CFS2 flight realism

[Jeph]

As per an actual WWII pilot who flew a P-47 (Wonderful Winnie) the "100% hard" flight setting is absolutely ridiculously, unrealistically difficult in CFS2. He refuses to fly at this level.

I also flame those who fly at that setting because of this absurd level of overkill by M$. It's not, in my opinion, even worth the effort to fly in because it is so unrealistic. The closest thing to realism, as per the WWII pilot (RAF_Yank), is the "95% medium" setting.

Granted, flaps only add drag, the planes aren't accurate, as the hell cat has better range than the corsair at their cruise altitudes, among other issues, but the fact remains for realism, 95% medium's the way to go.


On another note, I actually took the time one day to fly all of the stock flyable planes as far as i could to determine their ranges at their respective cruise altitudes. If anyone would like a copy of the numbers, let me know.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I enjoy CFS2, but it really feels like M$ could have done a LOT more with it. It's almost like CFS1.91a, not CFS2.0

[jimski]

I am not too surprised at that. Not sure where many models got their flight characteristics but in defence of the model makers, how are they to know what an oldie really flies like? (Or maybe how would they know what anything flies like?) I flew big multi engine recips decades ago and when I began flying a flightsim I was sort of shocked at how much harder it was to fly from the real. For the most part it was the lack of periferal vision cues that made it much harder and I was able to adjust to that. Also, real aircraft usually have lots of sound and feel cues that prevent surprise stalls. The flight sims are excellent instrument trainers but you are always "under the hood" so to speak. I dunno that csf2 is any different from other flightsims in that respect.

I guess I agree with you on the range thing too and always fly with "unlimited" fuel now since some add ons in particular seem way off.

I still prefer csf2 to the others. Lots and lots of add ons, and you can fly anywhere in the world.

Jimski

[Jeph]

According to the CFS2 manual, they spoke extensively with Joe Foss, a USMC Ace with the Medal of Honor. He offered info, input and interviews. Surely he verified some - but not all, obviously - of the flight dynamics of the game...I'm sure one of the designers could have gotten volunteered to take even a 30 minute demo flight in a cherokee 180 or something to get a feel similar to a hellcat or wildcat.

The hellcat and corsair definitely have a feel in the game before stalling. i don't know about other birds. I just don't get the same level of immersion in CFS2 as I did in CFS1. The comment I made about the flaps adding drag but no lift, there being NO LIGHTS on the ground, the bad clouds and everything else that just feels off...

[james007]

Jeph I agree with you in two two counts. First that the flight dynamics are not perfect. Secound is that CFS2 out of the box campaings and mission are not as immersing as CFS1. Heck CFS1 is a lot more immersing than CFS3 and IL46 as well.

But once you learn how to build missions and learn to upgrade it becomes a addiction. CFS1 is fun and a very immersing Sim but very limited compare to CFS2. You can do a lot more with CFS2 than you can ever get done through CFS1.

Do you know you can upgrade the stocks AC on your own or by downloading B24 Guy replacment plane.

The key is for you to learn how to use the Mission Builder so you can create your own Missions and Campaigns. You can even create Dynamic campaigns through Lowengrin DCG.

Upgrading this Sim is what makes it so much fun for me.

I hope you can learn to upgrade it and enjoy it as much as I have!

I recommend for you to scroll through this post that has lots of tips and Websited that are dedicated to this Sim from page one to the last page http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... board=cfs2

Have fun and watch your six!

[AvHistory]

Try some of these AvH 1%'s at 100%.

 http://www.netwings.org/library/Avhistory_CFS2_Aircraft/USA/

They are less well developed then our CFS3 Version 4.0 but are still rated as very good among the CFS2 aircraft. There are about 100 different planes in the AvHistory CFS2 Version 2.80 series.

My partner Gregory is a licensed aerobatics instructor with a connection to one of our advisor's, The Planes of Fame Museum in Chino California  http://www.planesoffame.org/, & I have had a number of aerobatics flights in WWII vintage aircraft.





This is me & the youtube vid is a short 7 minute aerobatics film of the AT-6 in the pictures above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVzLARzIihA

Hope you give our stuff a try. It might change the outlook on what CFS2 has to offer you & on what is really a very good sim it is with the proper tweaks.

[james007]

I agree!

[james007]

Here is the whole collection http://www.netwings.org/library/Avhisto ... _Aircraft/

[jimski]

It is also possible to tune the handling of your planes somewhat with the info in the aircraft.cfg file. If you look at that file with notepad you will usually see a segment like this:

;Moments of Inertia
empty_weight_pitch_MOI=151000      //slug-ft^2
empty_weight_roll_MOI=167000      //slug-ft^2
empty_weight_yaw_MOI=178000      //slug-ft^2



[flight_tuning]
cruise_lift_scalar=1.0
parasite_drag_scalar=1.0
induced_drag_scalar=1.0
elevator_effectiveness=1.0
aileron_effectiveness=1.0
rudder_effectiveness=1.0
pitch_stability=1.0
roll_stability=1.0
yaw_stability=1.0
elevator_trim_effectiveness=1.0
aileron_trim_effectiveness=1.0
rudder_trim_effectiveness=1.0

[piston_engine]
power_scalar=1.2

[propeller]
thrust_scalar=1.2

If you tinker with the moments of inertia you can change the feel of the plane, make it feel heavier or lighter. If you tinker with the "flight tuning" you can make it respond more realistically or make it fly more to historical numbers as far as speed. I don't know if you can adjust fuel consumption this way - perhaps someone else will know. Also adjusting the location of the center or gravity is sometimes needed. But the stock planes are usually OK.

I think it is also possible to swap in the .air file from a completely different aircraft.

I am not sure how the model/cfg/air files interact. Anyway it is an interesting way to waste time and can be pretty satisfying when you end up with a plane that flies right.

Jimski

[H]

[color=#003300]There isn't a great difference between the two sims' .air files, just enough to make changes necessary if you can find them; I have occasioned to retro a CFS2 .air file to use an acft in CFS1.
When it comes to acft range, I have found that most CFS1 acft were set to reach near their spec when run at about 1/3 to

[jimski]

I poked around through the .cfg files of some of the planes in my hangars and found for the Alpha Wellington bomber the tuning notes

[GeneralEngineData]

//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop
engine_type = 0
fuel_flow_scalar = 1.000000
engine.0 = 8.7, -10, 0,
engine.1 = 8.7, 10, 0,

Haven't tried it on anything yet but the "fuel_flow_scalar = ?" might be a way to tinker with the range. I would think the two "engine.  -....." statements locate the engines in xyz but I would think you could delete that leaving only the fuel flow.

Here is a similar statement I found in a Calclassics Boeing super stratocruiser for fs2002.

[GeneralEngineData]
engine_type=0
Engine.0=10.000, -30.000, 2.000
Engine.1=10.833, -14.500, -0.667
Engine.2=10.833, 14.500, -0.667
Engine.3=10.000, 30.000, 2.000
fuel_flow_scalar=1.000

One way to test the effect would be to add in the .cfg file maybe

[GeneralEngineData]
engine_type=0
fuel_flow_scalar=10.

so that the effect should be pretty obvious with a short test flight. Then tweak it to your pleasure.

JImksi

[jimski]

Alas, after a few test flights it looks like the fuel flow scalar is an fs2002 feature that doesn't work in csf2.

Jimksi