Query about the new FM of bf109

[unreasonable]

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. 

 

And one more video showing that ease:

-

 

Having just tested an F-4 in QM as a reminder, I find the assertion that "currently the fighter Bf 109 in-game responds to pitch and roll input like a heavy bomber. "   to be laughable. I "felt" it actually handled much like the plane in the video. But that is just my subjective view.

 

What I can believe is that you felt a difference since the last FM revision, since there actually has been a change. This is not a case of "no data, no clue" - my guess it that is a case of people who are quite capable of producing the data if they wanted to, who are unwilling to do so as it might not support their preferred conclusions. But perhaps they are just lazy. I am open to persuasion.

 

In any FM debate the principle is "innocent until proven guilty".  The onus is on the complainant to prove his case to the developers' satisfaction, and without data you cannot do that.  With data you can - as several FM and other revisions spurred on by quantitative player input have proved.

 

Here is a video - prove that you cannot replicate the roll rate at those speeds and you have a case.

[wonders9]

 

Having just tested an F-4 in QM as a reminder, I find the assertion that "currently the fighter Bf 109 in-game responds to pitch and roll input like a heavy bomber. "   to be laughable. I "felt" it actually handled much like the plane in the video. But that is just my subjective view.

 

What I can believe is that you felt a difference since the last FM revision, since there actually has been a change. This is not a case of "no data, no clue" - my guess it that is a case of people who are quite capable of producing the data if they wanted to, who are unwilling to do so as it might not support their preferred conclusions. But perhaps they are just lazy. I am open to persuasion.

 

In any FM debate the principle is "innocent until proven guilty".  The onus is on the complainant to prove his case to the developers' satisfaction, and without data you cannot do that.  With data you can - as several FM and other revisions spurred on by quantitative player input have proved.

 

Here is a video - prove that you cannot replicate the roll rate at those speeds and you have a case.

 

I don't have time to debate, though I would like to. I was not talking about roll rate, see my previous post #22.  

[unreasonable]

@wonders9 - No problem: my point really is that "debate" on these subjects may be entertaining and informative for those - like me - keen to learn more about flight and air warfare, but is futile in terms of getting game changes unless backed by measurements. 

 

You were talking about responsiveness rather than final roll rate etc - got it. My reaction still stands: that is not how it feels to me.  

 

Hard to say too much from the videos since the stick is usually obscured and you do not know his speed with any accuracy, but it should still be possible to isolate a particular section and show that some stick movement the pilot is making in the film, and the plane's responses, cannot be done in the game.

[=RvE=Windmills]

What specific manoeuvre in that video do you feel the 109 ingame is unable to replicate adequately?

[unreasonable]

What specific manoeuvre in that video do you feel the 109 ingame is unable to replicate adequately?

 

Is that question addressed to me? 

 

I thought it was clear in the thread earlier that I do not feel that the 109 in game cannot adequately replicate the video. I am challenging the people who post this video as evidence that the game 109 is "wrong" to prove it, since the onus of proof in FM disputes is always with the complainant.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Is that question addressed to me? 

 

I thought it was clear in the thread earlier that I do not feel that the 109 in game cannot adequately replicate the video. I am challenging the people who post this video as evidence that the game 109 is "wrong" to prove it, since the onus of proof in FM disputes is always with the complainant.

 

No, the original poster.

 

I'm pretty much asking the same thing, seems to me like the pilot is treating it really gently and we pull much harder manoeuvres ingame. Which is no surprise offcourse, but then I do wonder what exactly it is about the video that makes the ingame plane looks bad.

[wonders9]

No, the original poster.

 

I'm pretty much asking the same thing, seems to me like the pilot is treating it really gently and we pull much harder manoeuvres ingame. Which is no surprise offcourse, but then I do wonder what exactly it is about the video that makes the ingame plane looks bad.

For instance, in the following video, at time 02:36 (to 02:38), the pilot moves the stick slightly to the left, without effort, and the aircraft rolls counter-clockwise at a good rate simultaneously, with no discernible delay. The current 109 in BOS however is quite different. According to my measurement, it takes about 0.8 second for the aircraft to roll at the final sustained rate (ie. there is a 0.8s delay) after you suddenly move the stick sideways to the intended position. 

 

 

(If one says that he still can't feel the difference between the agility of the 109's roll response in the video and the prolonged delay in rolling of the 109 in-game, I will give up persuading him.)

