New flight model (FM) and damage model (DM)

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Tvrdi said:

This just confirms my fears that the new FM won't be much better than the one in the last game. First thing I noticed both Mig15 and Sabre are far more forgiving on the stick than in DCS. In DCS you really feel the controls are much less responsve at speeds. On example Mig15 is almost dead on roll at very high speed.

That is true in Korea though - I typically don't fly the Mig-15Bis due to its lack of responsiveness at speed!

I'd also suggest comparing the Great Battles P-51D vs. the Korea F-51D before claim that the FM won't be much better - the differences are generational in my opinion (quite possibly as great a leap as happened between Il-2 1946 and Great Battles).

[LukeFF]

Guys, a reminder before this thread goes any farther: any claims about issues with the flight model need to be backed up by direct, factual sources. Comparisons to other flight sims may be fine for YouTube content developers, but it cannot be the basis of discussion here.

[AndreiTomescu]

To tell the truth, @LukeFF, I'm exasperated with this constant comparison and whining.

That you tube acrobat flyer guy, that did the comparison: what i got from watching the hole video? Well, this:

- the 2 sims are pretty much comparable. Some stuff better in DCS, some in Korea. And both really comparable with the real life. Which bring them the title of "simulator", and not arcade shooter.

- what it's missed here, it's the fact that the hole FM of one sim is a matured, tested and retested and refined over many yrs, and that's compared with the FM of a new sim, that it's not even launched !!!! It's early access !! Very "fair". And leaving the fairness aside, in this concrete and factual case, because my statement is a fact, if a NEW and under development product is on pair with a consecrated and tested one, that shows a higher quality for....which one ? For the newer one, imho.

Well, for me, QED. Case closed. Can't wait to reach the end of the year, and all the perfected FM, AI, DLC, PLM, will fall into places, and we'll have back our forum with new campaigns, and positive stuff. I miss that.

[Tvrdi]

I fully understand that my opinion is entirely subjective. I am not a pilot and I cannot prove that my observation is relevant. Besides, I never said that the flight model here is bad, just that it is different. Correct or not, maybe we should leave that to someone who has flown a real Mustang. That would be an interesting and relevant opinion. Although I don't think any simulation will be able to prove "this is like in real life". That is simply impossible. Besides, Korea is still in development.

Edited June 30 by Tvrdi

[Uther]

4 hours ago, Tvrdi said:

This just confirms my fears that the new FM won't be much better than the one in the last game. First thing I noticed both Mig15 and Sabre are far more forgiving on the stick than in DCS. In DCS you really feel the controls are much less responsve at speeds. On example Mig15 is almost dead on roll at very high speed.

He's doing the MiG 15 next, but has already said they are very very similar. Have to wait for the vid I suppose to see. 

[MajorMagee]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'd be really interested if the developers (or anyone with stick experience in an actual P-51) could weigh in on this:

I suppose I'm most curious about the spin dynamics, but the overall longitudinal stability and responsiveness is also interesting.

I wonder if the landing gear stiffness is something easily adjusted in a simple luascript file like it was in Tank Crew?

    SpringsK=30.0f            // Suspension springs strength
    SpringsD=9.0f            // Suspension springs dumping
    MaxSpringDeep=0.326        // Suspension spring range

[Gunfreak]

9 minutes ago, Tvrdi said:

I fully understand that my opinion is entirely subjective. I am not a pilot and I cannot prove that my observation is relevant. Besides, I never said that the flight model here is bad, just that it is different. Correct or not, maybe we should leave that to someone who has flown a real Mustang. That would be an interesting and relevant opinion. Although I don't think any simulation will be able to prove "this is like in real life". That is simply impossible. Besides, Korea is still in development.

For the experience of flying a real mustang to be relevant. You would.

1. Have to fly with ammo or analogues for ammo in weight and balance.

2. Fly the P51 in ways you most likely wouldn't want to fly a 80+ year old plane. Since you want to test it in ways you would fly in a life and death fight.

3. Original engine without modifications.

4. Use period correct fuel.

Sure you can test the flight in some nice acrobatics, some basic A to B flying as well as take off and landing. And then see if the sim matches that. 

But you'll be hard pressed to get first hand modern accounts of how the plane behaves at 370mph in almost stall parameters while flying the aircraft at War Emergency Power.

My understanding is that warbirds acrobatics are often done at quite low to medium power settings to save the engine. And simply using altitude and gravity to do the acrobatics. (Unless they have more modern engines installed)

All i can say with DCS vs IL2 GB/Korea is that in both IL2 games. The aircraft (both prop and jets) increase speed in dive much easier and retain speed much more.

If i try and land a Spitfire in il2 the way i do in DCS. I can be a good 70mph faster over the threshold, as even on idle in a small turning dive that spitfire will increase speed something awful.

