Query about the new FM of bf109

[=GW=xshinel]

Hi guys, I am very satisfied with our new FM as everybody, but also have a little query about the new FM of Bf109, is too different with the old one, and seems no one posted this topic before.

I'm not challenging the new FM of Bf109, only want to know which one is closer to the real Bf109.

I know some gurus in our comunity have an experience on real spitfire, what about the real Bf109?

 

Seems the new FM of Bf109 is a little rigid.

 

haha, anyone can give a comment?

 

Thank you!

Edited November 29, 2017 by III./JG5_xshinel

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

New FM is fine.

 

Physics are physics. Compression is a thing.

[Voidhunger]

Yes FM is good now mainly Bf109 FM.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yes FM is good now mainly Bf109 FM.

 

New Bf 109 FM is perfectly fine.

 

Physics are physics. Compression is a thing.

[Voidhunger]

New Bf 109 FM is perfectly fine.

 

Physics are physics. Compression is a thing.

 

Yes its what Im saying. New FM is perfectly fine. It wasnt meant as sarcasm

[Lensman]

I know this:

I barely got a kill with the old bf 109 fm but with the new one (and VR) I have several hundred. The F4 is now my preferred aircraft.

That doesn't answer your question of course ...

Edited November 29, 2017 by Lensman

[Livai]

Real is real and game is game don't compare apples with pears two different things. And this doesn't answer your Question................... 

[Guest deleted@50488]

What "new" fm ?

[A-E-Hartmann]

Hi guys, I am very satisfied with our new FM as everybody, but also have a little query about the new FM of Bf109, is too different with the old one, and seems no one posted this topic before.

I'm not challenging the new FM of Bf109, only want to know which one is closer to the real Bf109.

I know some gurus in our comunity have an experience on real spitfire, what about the real Bf109?

 

Seems the new FM of Bf109 is a little rigid.

 

haha, anyone can give a comment?

 

Thank you!

The new FM Bf109 is good and it gives a better stability to the 109 one feels immediately the difference. The 109 is much more stable and precise than before.

Compared to reality, I think he is closest. The references and comparisons are closer to the historical references.

But to really compare it would have to fly on the real.

[Guest deleted@50488]

But,unfortunately,there'still that un-natural wobbling in pitch when you make a sudden stick input and return to neutral... And ground handling still feels strange, with way too much tail surfaces effectiveness at táxi speeds and power settings....

 

Then, you can easily take off in any of the 109s with your tailwheel unlocked, and don't even care to use toe brakes - just rudder inputs are good to go...

 

OTOH the Spitfire feels more like an "FSX" Spitfire than an  IL-2 Battle of module, showing tame prop effects in sideslip, even at high power settings and angles of attack....

 

I believe overall the aircraft got over-simplified after the latest ptach ...

Edited November 30, 2017 by jcomm

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

What about the wobbling issue? Can everybody state that it is gone? I'd like to hear opinions about it. Can we definitely close that chapter?

It seems that everybody agrees that the new FM is far better than the old one. But is it the final one? Does it need some minor adjustments? What do you think? Do you still use some sensitivity curve? Can you make last-minute changes while firing without the gunsight bouncing?

Edited December 3, 2017 by -=PHX=-Spartan-

[Guest deleted@50488]

What about the wobbling issue? Can everybody state that it is gone? I'd like to hear opinions about it. Can we definitely close that chapter?

It seems that everybody agrees that the new FM is far better than the old one. But is it the final one? Does it need some minor adjustments? What do you think? Do you still use some sensitivity curve? Can you make last-minute changes while firing without the gunsight bouncing?

 

As per my post above, for me it's still there on pretty much all aircraft :-/

 

Ground handling still  not good either, with way too much rudder efficiency for instance in the 109s... You can steer at any power settings using rudder, and even take off with tailwheel unlocked in the 109 just using the rudder, and you have to permanently use right rudder to taxi, even with tailwheel locked :-/

Edited December 3, 2017 by jcomm

[Guest deleted@83466]

I think there is a large consensus that the "wobbling" issue has been satisfactorily resolved.  Glider pilots and Airbus pilots might never be happy.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I think there is a large consensus that the "wobbling" issue has been satisfactorily resolved.  Glider pilots and Airbus pilots might never be happy.