[=RvE=Windmills]

I'm sure you can do something with your input curves if you want more aggressive responses. Do you feel this is the case with all fighters or just the 109.

[wonders9]

I'm sure you can do something with your input curves if you want more aggressive responses. Do you feel this is the case with all fighters or just the 109.

No help; the curves I use are almost straight. And my test was done at the 1/16 time scale; that means instantaneous full deflection of the stick to the destination position. 

 

I feel that the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 seem also to suffer slightly from such prolonged delay in response, but it is much less noticeable in their case. I'm not so sure about them. I haven't tried FW 190 or other fighters.

Edited December 17, 2017 by wonders9

[FTC_DerSheriff]

For instance, in the following video, at time 02:36 (to 02:38), the pilot moves the stick slightly to the left, without effort, and the aircraft rolls counter-clockwise at a good rate simultaneously, with no discernible delay. The current 109 in BOS however is quite different. According to my measurement, it takes about 0.8 second for the aircraft to roll at the final sustained rate (ie. there is a 0.8s delay) after you suddenly move the stick sideways to the intended position. 

 

 

(If one says that he still can't feel the difference between the agility of the 109's roll response in the video and the prolonged delay in rolling of the 109 in-game, I will give up persuading him.)

the speed the 109 is flying is very slow. i would argue that you can do that in the game right now.

[wonders9]

the speed the 109 is flying is very slow. i would argue that you can do that in the game right now.

 

No.

[Tuesday]

No.

 

Great counter-argument...

 

What are you even disagreeing with?

 

The 109 in the video is flying slowly, and yes you can do that in game right now.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

No.

Its about 300kph. A speed where the 109 rolls quite good ingame.

[Dakpilot]

Which Russian aircraft have higher wing loading than Bf 109 (type?) ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Dakpilot]

La5, LaGG3! You can calculate it yourself, because i think that you have some knowledge in aviation.

I also took care of eclipse wing of them both Soviet Fighters.

 

Yak 1 and Yak1b have a lower wing load than 109 "i think".

 

"I think" I am pretty sure you are wrong, 109 all versions in game, has higher wing loading than all Russian fighters,  

 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Dakpilot]

The proof and sources are the aircraft combat weights and wing areas

 

YOU made the claim,(in multiple threads)  you look up YOUR 'facts' 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[LuftManu]

I like this new FM on the 109. It seems sure more similar to the reports and things I have read. For me there is room for improvment in everything so I am sure if there is something to "modify" the will. I think this update that came with Kuban just made this sim better.

 

Just remember one thing: Fw 190 was wrong, they fixed it. Planes were behaving less realistic: they fixed it.

Provide information, prove things and I am sure that they, like us, want this sim to be better.

Edited December 19, 2017 by LF_ManuV

[StG2_Manfred]

Its about 300kph. A speed where the 109 rolls quite good ingame.

 

Not much important, but it's about 380 kph actually (2:35 min). In the other video from Messerschmitt Museum he's even maneuvering at speeds above 400 kph with good response of the airplane.

 

 

The problem is more with russian fighters that are able to turn away at high speed from you. For planes with a higher wingload than 109 it is highly questionable. La5 was known for a bad dive performence which was a lot discussed already.

That's why many consider the FM of 109 as broken. I see the russian counterparts in high speed broken. The only thing in 109 which borders me, is that the stiffness kicks in too early in a dive. But that's pretty much all for me.

 

When I consider how often the FMs were wrong and revised in the past years it's plain obvious that the 109 elevator (somewhat) and the highspeed responsiveness of Russian crates (somewhat more) are off atm. But this is more a matter of game design me thinks. Would love to see historic spec sheets which proves Russian highspeed performances.

[Matt]

And LaGG3 has a smaller wing surface and more weight than La5..

 

They have the same wing area and the LaGG-3 is lighter.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Matt

[Dakpilot]

All weights for all aircraft are given in game, under spec tab, empty, max, loaded and minimum

 

Lagg-3 has same wing as La-5, La-5FN has fractionaly larger wing than La-5 according to some sources, others say all the same at 17.5m²

 

all La-5 versions are heavier than Lagg-3, (Ash-82 engine alone is at least 300kg heavier than Klimov 105PF)

 

 

 

And LaGG3 has a smaller wing surface and more weight than La5..

