Query about the new FM of bf109

[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 was not talking about roll rate, see my previous post #22 (on page 1).

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.

 

Prove that the current responsiveness of the Bf 109 in-game is correct, with real-life test data.

 

Please show me the real-life data (not roll-rate or turn-rate data, as had been made clear), preferably obtained by the Luftwaffe during WWII.

 

(By the way, I find your "innocent until proven guilty" principle to be laughable in this case, since only data counts.)

Edited December 29, 2017 by wonders9

[unreasonable]

Prove that the current responsiveness of the Bf 109 in-game is correct, with real-life test data.

 

Please show me the real-life data (not roll-rate or turn-rate data, as had been made clear), preferably obtained by the Luftwaffe during WWII.

 

(By the way, I find your "innocent until proven guilty" principle to be laughable in this case, since only data counts.)

 

It is not "my" principle, it is the developers' principle, and the basis by which the FM forum has operated - successfully - in order to put a stop to the continual pointless whining.  They have set the FMs according to their own reference data, which we generally do not have.

 

I have no need to, or intention of proving anything to you or anyone else. Neither, for that matter, do the developers.  

 

As I have said, if you want change, you have to make your case so that the developers will be convinced.   It is not up to those who are more or less satisfied with what we have to prove anything every time someone complains. 

[wonders9]

It is not "my" principle, it is the developers' principle, and the basis by which the FM forum has operated - successfully - in order to put a stop to the continual pointless whining.  They have set the FMs according to their own reference data, which we generally do not have.

 

I have no need to, or intention of proving anything to you or anyone else. Neither, for that matter, do the developers.  

 

As I have said, if you want change, you have to make your case so that the developers will be convinced.   It is not up to those who are more or less satisfied with what we have to prove anything every time someone complains. 

 

As I expected, you can't prove anything you said.

[BraveSirRobin]

As I expected, you can't prove anything you said.

If you want changes you need to provide the proof. The devs don’t have to prove anything. Either you trust them, or you don’t. If you don’t, and you don’t have proof that they’re wrong, then find something else to do with your time.

[wonders9]

If you want changes you need to provide the proof. The devs don’t have to prove anything. Either you trust them, or you don’t. If you don’t, and you don’t have proof that they’re wrong, then find something else to do with your time.

 

I didn't ask the developers to do anything, did I (see post #130)?? I was just replying to that forum member, whose speech was meant to show that some members who don't think the 109 FM is correct enough were Luft-whiners. This is what he said, in #34: 

 

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

Edited December 30, 2017 by wonders9

[BraveSirRobin]

I didn't ask the developers to do anything, did I

Great, I’m glad to hear that you think it’s correct. In which case, what are you complaining about?

[wonders9]

Great, I’m glad to hear that you think it’s correct. In which case, what are you complaining about?

 

I didn't "complain" about anything. If you want to know what I thought about the FM of the 190, why not read the thread?

[BraveSirRobin]

I didn't "complain" about anything. If you want to know what I thought about the FM of the 190, why not read the thread?

Post 22 certainly looks like “complaining”. If it’s not, great. If it is, submit test data to the devs and they’ll evaluate it.

[wonders9]

It is not "my" principle, it is the developers' principle, and the basis by which the FM forum has operated - successfully - in order to put a stop to the continual pointless whining.  They have set the FMs according to their own reference data, which we generally do not have.

Post 22 certainly looks like “complaining”. If it’s not, great. If it is, submit test data to the devs and they’ll evaluate it.

 

@BraveSirRobin: If you see it that way, that's OK. If I may make a suggestion, what I currently want to submit is that the last change in the "responsiveness" of the 109 lacked real-life data support (I guess nobody ever heard of such data), so it should have been left unchanged, in accordance with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which was the developer's principle according to another forum member.

Edited December 30, 2017 by wonders9

[BraveSirRobin]

If you see it that way, that's OK. If I may make a suggestion, what I currently want to submit is that the last big change in the "responsiveness" of the 109 lacked real-life data support (I guess nobody ever heard of such data), so it should have been left unchanged, in accordance with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which was the developer's principle according to another forum member.

Well, they apparently felt it was “guilty”, but good luck.