 

Good one :-)

 

And who knows you really might be right / on spot ?  I can't say, because I haven't flown, as a pilot in command, engine stuff :-)  

I did handle some bricks, but far from me, and even more from their owners, the idea of testing abrupt pitch inputs just to see how it goes ...

 

But Iceworm, how can I believe that's it ( due to propwash effects ) if they behave the same way with their engines quit ?

[CUJO_1970]

What was the elevator response at high speeds for MiG-3? Did it become heavy? What about Yak? Did it's elevator become heavy at high speeds?

 

What about LaGG-3? What about La-5?

 

Or was it only the 109 that got heavy at high speeds?

[SYN_Mike77]

I hope all those got heavier at high speeds, they sure do in the game, I'd hate to think that the FM is that far off.

[=GW=xshinel]

What was the elevator response at high speeds for MiG-3? Did it become heavy? What about Yak? Did it's elevator become heavy at high speeds?

 

What about LaGG-3? What about La-5?

 

Or was it only the 109 that got heavy at high speeds?

yes we have the same questions with you, we all know that early soviet planes are very heavy because of their wood body.

[TRA_Rogue]

Overall I'm quite happy with the new FM of the 109. The increased stability leads to a much more realistic feel overall.

 

Some issues I have with it are the elevator locking up, which I think happens a bit too early. Another thing is it's roll rate, which is decreased significantly, but only for the F and G models. The Emil seems to be unaffected by this. I don't think this is realistic. As I understand it the Emil should roll slightly better due to it lower weight at low speeds, but the later 109 models should roll slightly better at high speeds due to the construction of it's ailerons.

Both these things lead to a lack of defensive fighting capabilities. You can forget about breaking off in a high speed dive or any scissor movements, as most enemy pilots will be able to easily follow you though any maneuvers.

 

As for the "snapping back" after a high G maneuver, I think that has to do with the slats retracting after releasing the pressure on the stick. I don't have the LA-5 in my arsenal, but those who do should be able to replicate the same behaviour with it.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

. As I understand it the Emil should roll slightly better due to it lower weight at low speeds. The Emil seems to be unaffected by this. I don't think this is realistic.

 

 

Nonsense.

 

Anyone should be able to realise that the Emil has squared wings with shorter span and ailerons situated right to the wing-tip for better rolling moment of inertia. The ailerons also have higher deflection angle (better at low speeds, worse at high speeds). Weight doesn't even play a significant part in this. F models had decreased aileron deflection and Frise type ailerons to improve high speed stick forces. This is modeled in the game- the E model locks up solid earlier. 

 

BF109s had ailerons "effectively solid" at high speeds:

 

"To complete the tale of woe, its ailerons, though excellent at low speed, started to get heavy at 200 mph. They were hard work at 250 mph and rock solid by 300 mph. The narrow cockpit prevented the pilot from exerting full sideways force on the stick and some pilots used their knees to assist in forcing it over. There was not much further deterioration between 300 and 400 mph, by which the roll rate was a dismal 11 degrees per second. These problems with the three major aerodynamic controls meant that it was almost impossible for most pilots to maneuver the Me109 with any alacrity above 250 mph. At high diving speed, the Ju-88 bomber could out maneuver the Me109 quite convincingly "

Edited December 11, 2017 by boaty_McBoatface

[Boaty-McBoatface]

 Who said this? I dont believe it, it must be nonsense, Anecdotal evidence, or confirmation biased opinion. No good for proof. Or is this the only true opinion or test? Really did you finally find the one true test?

 

Christ Almighty, do your reading man.