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

These are the wingloadings according to the in game specs of the LaGG-3, La-5, 109 F-2 and F-4

                      LaGG-3   La-5    F-2   F-4  

Empty            149.6    151.2  134.8  148

Minimum        158.4    167.2  151.9  158

Standard       180.3    191.5  173.2  180

Max Takeoff   211.4    205.2  192    198

The La-5 has higher wingloading than both the Fs, the F-2 has the least wingloading, and the F-4 is more or less the same as the LaGG-3.


While they could be related I don't know why higher wingloading would mean worse control at high speeds, the Fw 190 has higher wingloading and it handles very well in high speeds. The Zero had very low wingloading but it handled badly at high speeds.

Edited December 20, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

@SuperEtendard - I was just about to post same from the tech specs....

 

I think the original comment about the wing loading was "The problem is more with russian fighters that are able to turn away at high speed from you. For planes with a higher wingload than 109 it is highly questionable. " by PickAss.

 

ie higher wingloading should mean worse turn performance at a given speed, other things being equal (which of course they never are). Not so much a control effectiveness issue as a pure aerodynamic effect. But then the comment was not entirely clear so this might be my misunderstanding. 

[unreasonable]

I guess you are right, even if I don't even own the 190. But still I really doubt the fact that russian planes can handle that good at high speed. I have to grab some russian friends to search for russian webpages about their dive performence.

Because diving away from your russian enemy is the typical coward tactic to get a rid of them, which was typically used by 109 and 190 pilots. Even that testpilot who tested the La5FN suggested it to dive away from ur enemy. And I am certain that doesn't mean to dive away until his plane parts break off at 750 TAS or whatever.

 

True that the Germans often escaped from Soviets by diving away - but that does not necessarily mean that the German planes had much better dive performance.  In WW2 Soviet pilots were often rigidly tasked with patrolling an area in a CAP and strictly forbidden to go outside it, or protecting a ground attack flight. They often did not chase a diving German fighter because they were afraid of being disciplined for disobedience.  If you want to compare actual performance it is better not to introduce tactical usage, which is affected by all sorts of other things, but stick to the data.

[unreasonable]

 

 

I said testing captured aircraft La 5 FN by a german pilot, he suggested to dive away because thats how to fight the La 5 FN. Thats objective written and had nothing to do with the soviet fighter doctrine.

 

 

The German pilot said dive away because he was used to escaping from Soviets by diving away. The reason this worked for German pilots has at least as much to do with Soviet fighter doctrine - and German fighter doctrine, come to that - as anything technical.  

 

The Germans dove away from just about everything if they got into any sort of trouble: and against the La 5 FN get into trouble they did. But La 5s are significantly heavier than all the 109s, there is no reason that a 109 should accelerate better into a dive. If anything they might be better off trying to climb away from it.  An Fw190 on the other hand might have a clear dive advantage. 

 

As I said before, this is all vague, anecdotal and subjective, and will convince no-one who has not already made up their minds.  First it is responsiveness, then it is high speed turn, now dive performance....  

 

 

<snip>

 

When I consider how often the FMs were wrong and revised in the past years it's plain obvious that the 109 elevator (somewhat) and the highspeed responsiveness of Russian crates (somewhat more) are off atm. But this is more a matter of game design me thinks. Would love to see historic spec sheets which proves Russian highspeed performances.

 

That is not logical at all: the fact that FMs certainly contained - and almost certainly still contain - errors and omissions is not evidence that any particular aspect is off in any particular direction. But I agree that only clearer data will ever bring an FM controversy to an end!

[Hutzlipuh]

The reason for the soviets not diving after a german plane were not doctrine (absolutely ridiculous to suggest that) , but the dive limits of their planes.

See manual.

Its absolutely irrelevant if LATER tests on a good build of soviet planes revealed that they could dive better then in the manual, as there were severe flutter problems with the planes as the manuals were written.  As a pilot you dont exceed VNE given in the manual . Especially at the start there were severe problems in build quality , often leading to planes way below specs.

 

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

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

Edited December 20, 2017 by Hutzlipuh

[LukeFF]

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

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

 

The problem with that oft-repeated quote is that it's just one pilot's opinion - note that he says, "I suppose."

 

Secondly, the Soviets most certainly followed their enemies in a dive - Hermann Graf was nearly shot down in October 1941 by a Yak pilot who latched onto Graf's tail and followed him all the way down to the deck, flying 600 km/h in the process (and then followed Graf back up again to 1000 m).

Edited December 20, 2017 by LukeFF

[DSR_A-24]

The Bf-109's new flight model actually gives me a reason to fly the Fw-190. They are polar opposites which is funny considering they are both German planes. 

