Bf-109 improvements

[andyw248]

It probably got lost over all the excitement around the TrackIR adjustments, but the trim on the Bf-109G has been improved in 1.04 - it is now possible to trim the aircraft level at airspeeds of up to about 500 kph, and the sensitivity of the trim wheel is also much better (ie. less sensitive) than it used to be. Also, the water radiator can be set to manual mode, which makes it easier to keep the engine at or above 40 degrees.

[Mags]

Great to hear. Never got around to things thoroughly yet after latest patch 1.004.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Mags

[Pringliano]

22. Max speed of manual stabilizer repositioning on Bf 109 was reduced to last 5 seconds;

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Manual radiator was introduced 1-2 weekes ago.

 

Didn't notice any FM changes yet apart from said stabilizer reaction time increase.

[Leaf]

The dials in the 109 G2 seem to have improved as well. Not sure if that was in the last update too, but I just noticed it -- really nice.

[TRA_Rogue]

Yeah the dials on both 109s are way better now. Darker, almost like the cockpit of a Tie Fighter

[unreasonable]

What the 109 needs badly is a couple of tweaks on the throttle.

 

The G-2 throttle is very hard to set accurately - the slightest movement sends the rpm from 2300 to 2600, meaning constant checking to see if you are still in the safe zone.

 

The F-4 throttle is better in this respect, but because it has no stop or gate for emergency power, again the pilot has to spend far too much time checking his rpm in order to avoid engine failure. (Or is it boost - I am not actually sure whether the engine damage is caused by over revving or over boosting - anyone know?)

 

Other than that, with a small reduction in rudder sensitivity in settings, they are really good!

[Matt]

The only changes i noticed for the G-2 is the slower stabilizer adjustment and the darker dials. It still noses up when trimming fully nose down, same as before.

 

But i consider the throttle a bigger problem. Basically only the last 15% really matter when adjusting the throttle. I can't believe that's correct, but then the latest news i read was that it's gonna stay that way anyhow.

 

 

 

The F-4 throttle is better in this respect, but because it has no stop or gate for emergency power, again the pilot has to spend far too much time checking his rpm in order to avoid engine failure. (Or is it boost - I am not actually sure whether the engine damage is caused by over revving or over boosting - anyone know?)

Both overboost and overrevving causes damage seperately.

[Reflected]

 

 

but then the latest news i read was that it's gonna stay that way anyhow.

 

Matt,

 

Really? You've heard some official word on this, and they've said it's not going to be fixed? What a bummer  

[StG2_Manfred]

The only changes i noticed for the G-2 is the slower stabilizer adjustment and the darker dials. It still noses up when trimming fully nose down, same as before.

 

 

Same here! 'Trim' (=Stabilizer) has not changed - still tends to nose up.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Matt,

 

Really? You've heard some official word on this, and they've said it's not going to be fixed? What a bummer

It has been discussed in the german subforum. Someone send a request to a dev and response was, that the non linerity for the g-2 throttle was fine.

 

After several questions about possible changes for better controllebility he said ot will not be changed in future.

 

Interesting enought the Fw 190 also suffers from non linear throttle, only to a less extent.

Edited November 13, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[Dakpilot]

"that the non linerity for the g-2 throttle was fine"

 

In the sense that it is historically correct or that it is not considered such a serious issue to be looked at

 

Thanks for a clarification if you can, but so much gets confused when multiple language threads are in a conversation

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Reflected]

Why am I not surprised...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well i havent to him myself, only partially heared what was going on threw PMs. With fine he most likely meant the way it works ingame and that they probably dont judge it to be an issue.

 

Its obvious it&s not historically but i already joked we may had to prove that as well

Edited November 13, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[unreasonable]

Why am I not surprised...

Bah! Me neither. Quite extraordinary that a situation where throttle setting is almost impossible to control accurately should be considered normal or acceptable, and yet this is 1CGS, so not really extraordinary after all.

[RydnDirty]

Maybe they think that seeing as the G2 at full throttle is 1.3 ata and not in danger of breaking after a couple of minutes then its not big enough problem for them to look at.

[unreasonable]

Maybe they think that seeing as the G2 at full throttle is 1.3 ata and not in danger of breaking after a couple of minutes then its not big enough problem for them to look at.

 

No it is not in danger of breaking after a couple of minutes but that is not the point.

 

1) It is in danger of breaking at some point - 1.3 ata is not safe continuous power. It is possible to have 2-3 separate engagements in an SP mission and fairly easy to use up your "ration" of 1.3

 

2) Getting the throttle to 1.2 (which I understand is safe) is tricky: it is very easy to go to a much lower setting even with a slight touch on the throttle. I sometimes have to try 2-3 times before I can get the throttle to settle at this level. This is not the case in the F-4 throttle which is responsive  but much less spikey.  So using the throttle in a fight becomes unnecessarily difficult.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Exactly. The throttle.works non linear on a very obvious and hindering way, like giving 60% will only boost up to 0.8 ata.

 

The difference between 1.2 and 1.3 ata is less than 5%, which is bugging me most.

[LLv32_kankkis]

 

Exactly. The throttle.works non linear on a very obvious and hindering way, like giving 60% will only boost up to 0.8 ata.

 

The difference between 1.2 and 1.3 ata is less than 5%, which is bugging me most.

Yes.