I’m talking about the current state of certain flight models and their gradual decline in quality. The US is arguably the worst offender.
Here’s a quick video demonstration taken last night. Sorry for the crappy editing it was a bit of a rush job.
The P-51 is blatantly not flying correctly and neither is the Corsair. As you can see for yourself in some instances the Mustang needs to be brute forced to stall which goes against literally everything I’ve read in both modern and older flight reports of the Mustang.
When it does finally let go the aircraft rolls over with little real intention to spin. If you keep the stick pulled it’ll finally lose control but only after multiple rotations.
The Corsair is worse. You can pull the stick to your balls and it’ll track almost straight and true, that was with zero rudder input to correct any torque effects which as we both know should be a recipe for a stall/spin. Nothing. A lazy roll over once again that I’m in complete control of.
The second part of the video is stick to the balls just using rudder to correct it. Once an aircraft reaches critical AOA no amount of rudder will keep that flying in a controlled manner, that wing is dropping and then you’re going into a spin. The Spitfire does just that (although somewhat awkwardly), the 109’s do just that. The Mustang even with jerky rudder inputs remained in almost complete control.
At some points the aircraft threatened to stall but then instantly recovers. It’s flat out wrong.
Like I said I’m not just picking on US aircraft. In the video you can see one of my favourites (C.202) has been hit with the sjit stick and now drops a wing to automatically recover despite its real life reputation, the FW-190A’s are also almost idiot proof which doesn’t match reality and even the LaGG-3 now exhibits the same behaviours as the Mustang.
For some silly reason Gaijin have been “updating” flight models by weakening their elevators and flight models are whack across the board.
P-51’s are easier to fly on the limit than 109’s and Spitfires.
109’s are just as good at high speed pullouts as P-51’s.
FW-190A’s are considerably more forgiving in stalls and general flight performance compared to almost anything that isn’t a Corsair.
C.202’s and C.200’s have magical stall recovery systems.
I’m sure there’s more but that’s off the top of my head. The game is a mess.
Planes are how thay were in reality, you just need to learn how to use them, and how to defent agains other airplanes. I dont say some planes arent worst than thayer ennemys but it is how it is and we have to play with that. In the end every plane has its advanteges and disadvantiges, it just the pilot who decise if he loose or not.
Why are you starting at different speeds? In both US planes you started 250 mph plus. Then you did descending spirals to maintain speed. In the 109 and spitfire you started at 190 mph or lower and monkey pulled to the left. What does this prove?
That’s just yanking the stick back and allowing torque to do its thing. Zero rudder input for the first two videos.
I’m happy to retest with the same speeds but my concerns with that are:
1: The Mustang has a weak elevator and I have doubts it’ll even have the ability to stall at lower speeds.
2: It barely makes a difference either way, you can see the Mustang’s speed fall off and it still does a slow roll over instead of a fast snap like the 109’s and Spitfires.
You can see how the problem is highlighted when I max out the pitch and control the aircraft only with rudder. The Spitfire snaps on you as it should, but can you see how I could keep the Mustang in a fairly controlled state? Even when it did threaten to stall/spin it recovered at max deflection. The Mustang should’ve snapped into a stall and then into a spin if the elevator wasn’t released.
You can also see how the Corsair is running on maximum hand hold mode, it’s an incredibly basic flight model. I have no doubts that a K4 might have performance advantages over it but that is nullified somewhat when you can yank the stick to the balls with no fear of repercussions and still execute a very tight turn.
I hate what they’ve done to my Macchi’s as well as you can see in the video, one fake wing drop and then it just flies straight and the elevator feels numb. It almost feels like we have a light instructor interfering.
And what? And whaaaaaaaaaat? Are you gonna make the enemy fight at 6-7km or gonna putter around with the worst spotting system in gaming while waiting?
This is all true, the problem is not many people know that, but whan you do, you clim to 6km and just boomandzoom. This way even a ZERO cant do anything. I dont think that, if there were ZERO and Mustang at 8 km alt, with the same speed, Mustang would have an advantge. The only advantige mustang has is speed, since it can go up to 880km/h and ZERO only 660km/h. If mustang fights someone high, it doesnt only has energy advantige but also an advantige of quick dive and escape. When you start looseing fight just dive, US fighters are much faster than russens, german or japanies. When you think about that, US fighters are one of the best you can use. When flown how thay should of corse.
In defence of that, visibility is utterly atrocius.
Even perching at just 3 km, I cannot see anyone that’s under 500 meters. Often, I’m flying circles above an A point, hunting for an enemy and I can’t find anyone and the A point is in a deadlock or worse, I see fighting in combat log but have no idea where
I finally descend to 1 km altitude and what do I see? Planes circling in the tree tops. This is extra nice on Winter Stalingrad because black dot against black blob for low LoD trees or Port Moresby where the ground is very dark.
Most of the objectives occur in the 0-4 km band. In fact, A point cannot be contested at all above ~5.5 km atmospheric altitude (which means on high elevation maps, you are forced even lower relative to the ground).
Tunisia is probably the only map where you can see ground-level enemies from 3km, and even then it’s sketchy depending on lighting and exact position.
I don’t fly jugs, Mustang MkIa/P-51 and corsairs, and occasional hellcat. I find it’s sufficient to stick at 1-3km altitude band to contest bf109s.
Respectfully what are you talking about? Turn down sense of flight to ruduce blur. if you’re above contrail height then they have produce contrails to attack you. Looking for a black dot against a white cloud is a lot easier than finding a black dot against the terrain.
This is at ~2km altitude. All screenshots are from the replay so don’t judge the turn coordinator - it always says you’re slipping in replays even when flying straight in trim.
Do you think you could spot the black dot just over my right canopy frame if I was at 4+ km? No. They’d blend into the ground. Only reason they’re even visible as is is due to their wingtip vortices as they’re fighting.
Even from sub 1 km altitude, that low-flying IL (iirc it was an IL or a german attacker) is barely visible:
I will legit be flying circles above the river, watch as the A point is static and unmoving or worse turning red and my allies are dying and I am not seeing anything until there’s some tracer fire at last.
You graphics settings are far higher than mine, using a very expensive graphics card.
Compare your black ice with mine. Also you have opponents flying high enough. I often have foes at tree top with nobody anywhere near 4km altitude, and absolutely nobody above it.
I’ll record the next time I’m sitting at 4k, A is not moving or even turning red and I can’t see anyone to pounce on.
Not an A-point battle, but arrows/ground attack mission instead.
It is a good example though as the tracers confirm the presence of aircraft even if otherwise they were invisible.
This whole match, both teams seemed to obsessively stay at or under 500 meters. It is very annoying because you absolutely can’t see anything unless you get under like 2 km yourself. Even at 2 km, they regularly blend into the trees.
Another, shorter example:
This one is a direct upload due to cropping only around the tracer-sighting.