Does anyone know how they model stick forces? I don't fly the Bf-109 often but I've definitely noticed a huge change in high speed elevator forces. 2 years later and there is a radical change in the flight model instead of fine tuning.

[unreasonable]

The reason for the soviets not diving after a german plane were not doctrine (absolutely ridiculous to suggest that) , but the dive limits of their planes.

See manual.

Its absolutely irrelevant if LATER tests on a good build of soviet planes revealed that they could dive better then in the manual, as there were severe flutter problems with the planes as the manuals were written.  As a pilot you dont exceed VNE given in the manual . Especially at the start there were severe problems in build quality , often leading to planes way below specs.

 

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

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

 

Not absolutely ridiculous at all, it is a fact that Soviet fighters were expected to stay close to their objectives, whether that be an escorted squadron of IL-2s or a defended area. Without extensive ground control systems, with few aircraft having radios, and an overall approach to airpower that focused of the achievement of goals linked to ground operations, having fighters chase after fleeing Germans was simply not a priority.   Of course it happened: but it was discouraged. Shooting down enemy fighters was not the main mission of soviet fighters.  But I am past trying to educate people who have demonstrably closed minds. (edit: For those that do not, try reading Black Cross, Red Star, Vol 2, Chapter 4 Equipment and methods, in which these constraints are described.)

 

The quote that you give can be interpreted both ways: your quoted pilot "supposed" that the dive speeds were too low. In fact they could well have turned back up because they were instructed to stay in their patrol area.

 

The problem here, as in so many MP oriented whinge-fests, is that what you do in your servers bears only a passing cosmetic resemblance to actual military operations, whatever some of the worst fantasists here seem to think. Trying to draw conclusions about technical aspects of plane performance from tactical observations made by people who very much had actual operational experience in mind is fraught with difficulty.

 

He didn't say that because of the soviet fighter doctrine, he tested the plane and saw it's advantages and disadvantages. Saying such things because of fighter doctrines that can be changed makes no sense at all and its not german at all to "wörk" in such way.

 

Why introduce national stereotypes about the "way of work" - as though Germans were any more rational or free of bias than anyone else? Diving away is a tactically advantageous thing to do against an enemy who is often constrained against following. This is true whatever aircraft are being flown.  As I said before, if you look at the comparative data for the 109s vs Las, the LA is heavier (depends on fuel state as well): it will generally accelerate faster into a dive. 109s climb much better. The rational thing to do against an La with no tactical constraints would be to climb away, not dive.

 

Anyway, I will let you all get on with it..... Seasons Greetings.     

Edited December 20, 2017 by unreasonable

[Dakpilot]

The reason for the soviets not diving after a german plane were not doctrine (absolutely ridiculous to suggest that) , but the dive limits of their planes.

See manual.

Its absolutely irrelevant if LATER tests on a good build of soviet planes revealed that they could dive better then in the manual, as there were severe flutter problems with the planes as the manuals were written.  As a pilot you dont exceed VNE given in the manual . Especially at the start there were severe problems in build quality , often leading to planes way below specs.

 

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

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

 

 

There are many interviews of "good" Finnish pilots exceeding VNE in their 109G6's (Most Finnish 109's I believe were G6, majority, and fewer G2) and well known accounts of some not surviving , I wonder what they were diving from? 

 

Probably Russian pilots in 43-44 sticking to 1941 manual limits I guess

 

Up until 43 the pilot in question was flying a curtiss..I guess it dived quite well against Russian I-153 and I-16? but single quotes like his are not good arguments because of lack of complete info and context

 

Finnish Pilots were on the whole excellent, but taken out of context and without adequate info people would be demanding a Buffalo if they did not know better, due to its great track record (in Finnish hands)

 

 

I actually wonder how much online buthurt is from (1941) 109F4 drivers tangling with (1943) Yak-1b? and late 42(43) La-5(F)?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[sniperton]

109s climb much better. The rational thing to do against an La with no tactical constraints would be to climb away, not dive.

Exactly. While diving away is risky if you're pursued, climbing is safe if you have a bit of separation (i.e. nobody is on your tail). The 109 can outclimb everything the VVS has, so that you can return once you built up an altitude advantage. There's no tactical reason to go down to deck unless you're short on fuel and ammo and want to RTB and you know you won't be pursued due to whatever reason (technical or doctrinal). Once on the deck your only hope is to outrun your pursuer, which might work with a Rata or a Yak, but definetely not with a La-5.

