Prop. plane sim with THE BEST flight model

I didn't say that wing configuration alters the principles of flight dynamics. I referred to handling.

The handling qualities are dictated by the flight dynamics. ;)

Cheers,

/Fred

there are not many choices nowadays - ROF , FSX , X-PLANE , IL2 , FLIGHTGEAR .

This topic is just... weird. Not sure what you're looking for Bucic. Sounds like you're overcomplicating and confusing this, too.

IL-2 has the best prop flight modeling I've felt in a simulator. It's downright impressive for its age. I'm not sure where you get the impression that it has too much stability in most flight models, either, because i feel like it's pretty close. We're talking about fairly big, solid, high performance aircraft. They aren't going to bounce and shimmy around like a glider.

C150 doesn't shudder before stall and I'm pretty sure neither C172! A little flaw in the article. I don't have time to read the rest.

It has a slight buffet, not very noticeable. Have you flown a REAL one before you said that? :lol: That article is crap though. I don't think he really understands how the flight modeling works in X-Plane. It is definitely superior to FSX's air file... but the engine is probably similar. An FM and a physics engine are not the same thing.

The handling qualities are dictated by the flight dynamics. ;)

I limited the range of flight sims to specific aircraft because I was after specific handling qualities. Please drop this. I don't need you teaching me the basics of flight dynamics.

Again:

Which sim delivers the best flight model for a propeller/turboprop WWII fighter size/class aircraft?

there are not many choices nowadays - ROF , FSX , X-PLANE , IL2 , FLIGHTGEAR .

You are right except the Flightgear and BoB WoV missing at the beginning ;)Flightgear is useless for end user. It fields academic value only. It has no properly implemented A/Cs I know of. X-Plane - same as with Flightgear but there are payware addons which probably feature proper control surfaces limitations. Without control surfaces limitations any aircraft in any sim will be of little resemblance to its real-life counterpart (see the x-plane forums topic linked above).

This topic is just... weird. Not sure what you're looking for Bucic. Sounds like you're overcomplicating and confusing this, too.

I gave very specific elements I was looking for. A year later I came by to say I know the answer now. The answer is:

RoF (if bi-planes are too be counted)

BoB 2 WoV

X-Plane with high quality payware addon (no stock AC belong here!)

Il-2

FSX

.

.

.

{don't care if something is worse than FSX} :P

IL-2 has the best prop flight modeling I've felt in a simulator. It's downright impressive for its age. I'm not sure where you get the impression that it has too much stability in most flight models, either, because i feel like it's pretty close. We're talking about fairly big, solid, high performance aircraft. They aren't going to bounce and shimmy around like a glider.

Not really. And I claim the oposite - Il-2 planes have too high control surfaces authority. Either this or bad inertia calculations. There's no other option.

It has a slight buffet, not very noticeable. Have you flown a REAL one before you said that? :lol: An FM and a physics engine are not the same thing.

Buffeting in C-152 during stall is negligible. Simple as that. And I did some heavy ones trying to "prove myself" that is highly unlikely to develop unwanted spin in this 'craft.

That article is crap though. I don't think he really understands how the flight modeling works in X-Plane. It is definitely superior to FSX's air file... but the engine is probably similar.

Which article?

___________________________________________

On a side note:

The handling qualities are dictated by the flight dynamics. ;)

An FM and a physics engine are not the same thing.

They aren't going to bounce and shimmy around like a glider.

Please avoid using incorrect terms / terms you don't understand and "philosophy" (unless you're planning on proving some specific point with it).

Il-2 was great when it was first released, but has been dumbed down over the years, presumably to cater to a larger crowd. Today it is IMNSHO yet another aircraft-on-rails general-purpose one-model-fits-all generic aircraft simulator.

Wich planet do you live on? :D

Wich planet do you live on? :D

A planet on which different aircraft have vastly different flight characteristics on the edge of the envelope and otherwise, where (most) conventional gear aircraft can be threepointed without stalling, where departures don't feel scripted, where not all aircraft drop a wing when stalled, where it is harder to fly a 2000 hp Spitfire than a Cessna 172... need I go on? :)