[unreasonable]

 

@BraveSirRobin: If you see it that way, that's OK. If I may make a suggestion, what I currently want to submit is that the last change in the "responsiveness" of the 109 lacked real-life data support (I guess nobody ever heard of such data), so it should have been left unchanged, in accordance with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which was the developer's principle according to another forum member.

 

You are addressing BSR but I just want to add that no-one is preventing you from submitting anything - to the developers in PM. Submit away. Just do not be surprised if they take no notice unless you follow their rules. The developers obviously change and improve - as they see it - all the FMs as they get new data and also as they make their physics modeling more sophisticated.

 

The "innocent until proven guilty" model does not apply to them: it is their FM, they decide how to improve it, and they often only tell us about changes in fairly general terms. It is intended as one of the ways of stopping people coming to the forums and calling them liars to their faces by claiming bias when they have explicitly said on many occasions that they are trying to use a consistent set of data based rules to determine the FMs.

 

The problem here is that I - and BSR in this case - are talking about a process, while you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept. But you not being happy about the process, will not change the process.

 

You can submit - in the sense of asserting - whatever you like in the forum as long as you follow forum rules: I do not decide those, that is for the team to decide and the moderators to police, with a bit of luck with some self-control from people posting. Or the use of the report button.  But asserting that you are not happy about the FMs will not change the FMs. The only way we as consumers can do that is by submitting data backed proposals to the developers, which obviously have to meet their criteria. 

 

This is why I mentioned "pointless whining". You crave a different 109 FM - but what you are doing here does absolutely nothing to bring that about. So you are just making yourself unhappy. So it is pointless, unless perhaps you enjoy feeling unhappy, "victim status" seemingly being a thing nowadays, strangely enough.

 

Whether it is "whining" or not is a more subjective matter, but that is how it comes across to me and I expect to many others.

[wonders9]

The exact meaning of roll responsiveness:

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

[3./JG15_Kampf]

I wonder if the last change in FM 109 was based on documents, pilot stories or the "whining" in the Russian forum?

[StG2_Manfred]

 

The exact meaning of roll responsiveness:

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

 

 

 

I wonder if the last change in FM 109 was based on documents, pilot stories or the "whining" in the Russian forum?

 

 

You must not go into mucho detail. Plenty of people are here around denying historical facts,,trying to rewrite history in their own fashion,.Never prove their own base with facts, let alone base their arguments  with documents. Standards are for the others...   They just try to troll you, don't give them room, it's just wasted time.... Still waiting for any factual prove of them....   But surely, they know everything about German planes..... 

[BraveSirRobin]

I am always amused when the guys who NEVER fly VVS start crying...

[SAS_Storebror]

The sheer number of correlating complaints is amusing.

Complaint about the 109 FM being "too bad".

Complaint about the 109 Elevators freezing "too soon".

Complaint about the 109 wings being "too weak".

Complaint about the Pe-2 gunners being "too tough".

Yet when you visit pulbic servers, odds are easily 2:1 for blue, all wanna fly the 109F-4 and if you happen to pick a Pe-2, 109s will jump on you like a pack of wild hyenas.

What does it mean? Punance?

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited December 31, 2017 by SAS_Storebror

[Hutzlipuh]

The sheer number of correlating complaints is amusing.

Complaint about the 109 FM being "too bad".

Complaint about the 109 Elevators freezing "too soon".

Complaint about the 109 wings being "too weak".

Complaint about the Pe-2 gunners being "too tough".

Yet when you visit pulbic servers, odds are easily 2:1 for blue, all wanna fly the 109F-4 and if you happen to pick a Pe-2, 109s will jump on you like a pack of wild hyenas.

What does it mean? Punance?

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

The way i see it :

 

The 109 was the BADASS plane that every other design got compared to . it was the BEST fighter up to 1942 and stayed competitve through the whole war.There is a certain attraction in flying the "bad guy" and best fighter and many will flock to the better planes.

BUT that doesnt mean that there is nothing wrong with FM/DM or gun modeling of it or the other planes. So just because many people want to fly it or the german side doesnt make any discussion about the FM/DM irrelevant.

If you have nothing constructive to say other then painting others as whiners or complainers dont post.... same goes for BraveSirRobin

Oh and also i have seen enough times where its 2 : 1 for the reds....