[Hutzlipuh]

 

I actually wonder how much online buthurt is from (1941) 109F4 drivers tangling with (1943) Yak-1b? and late 42(43) La-5(F)?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

this "argument" is clearly disqualifing your opinion as a whole.... just stay out of topics if you can only accuse other people of being "butthurt".

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Exactly. While diving away is risky if you're pursued, climbing is safe if you have a bit of separation (i.e. nobody is on your tail). The 109 can outclimb everything the VVS has, so that you can return once you built up an altitude advantage. There's no tactical reason to go down to deck unless you're short on fuel and ammo and want to RTB and you know you won't be pursued due to whatever reason (technical or doctrinal). Once on the deck your only hope is to outrun your pursuer, which might work with a Rata or a Yak, but definetely not with a La-5.

 

Agree with the above.

 

Climbing in your 109 is the way to go, and the bonus to this is you can then reverse the fight if you build enough energy advantage.

I dive in two situations.

 

1. The enemy is attacking me from above and I need to force a more difficult shot than just turning.

2. Trying to reduce the difference in energy states (from an enemy that is at an E advantage) by using a shallow dive followed by a climb to try switch the relative E states to my advantage again. The thought process here is that while I can still accelerate, they are close to reaching max speed for their current dive angle due to drag. They will still be gaining on you in the shallow dive so you need to time this really well and watch closure rates to identify energy state. This can be very risky if you don't judge the relative E states well and requires good initial separation to be successful.

[Dakpilot]

this "argument" is clearly disqualifing your opinion as a whole.... just stay out of topics if you can only accuse other people of being "butthurt"

 

 

It is not an argument, merely a statement of fact, there is huge amount of ranting, crying, accusations of dev bias, server bias and such forth, to pretend this does not happen would be to ignore reality and the

amount that this does go on.

 

I did not accuse anyone of anything, but cannot come up with a better word that describes overall this phenomenon, you may feel me using  it disqualifies me from posting in this topic, but changing the subject does not make your earlier post make any more sense.

 

It would probably better if you stayed out of threads such as this if your contributions are Delta wood = fairy dust, and contradicting your own postings of Finnish pilots exceeding  VNE multiple times and then say it cannot happen if they are Russian 'good' pilots and are limited limited to published VNE of earlier series aircraft,

 

quite simply your arguments are all over the place, my question was a hypothetical one aimed at no-one, there is no need to get so personally butthurt over it, although if the shoe fits...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=RvE=Windmills]

Not to mention that you can still easily outdive Russian planes, the dive limits are certainly different.

 

It just doesn't mean that you can just put your nose down and lose everything behind you instantly, disregarding energy states.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Windmills

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Not about 109 FM but about 109 easiest opponent

Like in real life Lagg3 was considered death trap in Box many players are deliberately choosing it because of its combat effectiveness. This is history up side down ,when in RL Lagg3 was just an episode (with not many victories) in know ASes life's.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Not absolutely ridiculous at all, it is a fact that Soviet fighters were expected to stay close to their objectives, whether that be an escorted squadron of IL-2s or a defended area. Without extensive ground control systems, with few aircraft having radios, and an overall approach to airpower that focused of the achievement of goals linked to ground operations, having fighters chase after fleeing Germans was simply not a priority. Of course it happened: but it was discouraged. Shooting down enemy fighters was not the main mission of soviet fighters. But I am past trying to educate people who have demonstrably closed minds. (edit: For those that do not, try reading Black Cross, Red Star, Vol 2, Chapter 4 Equipment and methods, in which these constraints are described.)

 

The quote that you give can be interpreted both ways: your quoted pilot "supposed" that the dive speeds were too low. In fact they could well have turned back up because they were instructed to stay in their patrol area.

 

The problem here, as in so many MP oriented whinge-fests, is that what you do in your servers bears only a passing cosmetic resemblance to actual military operations, whatever some of the worst fantasists here seem to think. Trying to draw conclusions about technical aspects of plane performance from tactical observations made by people who very much had actual operational experience in mind is fraught with difficulty.

 

 

Why introduce national stereotypes about the "way of work" - as though Germans were any more rational or free of bias than anyone else? Diving away is a tactically advantageous thing to do against an enemy who is often constrained against following. This is true whatever aircraft are being flown. As I said before, if you look at the comparative data for the 109s vs Las, the LA is heavier (depends on fuel state as well): it will generally accelerate faster into a dive. 109s climb much better. The rational thing to do against an La with no tactical constraints would be to climb away, not dive.

