109 flight model

[Anaxogoras]

Yeah, I don't get that one either Anax. Not a big Il2 fan, but a Fw-190 definitely does different things than a SpitIX when you haul back on the stick at 200mph IAS in that game!

Precisely.  Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model.  When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft.  It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim.  But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...

[BnZs]

Precisely.  Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model.  When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft.  It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim.  But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...

I have no idea what this "riding on rails" bit means Anax.

[Anaxogoras]

Hmmm, maybe it's not a good metaphor.   Generally, I'm just trying to describe my feeling of the sim compared to the others I've tried over the years.  The difficulty of performing a true hammerhead compared to some other prop sims while otherwise allowing for effective control response right to the edge of a stall is a good example of what I'm trying to describe.

[Kweassa]

I have no idea what this "riding on rails" bit means Anax.

 It means flying in AH feels like riding a rollercoaster with rails attached. Try imagine the difference between riding a train and driving your own car... riding a train feels more rigid and stable, whereas driving a car feels more fluid. It's a bit less noticeable in AH2, but in AH1 almost every sim pilot I knew in our own local community commented that AH feels like "riding on rails" - and ofcourse, not all of them were armchair pilots.
 
 I distinctively remember writing a review about AH2Beta, how in AH2 a lot of planes felt more 'heavier' in a variety of situations such as pulling out from dives, or the bottom of a Split-S.. the feeling of 'inertia' was more detectible in AH2Beta than in the final versions of AH1 .. and etc..

 Many people still say AH2 feels like "riding on rails." Some people say IL-2 FM feels generic, except I don't. Aside from AH having generally a lot more noticeable torque effects, the general "feeling of flight" seems a lot more believeable in IL-2. Ofcourse, a lot of actual pilots who fly AH say AH is closest to the real thing, but then again, IL-2 players have their own share of actual pilots as well.

[Serenity]

It means flying in AH feels like riding a rollercoaster with rails attached. Try imagine the difference between riding a train and driving your own car... riding a train feels more rigid and stable, whereas driving a car feels more fluid. It's a bit less noticeable in AH2, but in AH1 almost every sim pilot I knew in our own local community commented that AH feels like "riding on rails" - and ofcourse, not all of them were armchair pilots.
 
 I distinctively remember writing a review about AH2Beta, how in AH2 a lot of planes felt more 'heavier' in a variety of situations such as pulling out from dives, or the bottom of a Split-S.. the feeling of 'inertia' was more detectible in AH2Beta than in the final versions of AH1 .. and etc..

 Many people still say AH2 feels like "riding on rails." Some people say IL-2 FM feels generic, except I don't. Aside from AH having generally a lot more noticeable torque effects, the general "feeling of flight" seems a lot more believeable in IL-2. Ofcourse, a lot of actual pilots who fly AH say AH is closest to the real thing, but then again, IL-2 players have their own share of actual pilots as well.

I have never tried iL-2, but I don't think I have noticed a riding on rails feeling. Just the opposite in fact. Comparing flying in real life versus flying in the game, I am a LOT less stable in the game. Maneuvers I have flown in real life with perfect precision are sloppy in game, and I find myself slipping into stalls or uncoordinated turns frequently, whereas in real life I am, well, competent Perhaps I am misinterpreting your definition of riding on rails though. I feel my plane in game is less stable, but that is because I don't feel the feedback I am acustomed to.

[Anaxogoras]

Yeah, if we were trying to talk about stability...

Ahh, but I see kweassa did use the word above.  Probably not the best choice of word because "riding on rails" is not supposed to mean "reduced tendency to stall."

[Mister Fork]

WRT stability, are not civilian aircraft designed with 'positive' stability vs high-performance/fighter aircraft are designed 'neutral'? It means civie aircraft want to climb and remain wing-level vs fighters will stay where u last leave the stick?  Could explain the flying-on-rails feeling if your not familiar with fighters...

[Knite]

Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?