 

There are so many sources regarding the BF109s high stick forces out there. Need another one, do you? Perhaps another from Eric Brown of the the G model:

 

"but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400 mph (644 km/h) the controls felt as though they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10,000 ft (3048 m) was 440 mph (708 km/h) and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e., above 25,000 ft / 7620 m) it performed efficiently in both dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. "

 

-Eric Brown

Edited December 11, 2017 by boaty_McBoatface

[Hutzlipuh]

Its a [edited] myth that the 109 did stiffen up to a point it was unable to pull out  [edited] 

 

 

Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds

Bf 109 D:
The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.
Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.
In about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.
Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 E-4:
"I established a recommended minimum looping speed of 450 kmh and found that the gearing of the propellor control was just right for looping with a little practise it was easy to keep the RPM at 2300 throughout looping manoeuvres. The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

109 G-2/Trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

109 G:
It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. "
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank. "
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- How about slow and medium speeds, could you do stunts?
"Yes, but it was heavier than the earlier planes (Fokker D.XXI, Curtiss Hawk 75). But better in combat. I got to fly the Hornet simulator last summer. That stick moved only little. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

 

Stick force and black outs

Me 109 G:
"- What I would like to know is what it feels like when a Messerschmitt pilot pulls or pushes the stick? Could a pilot push the stick so that he felt it in his head?
Not really...You can do that but it was not done that way. First you tilt then you push
- Did the horizontal rudder have much effect in that situation?
You could have done that, nothing wrong in principle, but it could happen as it happened with me, the gunsight dropped out as I gave a couple of negative Gs. But that is not the usual way to dive, not even when attacking. You tilt first..."
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

After diving 850 km/h speed:
"-In this high speed recovery you did not have enough G to black out ?
There was a lot of G thinking about the speed. But you could not make your plane bend like a clasp-knife.
- Did you get tunnel vision due to G force?
I did. Recovery from it depended on your plane and the situation. With the Curtiss you could bank and get a high G. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- Did you ever black out in a battle when flying the Messerschmitt ?
Antti Tani: Me never
Jussi Huotari: I never pulled so hard as to black out but sometimes I did pull the stick so hard that I felt I was about to.
- Do you both think that sooner a plane is lacking performance in a turn than the pilot is out of endurance ?
Antti Tani: The fact is that banking a pilot can black himself out. If you just pull hard enough and you have enough speed, you are bound to lose your consciousness. If there is speed enough, the plane is gong to spin or something. What would happen, I never pulled a Messerschmitt so that she would have spun. Yet I did pull so hard that the slats came out. I do not know how much more I could have pulled, but the result would have been a vertical dive. What is the use if you pull hard and your plane spins, your target is gone, there is no way to catch it."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
Edvald Estama disengaged after being damaged by a Yak-9's cannon shell by pushing into full power vertical dive from 7000 meters.
" The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- In the newspaper Pohjalainen there was a story where you remembered the Me and said how it turned well, as long as you could pull hard.
"Yeah, you could pull yourself to the twilight zone. Eyes clouded, but you still didn't lose consciousness. The speed dropped surprisingly quickly in a tight pull, though. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Edited December 11, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[wonders9]

Flying combat missions in the current 109 in BoS, I feel as if I were fighting in water, not in the air.
(At any speed.)
 
Here I am not talking about maximum sustained turn or roll rate, but about the extremely slow pitch or roll response of the aircraft to stick deflection (or stick returning to centre from a deflected position), especially a quick stick deflection. If I press the Accelerate Time key once (to speed up the game by a scale of 2), the 109's response rate seems all right again (perhaps a bit faster than it should be).

 

-----------

A link added:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33266-roll-lag-and-turn-lag/

Edited December 30, 2017 by wonders9

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

--

 

What seems more amiss to me is comparing the way the 'other' aircraft behave at high speeds. They can pull alot of G. Currently there seems to be no risk of structural failure of pulling a ton of G nor is there any real G-Loc in BOS. The screen goes black but you can still manipulate all the controls.

 

This makes it quite easy to avoid attacks from 109s. Just wobble around a bit and dive. The 109 is too heavy on the controls to put the gunsight anywhere useful by the time the Yak already pushed back the other way in some sort of strange inverted barrel roll. If the 109 climbs just pull back on the stick and shoot from 800m (which also.... why is this a thing?).

