Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Discussion Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#321 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:01

He is getting at the fact that 0 degrees aoa still produces lift for positive cambered airfoils which means that at high speeds, some aaircraft may require a nose low attitude to fly level. Especially if the 2ings have a positive qngle of incidence. See the post before TCs.
  • 0

#322 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 15 December 2013 - 08:12

Hey, guys, I was playing Rise of Flight yesterday after a long pause (and needless to say, the game is unforgiving for those taking a break, especially when one tries more realistic approach (read: Not 'Custom' difficulty). And apart from learning that F.E.2b has a very long climbing time, and that without slow-motion some scores are really hard, something came to my mind.
On TV Tropes and Idioms the game is Labeled 'Nintedo Hard' and some example are cited with Gotha G. V, Sopwith Dolphin and Fokker Dr 1. Notice it's all about planes.
Is there some kind of a list that evaluates RoF's planes depending on how difficult they are to fly? Are SPAD 13 and Albatros D.V in the demo because they are the EASIEST to control?
  • 0

#323 A.Challenge

A.Challenge
  • Posts: 996
  • LocationAustin, Tx

Posted 26 June 2014 - 16:18

I think that has something to do with it. Being fairly easy to fly (though not necessarily master) without crashing makes them a good choice for starter planes. Those two planes are on most servers, most of the time, and since they are the starter planes for the sim, everyone has them and can fly almost anywhere they want.

Which is probably why they are on every server… :roll:

A lot of people would get frustrated and leave quickly if all they had to work with was the Camel and the Dr1. Between ground crashes, spins, and landing crashes, a lot of people wouldn't get much farther. If we tallied up all the simulated crashes in these two planes, I wonder what the numbers would look like. I know I crashed them (pilot killed) a lot: take-off, landing, practicing maneuvers… How many times would it take to dishearten the strongest among us… :cry:

So it's good to have a couple of easier planes to work with.
  • 0

campribV.png


#324 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 558

Posted 30 June 2014 - 05:32

It seems that after a few months of complaining about the FM 109 from BOS boys get what they want, I wish we had a similar clout. How long “we” say that something is wrong? 3 years? and we collected enough evidence not only our feelings …. the game is great and it could be more historical credible - wonderful. I'm happy with ROF every day but because it is so good I would like it to be even better closer to greatness…
Zak posted this in BOS forum on 26 June 2014 in “In Fix the 109 rudder “ thread.
“Since the chat in thread is as lovely as it can get, let's keep on discussin the Bf 109 issues right here.
So. Can you guys list the things that you think are modeled wrong in Bf 109 (f-4 or g-2, any)? Rudder sensitivity? I've heard of that, gave a brief comment, and we'll talk about it more.
Then, what else?”

“And before we begin, let me make the rudder issue clear.
As I said, we acknowledge that current implementation of rudder control is questionable. You as experienced virtual pilots feel that rudder doesn't work correctly - and we agree with you on that.
We know where this peculiar sensation of Bf 109 is located and it doesn't fit the expectations (same thing as you experience, isn't it?). But IL2BOS is a simulator modeled painstakingly and with greatest attention to the most trustworthy tool that we have - maths. Current version of Bf 109 (as well as any other plane in the project) is a purely mathematical model based on all avalilable data on the original aircraft. And after the entire FM development procedure (2 months or smth, can't remember for sure now) we came to what we have now. And we CAN and we WANT to revise the FM for BF 109 because of the questionable rudder performance.
But being a flight sim (not an WT, WOWP grade arcade game) IL2BOS does not allow us to switch smth off, or to grab a "rudder hypersensitivity" slider and move it to minimum. The only way to fix it is to go thru the entire Fm production process. We plan to do that. Obviously, it has to wait until Fw 190 and He 111 are finished and released to early access, and lacking game modes added too. After that we will have resources to revise Bf 109 FM. You know, it is like developing a real plane back then in 1940s - we roll out a prototype, it fails our expectations and we have to put it apart all over again to find what the problem is.
That's official. Pretty much everything I can tell about the topic. And honestly, I think it gives you all a certain answer.”
  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#325 SPEKTRE76

SPEKTRE76
  • Posts: 82
  • LocationLake Stevens, WA - USA

Posted 21 September 2014 - 04:38

A lot of people would get frustrated and leave quickly if all they had to work with was the Camel and the Dr1. Between ground crashes, spins, and landing crashes, a lot of people wouldn't get much farther. If we tallied up all the simulated crashes in these two planes, I wonder what the numbers would look like.

I have actually grown to love the Camel. In fact it is the plane I have the most time in. She does not like stalling at all, just a warning. I do like the Dr.I as well. The Brandenburg I bought two days ago is another underpowered heavy story. But it does have a nasty 20mm turret upgrade.

I say the best plane I have flow is the SPAD XIII with twin balloon guns. It really packs a punch close in and the 220hp motor is nothing to sneeze at. I am really taken with the F.2B as well. It also feels powerful especially when you have the Falcon III motor and four blade prop. It has the best of both worlds (fighter/bomber).
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users