Guest deleted@50488 Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Could you please review the roll rates with increasing "q" ? I know other aspects are going to be taken into consideration, and I also know you are looking for the cause of overdone yaw-induced roll, sideslip rolling moment, and so on, but I have the idea that initially not only pitch but also roll got stiffer with speed, while now I can continue to roll the 109s no matter how fast I am - up to 900 km/h in the G2 for instance.... Shouldn't it become almost "impossible" to roll, without help from rudder, at such extreme speeds ? Edited February 19, 2016 by jcomm
303_Kwiatek Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Not only 109 roll is questionable in bos but even more questionable is roll rates of lagg3 and la5. All mentioned planes should be rechecked. Poor Fw190 cant have its historical superiority here Edited February 19, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 The Bf-109 suffered from compressebility at speeds above 650km/h. It's sth that has been very carefully investigated into when developing the G series. In tests the 109 revealed to start "wiggling" around the longitudinal axis at high speeds. Attepts by the pilot to counter it with aileroun were said to be not effective and only make it worse. Instead rudder was suggested to be used which showed better effect than the ailerouns. That's obviously hard to model, but I agree that the "stiffening" (sry for that term) could be increased to compensate for that missing effect.
69th_chuter Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Of course, compressibility is related to Mach, not km/h, so the actual km/h will vary by temperature. The ailerons, however, were an issue at speed, though for dive tests where ailerons were explored for the "wiggle" correction* the travel limits were actually reduced by about half, IIRC. And the 109's poor roll at speed (due to reduced travel) was only made worse by the poor response ( --> initial <-- roll rate) with the gunpods. * The taller fin cap was the final cure.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 19, 2016 1CGS Posted February 19, 2016 Not only 109 roll is questionable in bos but even more questionable is roll rates of lagg3 and la5. All mentioned planes should be rechecked. Poor Fw190 cant have its historical superiority here Post your sources.
Y-29.Silky Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Oh God here it comes. If the 190 isn't outperforming a Russian, the FM is wrong.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Oh God here it comes. If the 190 isn't outperforming a Russian, the FM is wrong. How is that related to the thread ?
WWChunk Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Post your sources. I'm not trying to troll here, but didn't a ton of the locked threads have source material contained in them? IIRC, one of those threads had a referenced statement from Han about revealing some of the devs' source material as well. Has that ever come to fruition? I hate the threads that devolve into BS fights about Russian superiority or "Luftwhiners" as well, but these questions should at least see the time of day before being answered with just..."Let's see sources." Just my two cents worth...
Livai Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Post your sources. cbalancer.cfg Plane balance Config file...
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 20, 2016 1CGS Posted February 20, 2016 cbalancer.cfg Plane balance Config file...
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Post your sources. If you do not already do your job properly "tester", please stop at least the constant harassing of forum members who do it in their free time. Edited February 22, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 22, 2016 1CGS Posted February 22, 2016 If you do not already do your job properly "tester", please stop at least the constant harassing of forum members who do it in their free time. Excuse me? I happen to put a LOT of my own free time into testing the beta releases, so spare me your insults. The least anyone can do when claiming something is wrong with the FM is to post evidence backing up their claim. "I think this/that isn't right" doesn't cut it. 1
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 Excuse me? I happen to put a LOT of my own free time into testing the beta releases, so spare me your insults. The least anyone can do when claiming something is wrong with the FM is to post evidence backing up their claim. "I think this/that isn't right" doesn't cut it. He and others made it already multiple times over different topics, just gets old to repeat the same sources again and again.
303_Kwiatek Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) He and others made it already multiple times over different topics, just gets old to repeat the same sources again and again. Expecialy if Luke FF surly know that even delveopers dont have primary suorce ( roll charts) for Lagg-3 and LA5 roll rate. We have only Russian pilots flight reports which claimed that La5 got heavy stick force ( Lagg-3) when change direction of turn expecially with increased speed. In BOS both LAgg-3 and La5 are very light on airleons control. Far away for heacy stick force alhough in beta time i remember that Lagg-3 was more heavy. Edited February 22, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek
SYN_Haashashin Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Only that you know..been a tester ain't a job, don't know where people got that from. All tester do it on their free time if they have it Other than that keep it on topic and please do not get things personal. Edited February 22, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin Misread something.
Guest deleted@50488 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Been looking at it, and comparing with other sim where the 109 was initially released even worst than what we presently have in IL2 BoS regarding stick forces in roll and pitch, and also yaw... With time that other sim got the three axis modeled in such a way that they try to plausibly reproduce the increasing forces the pilot has to oppose when using controls at higher speeds, but those "hinge" forces are the only difference I can notice between the way the 109s behave among both sims. Other than that the rolling and pitching moments appear to be very similar. There's only that problem with yaw or sideslip induced roll, but it has been acknowledged by the Dev team and they're going to fine tune it... So, in il-2 it's like our pilot was always a very strong one, capable of opposing any forces up to the limit where the aircraft starts getting structural damage.
Brano Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 From my observation,controls become stiff and with limited movement when exceeding given speeds.As example,flying in La-5 and over 500km/h IAS,rudder becomes very stiff,as it was in real.No need to get to speed of structural damage to see this effect also on other aicrafts. It is true,that actual ''muscle power'' of pilot and fatigue factor is smtg hardly possible to implement into game in fair way.Imagine having possibility to setup such realism level.I guess 99% of us would select ''Terminator''
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now