[Chaoic16]

I like planes. I like them a lot. I like Sci-fi also and what if History. I like true History also. So not problem about that, But I have a little question:
There are a lot of "what if" planes with their "what" if FM/DM. But I'm sure that a lot of those "best predicted FMs" will tell you that the plane simply can't fly or that the plane will be a death trap. Then what? We have some planes impossible to fly in real life, and Oleg simply gave us a cheated FM, not a "best predicted FM". Examples?

-Lerche can't fly in real life
-Ta-183 would be so unstable that will be a death trap
-Ho-229 would have a hugue lot of problems as well

What about you having modelled during months your "realistic what if" plane and then the FM tell you that the plane can't fly???? Are you going to make a faux FM? A faux FM in a What if plane seems as worth to me as modelling a X-wing or a Galactica Viper. Some people can model the Enterprise for me? This would be more Sci-fi than What if History.


Of course the moddeler can make the plane He likes and I'll be very grateful with that. I'm a "Wings over..." series fan after all, and these series have all kind of planes, but you understand my point?

First at all, Oleg many FM have s many erros and flaws, so to me, it appear that Oleg FM may have been 'biased. It is NOT wise to 'assume' that we WOULD make the same mistakes as Oleg do if we find a best 'predicted' flight model in different methods in 'non-biased' as possible. Secondly, using 'X-wing' to compare with 'what if' aircraft is what I strongly DISAGREE with. And thirdly, I have written in my post above that, there is no such thing as perfect flight model that would be 100 percent like real life nor there will ever be.

X-Wing uses anti-gravity or simliar engine that doesnt exist in World war II so why bring X-Wing in here? Even if there may be some 'flaws' in best predicted flight model, these flight model will be closest to 'how would have they flown' as realistic as possible instead of having 'anti-gravity' engine like X-Wing do. I have been tired of people of bring 'star war' non-sense into an alternative historical aircraft.

I am going to quote my own words to explain about problems of Ho-229 (Go-229) and why they are worth it:

Not only these tools can be used for predicting experimental and 'what if' aircraft, these tools also can be used for fixing flight model for every aircraft that is included in IL-2 1946 and add-on aircraft that is currently available in new slot, along with add-on aircraft that is being WIP for this simulator.

Now lets use Go-229 as an example. Go-229 may have been death-trap if flown at violent turning where it is easy to get into yaw issues where the rudder and spoiler can't handle. The pilot would be forced to do what is known as 'tap dancing' with the rudder to keep Go-229 pointing forward as an example. But keep in mind, we still would want to experience the struggling of piloting that aircraft, knowing that we have experienced flying these virtually. That is what simulator is also all about, not just for having fun time flying them, but experiencing and see what it is like flying many different experimental aircraft and see if it would of been a successful aircraft or not.

But you also MUST remember that there was many of operated aircraft that was also death traps but it doesn't prevent pilots from constantly flying these aircraft. B-26 is good example, these aircraft was known as 'widow maker' because they bought deaths to pilots and yet, the military kept her flying and have these aircraft being improved.

However, having non-restricted way to experience many thing virtually in different alternative way is what would allow us to learn something alto more about different aircraft designs. For example say, I am a pilot of Go229 and want to test the flight in that. If I realize that I would crash sometime due to issues with aircraft design, I would be happy knowing I have virtually experienced flying and struggle with that aircraft. Same thing would apply for other aircraft with many design that have either successful or failure design.

Like I said, its better to have aircraft of any design and fly it than not having one at all which would left us unsatisfying, empty answers to our unanswered questions of 'what if' alternative histories. This is WHY history of WWII military aviator can go along very well with an alternative historical air crafts. WE should NOT be afraid to explore all areas and discuss what we experience flying any historical and alternative historical aircraft from what we have learned from it. This is where we would the idea of improving the understanding how each both historical and alternative historical aircraft (experimental and 'what if') aircraft would have flown.

Same thing applies to Ta-183 being 'flying trap' if it is the case.


Chaoic out...