Edited December 31, 2017 by Hutzlipuh

[SAS_Storebror]

The 109 was the BADASS plane that every other design got compared to . it was the BEST fighter up to 1942

 

Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with IL-2 in that regard either, the 109 is the best fighter released so far, hands down.

Doesn't safe her from flight model complaints though.

 

 

If you have nothing constructive to say other then painting others as whiners or complainers dont post.... same goes for BraveSirRobin

 

I'm dreadfully sorry. Next time I'll ask you for permission before I post again, okay?

lol?

 

 

Oh and also i have seen enough times where its 2 : 1 for the reds....

 

Yes, it's been on the 10 o'clock news. That's been a cold day in hell.

 

Speaking of something constructive: What breaking news exactly did you plan to chip in with your post?

Just wondering...

 

Cheers and have a great start in 2018!

Mike

[Lusekofte]

If you have nothing constructive to say other then painting others as whiners or complainers dont post.... same goes for BraveSirRobin

 

I suggest you apply for a Moderator title in this board. You seems to like the idea of restricting the freedom of speach and have a opinion

 

The 109 was the BADASS plane that every other design got compared to

Do you call this constructive?

 

Next time you find your self without sufficient blood-sugar and want to behave like this.

 

 

 

If you have nothing constructive to say other then painting others as whiners or complainers dont post.... same goes for BraveSirRobin

 

Got get some chocolate before typing.

Just to advise you further, not many got the same expirience as Storebror when it comes to coding and general evolvement of simulators . If you want to be a patronising prick, you simply chose the wrong person

Edited December 31, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

love how the unofficial forum police jumps right in :D

Scared of someone taking your spot here Luse?

 

Btw. I totally agree with hutzlipu. The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring. Pretty happy someone tells people to stop it (regardless of their awesome coding experience), since Moderators don’t even seem to care anymore that every second topic gets derailed with crap like that.

Edited December 31, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[SAS_Storebror]

The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring.

 

Believe me, many of us would love to talk hard facts instead, but there have yet to be some brought to the table.

But when someone asks for hard facts and numbers, the reply is no different: "old and boring" request. But maybe you mind to tell how a Dev should pick up on the constant whining complaints otherwise?

 

 

crap like that.

 

Thanks for the flowers 

 

Cheers!

Mike

[Stig]

love how the unofficial forum police jumps right in :D

Scared of someone taking your spot here Luse?

 

Btw. I totally agree with hutzlipu. The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring. Pretty happy someone tells people to stop it (regardless of their awesome coding experience), since Moderators don’t even seem to care anymore that every second topic gets derailed with crap like that.

 

Tell us how Hutzlipuh's post # 146 aids your case?

[Hutzlipuh]

Believe me, many of us would love to talk hard facts instead, but there have yet to be some brought to the table.

But when someone asks for hard facts and numbers, the reply is no different: "old and boring" request. But maybe you mind to tell how a Dev should pick up on the constant whining complaints otherwise?

 

 

Wheres the hard facts that support the current elevator stiffness?

only anecdotes from often biased test pilots (just look at the browns opinions about Messerschmitt) ...yet no chart to be found for stick forces that support that ...

Yes the 109 had high stick forces at high speeds , just like any other fighter got stiffer with higher speed...

ever thought about the fact that the low dive limits for russian planes stated in the manual have a reason? flutter and bad control authority at higher speeds...but yet they easily pull harder at high speeds

Yet theres the Spit , which could rip easily its wings off or put the pilot in blackout...because the elevator was TOO LIGHT...theres a reason one did not build planes with controls that offered no feedback

 

Edit:typos

Edited December 31, 2017 by Hutzlipuh

[SAS_Storebror]

Wheres the hard facts that support the current elevator stiffness?

 

Wasn't that another thread?

Anyway.

Whom do you ask that question? Devs or other players?

If it's the Devs: Who do you think is in charge of backing up his stance when some FM change is requested? The requester or the one he's requesting it from?

If it's the Players: What gives?

 

Cheers!

Mike

[Lusekofte]

love how the unofficial forum police jumps right in :D

Scared of someone taking your spot here Luse?

 

Btw. I totally agree with hutzlipu. The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring. Pretty happy someone tells people to stop it (regardless of their awesome coding experience), since Moderators don’t even seem to care anymore that every second topic gets derailed with crap like that.