I never have flown an aircraft, so I have no frame of reference in that sense. However, I definitely can sense a slight bit of "momentum" difference between sims. I know in AH you can see some momentum in things such as rolling an aircraft (the P-38 is notorious for "over-rolling"), but in the sense of using things like the rudder, and elevators, I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?

I don't know what is or is not more accurate. I just know I stink and generally look like this -> 

[Anaxogoras]

I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?

Yeah, that's what we're getting at, sort of.  It's a notoriously nebulous thing to describe.  I might say that the air feels more dense in AH than in other sims.

Just to recap, all of this is not to argue that one or the other way is correct, but that there is a distinct feel to AH that is comparable to the "all of the planes feel the same" complaint we hear about other prop sims.

Still, it is far more difficult to execute a true hammerhead in AH than in some other sims, and also more difficult than in a real low-wing aircraft (I have done it in a Grob).  The "cutting" through the air feeling seems connected to this difference.

---------

Additionally, I suspect that if the feel of AH were changed to be more slippery, the community would revolt.  No longer having such strong control authority at the edge of a stall would put a big damper on the kind of dogfights we are used to having.

[thorsim]

i think knite has the angle here ...

some games feel less "crisp" than others ...

wallowing in trim and relative deceleration are common complaints i hear when games are compared to each other and actual flight ...

ACM footage also tends to show planes drifting in turns or "skidding" more than i've seen in the newer games.

 

[BnZs]

So if I get this straight Anax, you are saying:

1. It seems difficult to get a true rotation out of AHII aircraft.

2. The controls seem very effective at low airspeeds. I.E. at 100mph IAS in most planes it is very easy to have enough elevator to whip into an acclerated stall, you think this is incorrect?

[pervert]

Precisely.  Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model.  When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft.  It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim.  But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...

I have all the il2 series have played it a lot although I like it I'd have to agree the planes do not feel they have indivdual characteristics compared to aces high they feel almost like a cliche of popular opinion from a certain point of view. Sometimes when I'm reading through the in game write ups on certain planes it sounds like urmm propaganda?  

Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?

I never have flown an aircraft, so I have no frame of reference in that sense. However, I definitely can sense a slight bit of "momentum" difference between sims. I know in AH you can see some momentum in things such as rolling an aircraft (the P-38 is notorious for "over-rolling"), but in the sense of using things like the rudder, and elevators, I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?

I don't know what is or is not more accurate. I just know I stink and generally look like this ->  

If you played il2 and aces high on a pure blue background ie with no backgrounds to reference against would you still be able to get that feeling of sliding?

[Ack-Ack]

Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?

Imagine WW2 plane with fly by wire controls.  A good example of a plane in AH that feels like its 'flying on rails' is the P-38L or if you played AW, all of the planes in that game had the 'flying on rails' feeling.


ack-ack

[Anaxogoras]

So if I get this straight Anax, you are saying:

1. It seems difficult to get a true rotation out of AHII aircraft.

More or less.  It seems difficult to perform a true hammerhead because the v-stab and fuselage still have a great effect on lateral stability at extremely low airspeeds.  That is my educated guess, at any rate.  When we did a hammerhead in the Grob, it was almost like the aircraft did it automatically once we were below stall speed.  The nose really wanted to come down and neither the v-stab nor the fuselage could prevent it.  Rise of Flight has done a really excellent job in this respect.  Aircraft that lack a true v-stab (Dr1 and N17) can be whipped sideways with full rudder input, and even in the case of aircraft that lack good rudder authority, a true hammerhead is not difficult to perform.

Edit: You know, a funny thing is that once you do lose your v-stab in AH, you completely lose control of the aircraft.  Whereas in Il-2, it's a common whine that aircraft will keep flying (somewhat) without the v-stab. 

2. The controls seem very effective at low airspeeds. I.E. at 100mph IAS in most planes it is very easy to have enough elevator to whip into an acclerated stall, you think this is incorrect?

I really don't know if that's correct or not.  And I don't know if I can enter an accelerated stall at 100mph ias in other sims because they don't typically have g-meters.

[Gaston]

   Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...

   This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...

   There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...

   I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...

   The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...

   On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...

   Gaston