And in the F84 too. Set it to idle, speed break out, level flight. Takes forever to get to to safe flaps/gears speed

 

[Dash,Polder]

I'd be wiling to bet nobody's peak performed a Mustang in almost a century, they're way too rare and valuable.  This guy is also a professional commercial pilot by trade and holds an aeronautical engineering degree.  I think he does these sims a service by acknowledging how brilliant they are done, he really seems to enjoy flying them and puts out regular content.  If there's any channel I will watch for the skimmy his will be right there at the top. 

[Slow_Horse]

Сompare)))

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0439ExgoNo

Edited July 2 by Slow_Horse

[Avimimus]

Stonehouse has posted some very relevant quotes from manuals here:

They indicate that:

1. Good snap rolls are not possible and most end up in a spin.

2. The aircraft enters an oscillating spin (rather than a flat spin).

3. Spin recovery spin involves reducing the throttle to a minimum (as well as opposite rudder and controls with the spin).

4. Even with the throttle reduced five to six turns and 9000 to 10000 feet altitude loss is to be expected prior to recovery.

5. When the rudder is applied to begin spin recovery this will cause the nose to drop and the rate of spin to initially increase for a little over one rotation before slowing.

 

[=ILS=_Abu_27]

I really like the current aerodynamic feel. Finally, I don't have to see those people performing unbelievable maneuvers and flying recklessly. Planes can no longer use unbelievable pitching, twisting, spinning, and other behaviors to avoid the attacks of more reasonable players when they are clearly in a weakened state. I hope this can be maintained. IL2 should be a game that only focuses on the real flight effects and rationality.

[Xtremist]

14 hours ago, =ILS=_Abu_27 said:

I really like the current aerodynamic feel. Finally, I don't have to see those people performing unbelievable maneuvers and flying recklessly. Planes can no longer use unbelievable pitching, twisting, spinning, and other behaviors to avoid the attacks of more reasonable players when they are clearly in a weakened state. I hope this can be maintained. IL2 should be a game that only focuses on the real flight effects and rationality.

I was degraded to earth in an other forum before for mentioning this, but;

For me, the flight model worth nothing, if the plane's behavior is not beliveable. I understand that it may achieve exactly the IRL measured performance requirements, but if the behaviour is unnatural or forgiving for exploits (ahem IL2GB multiplayer dolphining) it is not good enough. So far, the Korea fms are seem to be believable except for small, amendable details. 

[=ILS=_Abu_27]

1 hour ago, Xtremist said:

我之前在另一个论坛因为提到这件事被贬低过，但;

对我来说，如果飞机的行为不可信，飞行模型毫无价值。我理解它可能完全符合现实中测量的性能要求，但如果行为不自然或对漏洞宽容（咳咳IL2GB多人游戏的“海豚”），那它就不够好。到目前为止，韩国的FM除了一些可修改的小细节外，似乎还算可信。

我只有一个诉求，真实感，哪怕他因此飞起来会变成一场灾难。

[Aapje]

This person calculates the expected roll rate of the F-86 and thinks it should be a lot higher than how it is currently modeled:

 

[Tvrdi]

Now I have some experience flying both the Sabre and the MiG-15 in multiplayer. Both are capable fighters, but the Sabre seems to snap its wings far too easily. It doesn't have to be at very high speed or during an especially aggressive maneuver. Was it really like that in real life? I can't seem to replicate this behavior in DCS.

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, Tvrdi said:

Now I have some experience flying both the Sabre and the MiG-15 in multiplayer. Both are capable fighters, but the Sabre seems to snap its wings far too easily. It doesn't have to be at very high speed or during an especially aggressive maneuver. Was it really like that in real life? I can't seem to replicate this behavior in DCS.

The next update is planned to increase the strength of the F-86 wings.

FWIW these aircraft weren't that safe though - even looking at only U.S. statistics (and leaving out export or license built examples) - we have 1422 aircraft written off in accidents and 573 non-combat fatalities on the F-86: https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft Statistics/F-86.pdf

(Assuming that these numbers only apply to USAF operated aircraft - it would seem to imply that about 22% of F-86 were written off in accidents).

[JendaJND]

On 7/5/2026 at 12:26 PM, Aapje said:

This person calculates the expected roll rate of the F-86 and thinks it should be a lot higher than how it is currently modeled:

 

Its not only roll rate but also when it starts slowing down. Sabre manual explicitly mentions there is no compressibility till mach 0.95... no mention of altitude. The limit is of 0,95 mach. 
The stick stiffening is mentioned ONLY for elevator due to its lower boost ratio than ailerons. 
There is absolutely NO mention of reduced roll or control capabilities with speed till mach 0,95. 
Ailerons have up to 50 : 1 boost ratio meanwhile elevator sits at 15:1... thats 50 pounds of force on aileron for one pound of force on stick. Same logic applies to elevator but there its 15 pounds per one on stick.
There is no way in hell ailerons cant be fully deflected below already mach 0,9 at low altitude (it rolls significantly slower there than at lower speeds). 
One of main characteristics of sabres was stupid high roll rate even at high speeds till mach 0,95