 

Anyway, I will let you all get on with it..... Seasons Greetings.

No it is not the German way to work, but common sense that you would suggest diving away from a plane that you just tested if that’s the advantage you see. What you are suggesting really does not make any sense.

If the guy just tested the plane he makes his statement based on what the strengths and weaknesses he observes. If it were a purely tactical doctrine every pilot could have made that statement without ever even having heard of the la 5 fn. his statement was based on flying it an comparing it to his experience with the 109

[Hutzlipuh]

It is not an argument, merely a statement of fact, there is huge amount of ranting, crying, accusations of dev bias, server bias and such forth, to pretend this does not happen would be to ignore reality and the

amount that this does go on.

 

I did not accuse anyone of anything, but cannot come up with a better word that describes overall this phenomenon, you may feel me using  it disqualifies me from posting in this topic, but changing the subject does not make your earlier post make any more sense.

 

It would probably better if you stayed out of threads such as this if your contributions are Delta wood = fairy dust, and contradicting your own postings of Finnish pilots exceeding  VNE multiple times and then say it cannot happen if they are Russian 'good' pilots and are limited limited to published VNE of earlier series aircraft,

 

quite simply your arguments are all over the place, my question was a hypothetical one aimed at no-one, there is no need to get so personally butthurt over it, although if the shoe fits...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Yet you come in german FM topics to derail , accuse and call other people whiney , while bringing nothing relevant to the discussion.

I posted actual Pilot interviews with actual 109 pilots who had to face russian planes , wheres your interview of ONLY ONE russian pilot from a lagg3 or a la5 (not fn!) or yak that he could easily dive with the 109s? i have not seen any of those... so what i see is that russian planes could not and should not dive with german planes as they often do in this sim and that the momentary high limits are to forgiving for the worser diving planes , bringing them closer to their counterpart as they should be...

[=RvE=Windmills]

So which Russian plane is too good at diving or outmatching it's prescribed VNE?

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Not about 109 FM but about 109 easiest opponent

Like in real life Lagg3 was considered death trap in Box many players are deliberately choosing it because of its combat effectiveness. This is history up side down ,when in RL Lagg3 was just an episode (with not many victories) in know ASes life's.

 

 

 

Prove this please. Citation needed.

Seriously, guys we need to start posting credible citations or we just go around in circles. Considering we come from across the globe we could collaborate better which would really assist in making this game as close to study level as possible.

 

They have a small team. We can be researching and helping but a citation is a NEED not something to brush off. Anecdotal is not good enough either.

 

I've got no bias in this. I am in a blue squadron but end up red ALL the time because knuckleheads are missing out on the P40 joy in a stacked Wings server.

 

 

My axe to grind is the inconsistent implementation of trim speed and trim reset. I gamed the crap out of it in Cliffs in a 109 but can't do it in BoS. Trim into turn fight mode hit reset to escape while my hands are free doing other tasks like I've got four arms.

 

 

I can do it in a P40, LA5 . Or when I watch while I trim the LA5 mid dogfight and it adjusts at an inhuman rate. We should almost have a pause mimicking the human hand leaning forward after letting go to pull again.

 

Right now I can fly a P40 like I have four hands and I do. I can adjust 3 trim axis while moving the throttle or move my radiator flaps. No Luftwaffe fighter has this luxury.

 

 

 

 

So in this the 109 FM gets penalized more than the Russian counterparts. In consideration of how much of a need trim use is in this game this isn't a large disparity. Driving it home for me even more is the compressability the 109 experiences which I don't seem to be noticing in their counter parts. That of course is anecdotal so I'd have to prove it beyond muh feelings.

Edited December 20, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Barnacles]

 

 

My axe to grind is the inconsistent implementation of trim speed and trim reset. I gamed the crap out of it in Cliffs in a 109 but can't do it in BoS. Trim into turn fight mode hit reset to escape while my hands are free doing other tasks like I've got four arms.

 

 

I can do it in a P40, LA5 . Or when I watch while I trim the LA5 mid dogfight and it adjusts at an inhuman rate. We should almost have a pause mimicking the human hand leaning forward after letting go to pull again.

 

If you want a pseudo trim reset for the 109 you could try mapping it to an axis. If move the axis instantly the wheel will merrily turn away until it matches the input leaving your hands free to do other stuff.