Edited December 27, 2017 by 9./JG27DefaultFace

[CUJO_1970]

This makes it quite easy to avoid attacks from 109s. Just wobble around a bit and dive. The 109 is too heavy on the controls to put the gunsight anywhere useful by the time the Yak already pushed back the other way in some sort of strange inverted barrel roll. If the 109 climbs just pull back on the stick and shoot from 800m (which also.... why is this a thing?).

 

 

Ah yes, this has become the de facto ace Yak defensive exploit online - even more useful than the magic flaps.

[CUJO_1970]

Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds

Bf 109 D:

a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.

 

- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

 

Me 109 E-4:

 The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."

 

- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

 

 

109 G-2/Trop:

"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.

- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

Me 109 G:

The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."

-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

Me 109 G:

"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.

MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."

- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

109 G:

"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates.

- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

 

Me 109 G-2/G-6:

- Did the roll capabilites change?

"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank. "

- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?

"Yes. "

- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G-6:

 

Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.

- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

 

Me 109 G-6:

" The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).

Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."

- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

Me 109 G-2/G-6:

- In the newspaper Pohjalainen there was a story where you remembered the Me and said how it turned well, as long as you could pull hard.

"Yeah, you could pull yourself to the twilight zone. Eyes clouded, but you still didn't lose consciousness. The speed dropped surprisingly quickly in a tight pull, though. "

- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

 

Condensed a little bit, some of the relevant parts.

 

The 109 as described above behaves remarkably similar to many contemporary aircraft at high speeds with the exception of P-51 or FW-190 which have lighter stick forces at very high speeds.

 

What I don't see is any information about LaGG-3 at speeds in range 300-400mph. What about La-5 in 300-400mph range?

 

Yak?

 

MiG?

 

What are the comparative stick forces for these aircraft at high speeds historically? What was the stick travel in the cockpit for these aircraft compared to the 109?

 

Because right now, since release of 2.012 - all of those aircraft easily outmaneuver the 109 like child's play at any speed approaching 300 mph and above.

[Barnacles]

 

What seems more amiss to me is comparing the way the russian aircraft behave at high speeds. They can pull alot of G. Currently there seems to be no risk of structural failure of pulling a ton of G nor is there any real G-Loc in BOS. The screen goes black but you can still manipulate all the controls.

 

The only plane I've damaged through excessive G is the Spitfire and the G4 in the old flight model. I flew 46 recently and it's only that that reminded me excessive G damage used to be a thing.

 

This makes it quite easy to avoid attacks from 109s. Just wobble around a bit and dive. The 109 is too heavy on the controls to put the gunsight anywhere useful by the time the Yak already pushed back the other way in some sort of strange inverted barrel roll. If the 109 climbs just pull back on the stick and shoot from 800m (which also.... why is this a thing?).

 

 

When flying the 109 it's not the supposed fragility that annoys me, it's this. Not that I blame the people executing the "strange inverted barrel roll". it's tremendously effective, it's just does not seem credible to me.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

The only plane I've damaged through excessive G is the Spitfire and the G4 in the old flight model. I flew 46 recently and it's only that that reminded me excessive G damage used to be a thing.

 

When flying the 109 it's not the supposed fragility that annoys me, it's this. Not that I blame the people executing the "strange inverted barrel roll". it's tremendously effective, it's just does not seem credible to me.

The inverted clown roll is the calling card of a gamer not a sim enthusiast. It does not seem credible and you see the same players using it time and time again. Fortunately it's somewhat rare amongst the player base as a whole.

 

Why didn't you see real life pilots using this over and over if it was so effective. Physical pilot limitations no doubt.

[unreasonable]

Does anyone have a video of this "inverted clown roll"?    Not sure I have ever seen this: my curiosity is aroused.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

I'll try record the next one that does it repeatedly.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

New FM is fine.

 

Physics are physics. Compression is a thing.

 

 

I don't see how you can say this when the stall characteristics of ALL aircraft are weird. If you mean fine as in meh, it's fine I agree. Hopefully the devs don't want fine they want excellent and REALISTIC.