You seems to miss the point, I was not the one policing this topic, I did brake some site rules to point it out, that is true. I reccomend you to report that, I probably get a one week ban for it. I took that into the account when writing it, you being a proick by not reading my point is another story

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

only anecdotes from often biased test pilots (just look at the browns opinions about Messerschmitt)

You know, I try not to get involved and dont want to offend you, but have some respect to people who achieved far more than you did. To call Eric Brown a biased test pilot is not only disrespectful but also an accusation of no substance. Shame on you.  

[Barnacles]

You know, I try not to get involved and dont want to offend you, but have some respect to people who achieved far more than you did. To call Eric Brown a biased test pilot is not only disrespectful but also an accusation of no substance. Shame on you.  

 

Seconded. Also I fail to understand why you'd expect a test pilot to have some sort of anti 109 agenda. These guys got their budget increased if the powers that be thought 'our boys have got inferior kit than the enemy'. As it is I expect Captain Brown was as professional as someone fighting for his country in his own way could be and his research can be treated with the same respect.

[Hutzlipuh]

You know, I try not to get involved and dont want to offend you, but have some respect to people who achieved far more than you did. To call Eric Brown a biased test pilot is not only disrespectful but also an accusation of no substance. Shame on you.  

 

 

Seconded. Also I fail to understand why you'd expect a test pilot to have some sort of anti 109 agenda. These guys got their budget increased if the powers that be thought 'our boys have got inferior kit than the enemy'. As it is I expect Captain Brown was as professional as someone fighting for his country in his own way could be and his research can be treated with the same respect.

 

 Im paying respect to whom i like , not to whom im told to, that suggestion is the same to being ordered to like the leader of some dictatorship. 

And what tells you he was a something better man then anybody? just because he did his job? im sorry thats borderline of being a cult follower.

Its my OPINION and maybe not yours...but dont try to tell me what to like or to say.

Oh and to tell me he achieved far more than i did IS offensive...not matter how you put it.

 

 

EDIT: Seems [Edited] have got their win....for sure now the Thread will be closed...oh and look how they all jump on one sentence, while leaving all other arguments aside...

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bearcat

[SAS_Storebror]

dont try to tell me what to like or to say.

 

...writes the same man who wrote this a couple of hours ago...

 

If you have nothing constructive to say other then painting others as whiners or complainers dont post.... same goes for BraveSirRobin

 

And thanks for calling those who don't agree with your opinion

 

trolls

 

This surely highlights the importance of your stance 

 

Don't we want to get back on topic?

I understand that the 109 FM was more appealing to it's virtual pilots before the latest update.

I also understand that in order to raise this as an issue to the Devs, the first and foremost required thing is hard fact, numbers, evidence that there's something wrong in that particular FM update.

Is there anything like that required material at hands or having been sent to the Devs yet?

 

Happy New Year!

Mike

Edited December 31, 2017 by SAS_Storebror

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, I guess this is the main Issue. The FM feels fine otherwise. 

 

[CUJO_1970]

I am always amused when the guys who NEVER fly VVS start crying...

 

 

Hey everybody, just in case you didn't realize it from the 10,000 times this dude repeated it in every thread:

 

He's always amused when the guys who NEVER fly VVS start crying...

[BraveSirRobin]

The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring.

Post test data that supports your “feelings” and that won’t be an issue for you.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Or provide test data that supports your "feelings".

 The last change Fm 109 was based on which data? Or "fly VVs" explains the change. With people like you I'm going to be silent

Edited January 1, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[BraveSirRobin]

The last change Fm 109 was based on which data? Or "fly VVs" explains the change. With people like you I'm going to be silent

I have no idea if it was based on data. Nor do I care. The developers are going to have to make educated guesses sometimes. If you don’t like the end result, find data that proves that they’re wrong. If you can’t find the data, and you’re still not happy, try flying some of those “awesome” VVS aircraft. But you really should not expect other people to “remain silent” while you complain.

[Bearcat]

love how the unofficial forum police jumps right in :D

Scared of someone taking your spot here Luse?

 

Btw. I totally agree with hutzlipu. The instant Luftwhiner argument is getting old and boring. Pretty happy someone tells people to stop it (regardless of their awesome coding experience), since Moderators don’t even seem to care anymore that every second topic gets derailed with crap like that.

