. I will never know for certain if IL2 is/was correct or fantasy. But whether radial and inline makes no difference (rotary is a sloghtly different story). It really comes down to design. There is an excellent (and amusing) pilot report by Budd Davisson (airbum.com) on the Bearcat. Planes just don’t came more intimidating than does that plane. The plane’s owner, and Budd’s mentor, said “just go fly her!” Budd was all nerves. But the takeoff roll according to Budd was, or at least could have been, feet on the floor. The “Bear” was easier than a Cub. But that was because by 1945 Grumman knew how to make a powerful plane easy to fly.
the difference between flying upright looking at clouds and snapping looking at granite is just inch of stick and a few ounces of force in my plane. But my plane SCREAMS at me in subtle ways that a sim doesn’t model. So while I don’t disagree that IL2 OLD may have gotten it wrong, there will always be a difficulty in flying a desktop sim relative to flying the real thing. High torque/reduced stability aerobatic airplanes are flown by feel more than sight and sound.
5 Likes
Exactly. This has been my point ever since I started flying. You may have the diagrams right, and the numbers lined up, but you can’t convey the feeling. The subtle shaking. The feedback from the controls. Your whole equilibrium is kept out of the loop.
This is why I don’t care if the top speed is off by 10kts, in the sim. Because that CAN vary from airframe to airframe. Just as long as the FM is beleivable and feels right.
2 Likes
Cue argument about why sim pilots think they should be able to see every airplane within 20 miles when I have TCAS and ATC pointing out traffic to me that I can’t spot at 1 mile.
5 Likes
But they read in Chuck Yeagers biography that…
4 Likes
Same with Hartmann and Rall and many others. Those guys had exceptional eyesight (and also luck I guess).
Yeah. Nobody knows how many aircraft they missed 
4 Likes
That’s a really good point Agi, all things being equal. I think Robin Olds could be in that list as well.
1 Like
In combat, there is also a self preservation and competitiveness multiplier that goes into the mix. I mean, if I was on the RNAV approach in my Citation, and there was a good possibility a Lear might roll in on my six to shoot me down, I would probably be a LOT better at finding traffic too… 
7 Likes
All I care about is a level playing field.
If I can’t see a plane until it’s inside 5 miles, but they can see me at 10…that’s a problem.
If I could theoretically see them at 10, but the game makes it one pixel colored the same as the ground…but they have some high-contrast “all ground is green, sky is blue, and planes are bright red” algorithm which means it’s nigh impossible for them to miss me inside 10…that’s a problem.
Level.
2 Likes
Especially if you add AI to the equation.
The AI is somewhere between magically good and magically bad. They never lose sight of you in a dogfight and they spot you through clouds or when you are attacking from the sun’s direction.
They instantly know about ground targets once they are in certain range. Same for said ground targets spotting planes.
Then if you are exactly in the right spot/range they don’t notice you at all…
It is a mess.
1 Like
I also think this is because flight simmers have no perception of how far away 20 miles is.
1 Like
I am warming up to this idea… The truth is I was disappointed about the aerobatic planes. I then realized I have VR. Aerobatics might be super fun. Lets see how they price the Yak and little biplane…
1 Like