Please tell me things have changed significantly over the last year or so - I'd be thrilled. I used to fly Il-2 a lot, from the demo and on, loving how it was refined over the first years (remember the rubber band nose issue?), but as the FM fidelity was reduced in favour of accessibility, enabling people to keep up with flying 50 different aircraft and levelling the field it lost most of its appeal to me. I get my fix out of flying and history recreation rather than ACM and online furballing melees (Seen the A-10 x-wind landing thread? Love it!), so these days I sadly only ever get back into Il-2 when we have our bi-annual gathering of aviation nerds and have big honking coops going. I have my hopes up for SoW though, with promised higher detail level in the modelling of the individual aircraft. If that does indeed get by the marketing department unscathed, I promise you will find me over the cliffs of Dover! And probably shoot me down while I'm messing about heads-down in clock and kneepad, trying to establish the specific excess power... :D

I also am not sure what you were after or the point of the thread anymore. I know a couple of real life pilots , one of which has flown in a warbird and both think il2 is very good. I have seen it on forums from other pilots who have flown real life warbirds who think il2 is very good.

One poster (Draco) in this thread had direct experience and said il2 is by far the best yet you are arguing points and by your own list have put it only one from the bottom?

You complaint seemed to be this 'My problem is propeller pitch control in Il-2 and the fact that I myself can't judge if its model is good enough to call it realistic.'

A comment saying you personally dont have the experience to know but somehow have ignored others advice based on this alone?

It seems that you got the advice you asked for and are absolutely free to ignore or choose whatever you prefer.

I do wonder though, how did you determine the order of this list based on the criteria you set out for yourself?

A planet on which different aircraft have vastly different flight characteristics on the edge of the envelope and otherwise, where (most) conventional gear aircraft can be threepointed without stalling, where departures don't feel scripted, where not all aircraft drop a wing when stalled, where it is harder to fly a 2000 hp Spitfire than a Cessna 172... need I go on? :)

 

Effte, which planes does it model well? With mods etc I am sure not every aircraft is as it should be, I think we can be certain of that.

In perspective of the thread the OP would go with xplane if there was a single aircraft with the perfect model. If we apply that to il2 there must be one or perhaps two that have good flight characteristics true to real life. If that's the case then IL2 may just have the most realistically modeled prop fighter - sure, not every one of the aircraft in il2's library would be like that.

Please avoid using incorrect terms / terms you don't understand and "philosophy" (unless you're planning on proving some specific point with it).

You serious? You going to shrug me off and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about with a one-line quote? First of all, I can use any adjective I want to describe the motion of an airplane in flight. I've got a few licenses and ratings and time in multiple aircraft types... including gliders. The 172/152 DOES have a slight buffet at the stall, and a glider is very light and gets kicked around easily in unstable air.

And in no way is what I said philosophy. It's simple fact. A flight model and the game's interior physics engine are separate entities, and that was pertinent to the discussion. The flight models in FC2 may be similar to the ones used in FC1, but the handling is vastly different due to the upgraded engine. The physics engines in FSX and X-Plane are probably similar, but aircraft tend to handle very differently. Connect the dots. Do you understand?

Again... this topic is silly. You keep trying to shut people up and demand that people tell you the "right" answer to your "flight model" question. Then, when you don't get the answer you want, you rapid-fire-quote bitch at them. :disgust:

Want to know which simulator is going to satisfy Bucic's impeccable "feel" for how an airplane flies? Start trying simulators, maybe you'll settle on one.

I can't order anyone to write that and that so let me rephrase - if you go ballistic in your contemplations, then don't expect me to answer your posts.

This topic was meant to establish a list of top sims per their FMs and discuss their culprits (like I did on x-plane forums for example), and NOT to discuss some vague flight dynamics topics. If you'd like to continue this however why don't you start your own topic - specifically on flight dynamics and physics models.

i won't go far arguing with many terms. but personally i felt that it was too easy to recover from a spin in IL-2.

but a computer game can never simulate 100% of an aircraft. i fly what feels best to me, including graphics, sound, missions...

IL2 is still the most popular game at the moment. but ROF is a more complicated simulator.

Well its to be hoped that ROF is more complex and somewhat more true to life. How many FM changes have been present since 1946.

The same way we hope SoW CoD (what a bad acromym, i hoope it doesn t foreword something like it) will be on a next lvl even above ROF.

That remain to be seen but my hope are hight.

As for the question in this thread, if simulators could be done as per sit of your pants or whatever, there would be many less flight pilots out there.

They would go for better payd jobs and have a blast on theyr fully fledged system.

So, asking who does best is one thing, but going to QQ about details in all sims is... not very bright to be gentle.