*softshoedancer

Member
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About *softshoedancer

  • Rank
    Recruit
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London
  • Interests
    Gaming, poker, flying, whiskey, opiates...ok i gave up the opiates already
  1. ........you think? A fine catch. Hey again people. Well, I am just about to head to bed again, just been (very briefly) skimming through this thread. Forgive me if I have missed any major points. If it is indeed true that FM for RB and SB is the same (I have read elsewhere that it is), then perhaps I am using the wrong terminology. Let me express it thus: the aircraft flies more realistically in RB than in my first few forays in to SB. For whatever reason. Real aircraft are not that hard to fly. In fact...they fly themselves, with very little guidance necessary. Unless one finds oneself in an unusual attitude or spin/stall, there should never be any "fighting" with the controls, like I experienced in my first few SB flights. OTT stands for over the top btw FourGreenFields. Regarding the quote above, I think you would be surprised how much even commercial pilots forget about the exams they take. I dare say that a seriously interested amateur (private) pilot would know much more about aerodynamics/ aircraft systems/ engines whatever than a pilot flying the line as a job. I do concede it is remiss of me not to know this stuff better: I just failed spectacularly my selection for DHL Air UK, getting 6% in mental arithmetic! I failed it so badly a part of me is almost proud. I got 40% in my tech paper. Mitigation? It has been 15 years since I took my ATPL exams; but this does not excuse me here in this thread: I have spent the last 3 weeks studying specifically aerodynamics in anticipation of my next interview! So yeah... I should know this stuff better. The tech exams are multiple choice mind you. Good catch it's true! I really am not being funny when I say I feel way out of my depth talking to you guys...
  2. oh crap! my inexperience is showing here...I am replying to topics way down the order. No offence! I will go to bed and regroup my thoughts! Great to meet y'all! I feel like I have found a third home!
  3. I am aware some aircraft are unstable by design. I know about the instructor. My strong feeling is that this is an issue with...ahhh...I've had a whiskey and I can sense I am about to crawl up my own **** here...I'll just say it: aerodynamic loading. Ahhhh! I said it I am now going to stop writing and go to bed before I embarrass myself! (PS might it have something to do with aerodynamic loading? lol)
  4. Hmmm... I sense some resentment there Knight! I'm not sure man, just drop the handling difficulty a notch. Heck, even revert to RB FM. I love RB FM! Might be on to something here... I am a PS4 player (shoot me on sight). Disagree 100%. I feel a great deal of effort and love has been put in to this game...I have (and will continue to) put a great deal of $$$ in to this project. I expect the devs realy are trying to get things right. I just feel that with SB they have gone a step too far in an effort to please hardcore flight sim fans, but have gone way OTT in trying to reproduce an authentic FM. Instead, they have produced a parody, if that is an appropriate noun here. I wonder whether the devs have any real aviators among them. I expect they do. And I have no doubt there are some very experienced pilots in the WT SB forums. I would be surprised if nobody has brought this up before.
  5. Hey Deimon, sorry to leave you out...I hadn't seen your post. You flown a Texan? Is that a Harvard? There was one at Shoreham a while back, always wanted to fly it. So sad what happened at Shoreham Airshow a while back... that is my local field. I love that place. I want my ashes scattered on that field on a sunny Sunday afternoon in May. How the pilot survived I will never know. I feel sorry for the poor sod, although it was fairly clear to me it was pilot error. The jury is still (just about) out. I flew a DA42 Twin Star. Great glass cockpit, loved it. Sorry! I derailed my own topic!
  6. lol you guys are the business! You take this stuff seriously, I love it! Wouldn't have the first clue how to do the math, I could probably dig out the text books and work it out...but very possibly you are on to something; at least, as I stated I have never flown a high performance airplane, but in my experience the better performing the airplane, the smoother, more fluid, and all round "better" the experience is. To the second quote, I actually feel that RB has fairly authentic FM. At least, the experience doesn't slap me around the face and shout "This is totally inauthentic way OTT hard work" like SB did (does). FourGreenFields, you make some interesting suggestions. TBH it was a while ago I played in SB. I have been meaning to post this for a long time. As I remember, it was as though the aircraft would...hmm...I hesitate to use the word buffet because I expect it has a very specific meaning in aerodynamics; shudder slightly? Tremble? It felt as though the aircraft was resisting the turn. Perhaps this is an authentic feature of WW2 performance aircraft. Maybe SB is super-authentic. I just thought I'd bring it up because something felt way off to me. And it didn't feel like something which could be tweaked by settings. It felt fundamental somehow. Hey! I feel way out of my league talking to you guys! Many thanks for your thoughts. keep 'em coming!
  7. Hey WT community! This is my first thread, I am used to posting in Tournament Poker Edge's forums, but I am not sure of the etiquette of the WT forums. Hey! I guess mistake number 1 is that I haven't checked whether this has already been discussed recently. Now I can't go back to check without deleting my new thread. Whatever, if I am repeating a thread many apologies, feel free to berate me and delete my account or whatever! I play RB. Let me start out by saying how much I love this game. I've been playing perhaps a year or so. As a qualified pilot myself I was eager to advance in to SB's asap. I forget the hoops I needed to jump through ie a few tutorials, before I was allowed to play SB. Man, I was disappointed. The aircraft (plural) felt nothing at all like any aircraft I have ever flown. I have about 400 hours in piston engined aircraft. I spent countless hours trawling forum threads which suggested fiddling with this or that parameter, got myself in to a mighty mess with the settings, then freakin' gave up. True, I have never flown a high performance aircraft, piston or otherwise, (20 hours in a 757 full motion sim is the closest I have come), but in my experience the aircraft FM in SB is way, way OTT. I'm talking difficult for difficult's sake. I have never experienced the feeling of resistance turning an aircraft, as if the aerodynamics are somehow resistant to the turn. It made the aircraft far too much work to fly. Frankly, the FM in RB is a much more realistic experience IMO. As I stated earlier, I have fiddled with the settings. If anyone else (esp. those with real world flying experience) understands what I am talking about and has a fix, I would be grateful. I like the idea of SB's. But I think a danger exists here whereby people who have never flown a real aircraft might find themselves "in awe" of the difficulty in flying a real aircraft, when the truth is the experience you get in RB is far more akin to the real experience.
  8. I believe if it was your ship you had carte blanche to put whatever marking you liked wherever you liked, providing it was a truthful and honest representation. For sure there were conventions though.