DCS:BF-109K4 virtual pilots wold group started

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Due to DCS:Bf-109K4 module is near to consider "abandonware" because Eagle Dynamics reject any proposition to improve the module, or make a realistic flight model, real weight & balance, or equipped the plane with his complete armament.

A Group of Virtual pilots who love this plane, now we started a group in Facebook, for join work and share experiences about this plane. 
If you are owner of this DCS module you can join us here.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/bf109k4vpilots/

 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[ZachariasX]

Can you detail what is so wrong with that module? I have it, but it didn't appear to me "that it is soo bad". I admit not having spent too much time with it though.

 

So, for curiositys sake, can you detail the issues?

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Can you detail what is so wrong with that module? I have it, but it didn't appear to me "that it is soo bad". I admit not having spent too much time with it though.

 

So, for curiositys sake, can you detail the issues?

many things

- It have not elevator neutral trim position at Zero, according real pilots said. at neither specific airspeed, even with engine off.

- Weight & balance, the Mw-50 tank weight is wrong modelled.

- At landing airspeed, the aircraft not become nose-heavy with flaps down, but it become more nose-heavy with landing gear down, contrary to the real behaviour.

- Armament is incomplete; real weapons gunpods, bombs, and rocket not implemented. 

- Lorenz beam system (a kind of ADF+ ILS system) etc, etc.

Edited July 26, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Feathered_IV]

Sounds great.  Will the group be expanded eventually, so that Luftwaffe fans from all over the world can come together and express their disappointment about other aircraft too?

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Sounds great.  Will the group be expanded eventually, so that Luftwaffe fans from all over the world can come together and express their disappointment about other aircraft too?

well, .there are other groups for that, ..and we have not intention to only "express disappointment" ..the main intention is share opinions and knowledge, and about how we can improve the module, with MODs, etc.

[150GCT_Veltro]

The DB sound is horrible, and 3D model is only 40.000 polycount.

Not so bad, but absolutely not a DCS standard module like the Spitfire.

 

Waiting for G6 in BoS of course.

Edited July 26, 2017 by 150GCT_Veltro

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Bf 109 K-4

 

I agree, though... A lot wrong with this module in DCS and apathetic devs who don't care what you think.

[Lusekofte]

"Facepalm" another module I bought I never even tried

 

My wallet should be taken away from me, and all other privileges too. But still I have flown the Dora and Spit offline. I got a much greater sense of accomplishment taking off and land with these modules than BOS. There is a major difference. 

Torque effect might not be accurate and realistic, but it feels like described by show pilots in WW2 era planes. Overall in my mind I prefer this rather than BOS A5 and Spit. I personally feel I am dealing with a real plane in DCS, so the constant bithcing about DCS modules here is something I cannot recognise myself. 

If there where better DM , and rockets and bombs and increased number of objects I probably bin BOS 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I personally feel I am dealing with a real plane in DCS

 

-snip-

 

 

Constant praising of DCS' modules, their business and their approach is something I can't recognize myself.

 

I know you're in to DCS and all that but saying "I like it better because it feels real" isn't giving us a lot of information to reform our opinions around.

 

Every time I fly DCS (and it's intentionally been a long while) I'm reminded within 15 minutes of why DCS is so boring, the overhype surrounding its "realism," the dismal DM, the atrocious AI FM, etc.

 

I'm sure Eagle plans on improving these things in between castigating and banning its community members, fragmenting in to more "stable" release versions, releasing the A-Wing star fighter for the Tatooine theater, etc... But it seems unlikely any of that is going to come in my lifetime and I'm half your age... 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Uufflakke]

I don't get it why mobilizing disappointed buyers of DCS or praizing DCS should take place here.

Is one DCS topic not more than enough here?

 

Go to DCS forum or keep it on Facebook.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Go to DCS forum or keep it on Facebook.

 

Nobody uses the DCS forums.