 

 

 I seriously question why the 109 got hit with the nerf bat so hard. I've had the game since early access and wonder at this particular change in a/c FM. The update made it feel that the 109 was gamed compared to other aircraft in BoX.

 

I know it did as well because the trim reset was removed while other fighters still happily have trim reset. I'm feeling like complaints directed the change not historical research.          Got corrected was being full of pooh.

 

If you hit one specific aircraft with a nerf bat and uneven removal of trim reset in fighters you are building a "game" not a sim. This feels knee jerk not research.

 

The new 109 FM makes it a bit of a dog. I understand the high speed roll rate suffered but the low speed roll rate is still terrible. The controls are so heavy it doesn't make sense to me when I fly the other aircraft in game.

 

The discussion about pilot strength shouldn't be a factor. If you push the stick into the side of the fuselage what does it do? It should then do that in game with zero consideration of how heavy the stick "feels". If you guys aren't using a force feedback you can't feel anything in game anyway.

 

We should all assume that we hit the gym and are not a pack of fatties. It's 1943 not modern day cake eaters.

 

I can add more but others in the thread have already posted historical citations. Something is wrong with the 109.

 

 

Otherwise the new FM is quite good. I am enjoying myself but flying the 109 had be come back to the forum to see if I'm alone in my feelings on the nerf. Clearly, I'm not.

 

At least the wobble is gone!!

 

Thanks for the efforts Devs. I'm really enjoying the work you guys did. My gripes are generally minor especially when I fly something not a 109. I can see the great progress and look forward to the future of the game.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[LukeFF]

 

 

I know it did as well because the trim reset was removed while other fighters still happily have trim reset.

 

None of the 109s have ever had a trim reset function. 

[unreasonable]

 <snip> 

The discussion about pilot strength shouldn't be a factor. If you push the stick into the side of the fuselage what does it do? It should then do that in game with zero consideration of how heavy the stick "feels". If you guys aren't using a force feedback you can't feel anything in game anyway.

<snip>

 

 

I do not want to get into the 109 discussion especially in roll - it is pointless unless people are willing to look at the actual data relating to measured roll rates etc, but I do want to address this issue of stick movement.  Which has been discussed at length and in detail by the developers previously.

 

The "HOTAS stick movement should = plane joystick movement" philosophy you propose leads to very undesirable results, namely that in game we could make almost instantaneous movements of the stick that were physically impossible in RL due to the very high control forces.   Hence the absurd "bat turns" typical of some flight sims.  If you want to see planes behaving something more like reality, the current approach taken by the team is exactly right:  your joystick in the HOTAS represents the pilot's intent, not the actual stick position, which is affected by physical forces and takes time to change.

 

This is not to say that every implementation of it is perfect in the game - I still suspect that the Soviet planes roll too fast, rather than the 109 too slowly, but without some measured facts this is speculation and will not influence developer decisions. Especially if you use terms like "nerf-bat"!   

Edited December 13, 2017 by unreasonable

[ACG_Smokejumper]

None of the 109s have ever had a trim reset function. 

Ahh cheers bud. I fixed my post in consideration of your correcting my memory.

 

Why do other fighters have it? Did they have them in real life? I love to fly the P40 and I notice it has trim reset. Did it?

I do not want to get into the 109 discussion especially in roll - it is pointless unless people are willing to look at the actual data relating to measured roll rates etc, but I do want to address this issue of stick movement.  Which has been discussed at length and in detail by the developers previously.

 

The "HOTAS stick movement should = plane joystick movement" philosophy you propose leads to very undesirable results, namely that in game we could make almost instantaneous movements of the stick that were physically impossible in RL due to the very high control forces.   Hence the absurd "bat turns" typical of some flight sims.  If you want to see planes behaving something more like reality, the current approach taken by the team is exactly right:  your joystick in the HOTAS represents the pilot's intent, not the actual stick position, which is affected by physical forces and takes time to change.

 

This is not to say that every implementation of it is perfect in the game - I still suspect that the Soviet planes roll too fast, rather than the 109 too slowly, but without some measured facts this is speculation and will not influence developer decisions. Especially if you use terms like "nerf-bat"!   

