4 pages and counting.....see what you started Capt Dawson? LOL
Lol
I have even flown a few planes in real life
This sounds interesting, may I ask which planes you flew, where, how often, for how long, business or private aviation, ...
Although I am not a licensed pilot yet, I have had the opportunity to fly a few private and Civil Air Patrol aircraft with assistance, such as the Cessna 172, Cessna 182, a few Piper variants, and GA8 Airvan. (Very nice little 7 seat plane, the Airvan! Got to ride out a few stunts in it too once, not with me as the pilot though!
) I've just gotten flights with pilot friends who let me fly a little, and Civil Air Patrol who occasionally allow cadets to fly with assistance from their pilots. I've been flying since I was around 15. I'm hoping to solo this summer though.
Re "AI P-51 loses against AI early 109": They don't in my tests.
What I'm referring to here is the P-51's tendency under AI to feebly "wobble" its wings rather than simply fly straight. This causes the AI P-51 to have a reduced ability to hit the 109, and have a real difficulty in escaping a attacking 109, despite the P-51's obvious speed advantage which is completely wasted. In turn, the 109 often has no problem destroying the P-51, because the 109 usually aims straight without wobbling, and the 109 will keep its cool and fly straight during an attack, thereby increasing its speed. I often find that in a P-51D, even under WEP the speed advantage over a 109G is not very impressive (or realistic?) at all. All these not always, but often lead to unnecessary/unrealistic kills of P-51s.
Re "Lerche's incredible flight model": There's no real life data you could rely on, therefore judging the IL-2 Lerche flight model unrealistic is somewhat pointless. Talking about whether this thing would even be able to leave the ground would be a fine topic for a recreational chatter together with a beer or two, but that's it.
Sorry, I'm underage.
From the included ReadmePF.rtf:
Heinkel Lerche III
We used the Heinkel Lerche II as the basis. However, after modeling the plane we’ve discovered serious deficiencies in design, and were forced to make many changes to make this plane suitable for combat. Modeled precisely to original specifications, this plane would never take off.
Correspondingly, we’ve made the following changes:
1 Increased the fuselage cross-section;
2 Installed more powerful supercharged engines;
3 Used the details of a captured Hs-132 prototype as the basis for the cockpit;
4 Replaced Hs-132’s landing gear well for an access hatch;
5 Installed oil and water radiators into the circular wing;
6 For take-off and landing stability, we’ve added automatic gas-powered control surfaces;
7 Changed the landing gear and tail unit shape (as originally designed, the plane would fall over).
Maddox actually admits to heavily modifying it to cater to the FM! Lol
Of course this is because there are obvious problems with the entire design in general. I'm simply getting this from the Readme, not my own research.
Have you ever been at BOS site and seen FM discussions there? And did you know they are totally forbidden in DCS forums?
It is even forbidden to criticize DCS at BOS site for instance.
By doing so you get suspended/banned from DCS.
Instead of considering real issues, they outright deny the right to free speech?
I don't know much about DCS or BOS, but if so many people think there are issues, maybe there are?
When you fly for real, you can feel what the aircraft is doing, and so it is easier to tell if you're pushing it too hard and are on the verge of departure. Unless you have a force feedback stick, it's harder to tell in sim.
This is actually a very good point and bears repeating!...
...Or to paraphrase - the stick does indeed make a pilot!
Good points. I should consider this in my FM opinions. Maybe when I have some spare cash I will give FF a go!
all I want is to see if there is a solution
Definitely no.
Not for technical reasons, but "a" solution would mean that all would have to agree upon it.
You never get there.
Experience tells (and threads like this one shows) that when you express your opinion of one flight model and ask for others to agree, you get back 50 other opinions and on page 2 latest, the whole debate goes south.
There's two things you can do:
- Pimp the flight models of your favourite planes so they suit your flying style better.
This will become an endless job when you switch planes 
- Take the long route: Grab all kind of available real life data, real life specs, test reports etc. and build a flight model upon it.
This is tedious, even easy things take a considerable amount of time, e.g. getting reliable data about control surfaces and their location, the precise center of gravity and center of mass, mass distribution with different fuel loads etc.
But beware: When you finally finished your task and put all historically reasonable data in, you might end up with a flight model that exactly behaves like the one you just complained about.
Best regards - Mike
Ok. That makes sense. I am really not in a position to do these things, as you well know I'm sure. Thank you for clearing this up!
So basically no direct solution. The bias is too strong a force to destroy as it would seem. For now.
BUT ONE DAY WE SHALL BE VICTORIOUS! I dream of a world where American planes are not valued by their biased-against flight models, but by the content of their true character!
I shall have to find ways of minimizing and countering these negative effects. From now on, my dufus P-51 AIs will fight only outnumbered Rookie 109s! Maybe I'll ditch the dufus AI wingmen and go for some lone-wolf attacks. All they do is steal my kills anyways.
Thank you for [most of] your helpful replies guys!
Author
Topic: Over-realism. Yes there is such a thing. (Read 15559 times)