 

DCS players hardly use the DCS forums.

 

The people who held discussions, challenged ideas, etc. have long since been banned and either moved on from DCS as a whole or moved over to the Hoggit community.

 

Nonetheless, this is the Free Subject subforum and I think discussing DCS falls under Free Subject.

[Uufflakke]

Nonetheless, this is the Free Subject subforum and I think discussing DCS falls under Free Subject.

 

 

[Brano]

IIRC there are no real life test reports for Kurfurst as RLM did not perform them. Only calculated values.There is a report from some LW general about what were the real performance values of late 44/early 45 production messers, estimated from daily usage. I read it somwhere,but kill me,I dont remember   Maybe some LW experts here know where to find it.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

Uhhh, ok? 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Constant praising of DCS' modules, their business and their approach is something I can't recognize myself.

If you actually read my post, you would only read I said I like the Dora and Spitfire compared to the A 5 and Spit we have, nothing about their approach and business. I fly BOS in FNBF because I like it, not so much public servers witch I do not care too much for. I like to fly DCS offline very much and COD online. These are the things the different developers have to offer , and I take it or reject it. I do not use stuff I do not like. So do not put any politics in my mouth , because there is none.

I do not praise the modules either, but I honestly like to fly them much more than I do in BOS, but as a combat flight simulator I have not much hope for the WW2 in DCS. I use it more like FSX and X plane , and frankly those DCS modules beat those too, as modules not in a total package.

So read my post plane for plane DCS got a much higher ambition than BOS, therefor is DCS better suited for me. For those wanting to dogfight, and in special Groundpounding not at all in WW2 era 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

If you actually read my post

 

-snip-

 

 

I read your entire post - no reason to get huffy.

 

PM me if you prefer.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Nobody uses the DCS forums.

 

DCS players hardly use the DCS forums.

 

The people who held discussions, challenged ideas, etc. have long since been banned and either moved on from DCS as a whole or moved over to the Hoggit community.

 

Nonetheless, this is the Free Subject subforum and I think discussing DCS falls under Free Subject.

I think that, they are advertising a "full realistic" simulator, and they are very far to reality. Because, they are no applying enough resources to do it.

They thinks that users must be accept everything without claims.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

They thinks that users must be accept everything without claims.

 

Oh, you must. Otherwise [Edited] will ban you quicker than you can say "but here are my sources!"

[Lusekofte]

I have a account on DCS forum and have downloaded some cool mods from there. I do not discuss anything there, I do not know anyone there. But I am that guy buying the stuff use it or do not use it. Like here I bought everything but cannot say I use it , because the product is based on multiplayer and public servers. It is no challenge in the flying itself and  I do not care for the users conduct in many of the servers, not the developers fault but I think this is why there is no real growth in players online in BOS. Your critique about DCS is the reason for no real growth in DCS. You can recruit as many as you like to a sim, but if you loose people in the other end. 

COD have been bugged and people get fed up and they loose people, but new come, but there is no real growth, not noticeable in any of the brands. 

 

So I am that guy , I buy a product and I do what I like with it, this is what they offer take it or leave it, and that is what I do

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

So I am that guy , I buy a product and I do what I like with it, this is what they offer take it or leave it, and that is what I do

Yes it is good, and a rational aptitude, if you are not an mind "aero-trastorned" like me.

I am a aircraft mechanic, and Bf-109 virtual pilot. Many things occurs when you have the opportunity to talk with a real Bf-109 or Ha-1112 "Buchon" pilots, about the plane behaviour, and you see that your expensive simulator game, is a lot off more game, than simulator. 

 

Only little few times occur the possibility that a real pilot can do a test of an airplane in your favourite simulator. And when that possibility appears, you read books, reports etc about the airplane,and  you feels that you have not a simulator, with enough accuracy same as the real airplane for that real pilot can do a decent flight test.