 

 

 

Thanks for your post. I'll keep that in mind and choose better language.

Learning lots of neat stuff in here today.

 

I'll need to think on what you said, I like it and will consider it. Maybe it really is that the Russian ones roll too fast however, watching the G4 video at lower speeds has me wondering on the lack of low speed nimbleness currently. You can see him move the stick one handed with ease. In combat I expect he could have easily slammed the stick in any direction and the only thing slowing his "intent" is the throw of the stick itself. Some of us actually have throw that long or are using FFB.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[unreasonable]

I use FFB myself - old Logitech 940 - I do not think I could cope without it now.

 

Seen that video raised a number of times in discussion of this issue - what I would like to see is someone replicating (or failing to replicate) the same set of manoeuvres in a track. At low speed I had not noticed any particular difficulty of rolling the 109s - but that is the trouble with such reports including mine here: what do they actually mean?   Without measurement there is no data, without data there is no possibility of informed change.

 

Of course we could have uninformed change according to which "side" squeals the loudest, but we do not want that do we?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well,

 

presently I use linear throw in all of my controller axis, and I am really fine with it and think it does represent the ideal setting for my setup: TS16000 + Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Why do other fighters have it? Did they have them in real life? I love to fly the P40 and I notice it has trim reset. Did it?

 

It's probably due to the way things have been coded - since the 109's trim can be set to an axis, there likely would be no way to reset it to neutral with a keyboard command. As for real life - no, it's just a feature that has been added here for convenience's sake. 

[JG1_Shadepiece]

I'd like to see the trim reset get pulled from all the planes. That a very gamey thing, and none of the planes should have them. I think this is something that should be brought up to the devs.

 

May have it ve a tickable box in the realism settings.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

 

 

Of course we could have uninformed change according to which "side" squeals the loudest, but we do not want that do we?

 

 

Absolutely not. I think a new thread is needed. A lot of us feel it is wrong but we need to prove it with actual tests. My buddy in my ACG community is a real scientist and gave me stick last night about the video. He pointed out logic flaws.

 

What we need to do is get all the real world references on roll rate, speed etc; have all that have it translated to English and then film tests in game. We need filmed roll rate at multiple speeds times with a stop watch. We need to show that the trim and elevator authority is off with proof not speculation. I am unsure how realistic trimming tail heavy can so powerfully overcome elevator authority when pushing forward.

 

Things like that. I'd prefer realism and if real means the 109 is a dog so be it. However, I don't think it was a dog and I doubt that if the 109 had performance like it does in BoS there would be a lot fewer aces and a shorter air war.

 

Your name doesn't match your posting style. Nice to meet you Mr. Unreasonable.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

I am also with my buddy Shade. If 109's don't have trim reset for convenience I'd like no fighter to have it. Either that or give 109s the same ability to game the flying tasks. I use the reset buttong to my advantage in other games so I know guys are using it in BoS. I use it in any aircraft that lets me like the sweet, sweet P40.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[wonders9]

I use FFB myself - old Logitech 940 - I do not think I could cope without it now.

 

Seen that video raised a number of times in discussion of this issue - what I would like to see is someone replicating (or failing to replicate) the same set of manoeuvres in a track. At low speed I had not noticed any particular difficulty of rolling the 109s - but that is the trouble with such reports including mine here: what do they actually mean?   Without measurement there is no data, without data there is no possibility of informed change.

 

Of course we could have uninformed change according to which "side" squeals the loudest, but we do not want that do we?

 

Data are the best if available.

 

However, the "no data, no clue" idea is plain wrong: so many non-trivial things in daily life are decided or conducted without any data -- like the recognition of faces, which can mean, for instance, whether a person should be arrested or not.

 

The video shows at least the ease with which the 109 rolls, whereas currently the fighter Bf 109 in-game responds to pitch and roll input like a heavy bomber.

(Edit: "like a heavy bomber" is just figurative; the exact meaning was explained in post #22 in this thread.)

 

And one more video showing that ease:

-

Edited December 14, 2017 by wonders9