 

Threads that can produce facts to back up FM claims .. and that do not push the notion of developer bias.. usually have long life and active dialog. Those that do not meet that criteria usually wind up being locked.

 

I wonder why is it that, according so some ..no sim in history has ever been able to model the 109 or the 190.. or both depending on which sim it is.. correctly and why is it that every single FM thread on this board that degenerates into juvenile schoolyard nonsense 9 times out of 10 involves one or both of those aircraft? Were they that complicated? Are the expectations of simmers who fly these aircraft too high? Carrots? I don't know.. but it gets very old.

 

The developers here are under no obligation to supply anyone with data. Each sim is a universe unto itself and should be seen as such unless there is a glaringly  obvious divergence from historic data.  

 

If you have issues back  them up with more than conjecture or a handful of historic anecdotes but the minute the insinuations of developer bias begin to creep into a thread that thread will be running on borrowed time. If you have a problem with the moderation then take it up with the admins.

[Hutzlipuh]

Threads that can produce facts to back up FM claims .. and that do not push the notion of developer bias.. usually have long life and active dialog. Those that do not meet that criteria usually wind up being locked.

 

I wonder why is it that, according so some ..no sim in history has ever been able to model the 109 or the 190.. or both depending on which sim it is.. correctly and why is it that every single FM thread on this board that degenerates into juvenile schoolyard nonsense 9 times out of 10 involves one or both of those aircraft? Were they that complicated? Are the expectations of simmers who fly these aircraft too high? Carrots? I don't know.. but it gets very old.

 

The developers here are under no obligation to supply anyone with data. Each sim is a universe unto itself and should be seen as such unless there is a glaringly  obvious divergence from historic data.  

 

If you have issues back  them up with more than conjecture or a handful of historic anecdotes but the minute the insinuations of developer bias begin to creep into a thread that thread will be running on borrowed time. If you have a problem with the moderation then take it up with the admins.

 

That is the main problem with this forum and its moderation...people defending the status quo or disturbing fm discussion (especially german) , no matter how wrong it may be ( 190 threads anyone? yak flaps change was fought with teeth and claws also ) get free reign to derail , distract and provoke with anything out of the trick-box.

moderators letting people post basically ANYTHING that is off-topic or derailing , as long as its not against devs or game but is there against complainers and people trying to argument FOR a change of fm/dm.

this is also one of the reasons that this game gets called "biased" , forum moderation has had its part in that also.

 

yes the devs are under NO obligation to back their modeling with data , but on the other side ask for hard data for any change to be made or even threatening forum user with a ban for posting a OPINION ...That is the definition of double standards, which is also hurting relations between customers and devs...but its their choice in the end.

 

Yes i have massive problems with how this forum is moderated , but going to the admins wont help , as they just are employees of the devs basically.

 

Ban me if you like... i think im done with the game , the piss-poor community and especially with the devs and moderators.Discussion will go on on boards that take moderation seriously for the sake of DISCUSSION and not try to shape the community in a way they want and like.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Hutzlipuh

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

moderators

Since criticizing is seen as a bad thing by the Colonials, you shouldn't. Put on your damn Rose tinted Glasses already and describe things with "awesome" in differing shrill voices. 

 

More like:

 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

I wonder why is it that, according so some ..no sim in history has ever been able to model the 109 or the 190.. or both depending on which sim it is.. correctly and why is it that every single FM thread on this board that degenerates into juvenile schoolyard nonsense 9 times out of 10 involves one or both of those aircraft? Were they that complicated? Are the expectations of simmers who fly these aircraft too high? Carrots? I don't know.. but it gets very old.

 

Good to know that moderators believe that every thread about the 190, 109 is a whiner thread. Shows why this forum is going the way it is. People are basically encouraged to derail threads.

[DD_Arthur]

... i think im done with the game 

 

 

Every cloud has a silver lining......

[=RvE=Windmills]

 

 

That is the main problem with this forum and its moderation...people defending the status quo or disturbing fm discussion (especially german) , no matter how wrong it may be

 

I like how you are reframing the legitimate issues people have with these sort of posts as 'defending the status quo' or merely trying to 'disturb' discussion.

 

You'd honestly get a whole lot further if you'd take some of the criticism to heart, rather than always trying to see an agenda behind everything.