My comrade III/JG 52_Tuckie had that possibility years a go, with an aerobatic Sukhoi.  and Now we could do the same with a Bf-109 thanks to our contact with Flugmuseum Messerschmitt.

 

At this moment and after reading many books about the Bf-109, his pilots, flight test reports, etc... and after talk with Volker Bau, I feels that we have nothing enough good, that we can offer to a Bf-109 real pilot, for do a flight test, without he laugh in our face..

I think that something like this, occurred when E.D.team, performed the interview to Erich Brunotte in 2014 about the Fw-190D9 and Bf-109K4, The discrepancies of Erich Brunotte would be so many that E.D.team have prefer do not published the following parts of the interview. ..And today, only the part one, is available. (I hear that the complete interview has 5 parts.)

 

I would prefer that the Bf-109 behaviour, in the simulator matching with books, and wartime documents, prior to offer a flight test to a real pilots. ..if the opportunity arise.

Edited July 27, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[AndyJWest]

I can't help feeling that there are some unrealistic expectations here. DCS modules are entertainment software, made to run on gaming PCs, regardless of whether you describe them as 'games' or 'simulations'. Expecting them to match every last detail of an aircraft manufactured 72 years ago is asking too much, even when historical sources can be found. Even with unlimited resources, there would be hardware limitations, and ED certainly don't have unlimited resources to start with. I suspect one reason for the unrealistic expectations is the way ED have marketed their software, but experienced flight simmers should know better.

[Gambit21]

personally i think that if rendering simple phisics as a car one each sim does it different i dont want to imagine how many interpretation of reality a complex think as fluid dynamics there are

A car is no simpler...you should know better than that.

Aerodynamics, tire slip angles and other related physics...the list is quite exhaustive.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I can't help feeling that there are some unrealistic expectations here. DCS modules are entertainment software, made to run on gaming PCs, regardless of whether you describe them as 'games' or 'simulations'. Expecting them to match every last detail of an aircraft manufactured 72 years ago is asking too much, even when historical sources can be found. Even with unlimited resources, there would be hardware limitations, and ED certainly don't have unlimited resources to start with. I suspect one reason for the unrealistic expectations is the way ED have marketed their software, but experienced flight simmers should know better.

Some details naturally are impossible to recreate and people indeed have unrealistic expectations. But you would expect a bit more from them. Things like armament, ammunition, absence of ordnance or external fuel tanks (flying Spitfire from Britain and back leaves only few minutes for any kind of combat over continent. They could have added droppable fuel tanks but as you can see there are none).  

Edited July 30, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Things like armament, ammunition, absence of ordnance or external fuel tanks (flying Spitfire from Britain and back leaves only few minutes for any kind of combat over continent. They could have added droppable fuel tanks but as you can see there are none).  

 

This.

 

I don't want or expect a 100%, fully physically accurate Bf 109 K-4 flight model or anything like that.

 

I did expect an option for an MG151/20, gunpods, drop tanks, bombs and any other options the damned thing actually carried.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I only wish my P-51 was actually armed with proper ammo load instead of AP only. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

I am more than a year without posting anything in the DCS forum, because I was banned by Sithspawn due to discrepancies about the DCS Bf-109K4.

Today i was surprised with this message when i was reading news about the k4 in the DCS forum.

​Is this a good manner to sell a product, banning the customers instead of fix the bugs?
Bravoooo !!   

Edited July 30, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[JG5_Zesphr]

shame as well. The k-4 is a lovely plane and the 30mm is tremendous fun. I'm just gonna wait till RAZBAM's harrier and that'll be my last thing for DCS 

[MiloMorai]

Why were you surprised Otto when it is well known that the ED/DCS Mods/Admins cruise other boards looking for people that post negative comments about ED/DCS.

Edited July 31, 2017 by MiloMorai

[Feathered_IV]

I wonder what they do with all that valuable customer feedback, where their customer base unanimously reports that their aircraft and map selection is a chaotic mess?