Couple of questions about Fiedrich external model

[DB605]

I have always tought there is something weird going on lookwise with 109 landing gear in game so i did some rough comparison.

Forgive me about crappy screenshot but i could not find better for now. I used G6 drawings for comparison as i could not find reliable ones for friedrich. G6 used braced gear strut but AFAIK they should have same angle as F. Anyhow, it seems that "our" friedrich landing gears are too upright now:

 

 

Another question: Fin and rudder should have airfoil shape when looking from upward, will it be corrected?

 

[FuriousMeow]

When they build these models, they place schematics inside the viewer and build in comparison to that.

 

You are also using a G14 for comparison, not a G6.

[DB605]

You are also using a G14 for comparison, not a G6.

That was typo from my side but they are exactly identical shape-wise.

[FuriousMeow]

Well, landing gear configurations have to be adjusted around for heavier engines. So you're bound to see different angles when essentially the same airframe is used over several years seeing heavier engines, heavier armament and different landing gear strengths/weights.

[No601_Prangster]

Not Sure the drawing looks like it has a bit too much forward angle but the in game model might not have enough. 

[FuriousMeow]

You're probably right though.

Edited February 12, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[DB605]

Well, landing gear configurations have to be adjusted around for heavier engines. So you're bound to see different angles when essentially the same airframe is used over several years seeing heavier engines, heavier armament and different landing gear strengths/weights.

Here's F drawing from Lynn Ritger book, pretty much exactly same result:

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by DB605

[JtD]

I measured 33° angle gear against ground tail down in Messerschmitt documentation. In game it is far less, it almost looks as if the angle is based on a tail up position of the aircraft. Good catch, I didn't notice. Might also be important for correct ground handling. I don't think the vertical stab / rudder profile matters a lot in the overall level of detail we're getting. I could live with it being symmetrical.

Edited February 12, 2014 by JtD

[Wandalen]

And this drawings are from scale model aircrafts ?

[DB605]

And this drawings are from scale model aircrafts ?

 

No. They are just drawn to specific scale to help modellers.

Edited February 12, 2014 by DB605

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

"No. They are just drawn to specific scale to help modellers."

 

DB605 beat me to it.

 

And this includes digital modellers like the Devs.

 

 

My answer would have been,"No, they are scale reference drawings."

Edited February 12, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[Freycinet]

 I remember reading that later 109 models sat higher on the ground, maybe that plays a role...

[DB605]

Another drawing from 109 lair:

 

 

I hope devs will note this.

[FuriousMeow]

Not here, post in the alpha forum. Or request a mod to move it.

[TheGreatKotobuki]

Would this problem actually effect flight characteristics or is it really just a cosmetic problem? My inner perfectionist really wants it to get fixed, but honestly if it doesn't its not a big deal unless it impacts the aircraft seriously.

[widgeon]

This would have a very significant effect the center of gravity, therefore on landing and ground handling.

[FuriousMeow]

Well, that would actually depend on whether or not the visual 3D model meant anything with collision detection. It may not (most likely doesn't). There are a lot of layers to go into creating games, it's not what you see is what you get.

 

That's why with Damage Models you see a lot of complaints about hit boxes - which is also wrong, those haven't been used since a long time ago. Hit boxes existed backed when 386s transitioned to 486s. It's been a long time since hit boxes actually existed in these types of titles. There are areas that can be damaged which could be somewhat construed as "hit boxes", but they are mapped to the actual 3D model and can be layered. They also aren't boxes, which traditionally is what a hit box was.

Edited February 13, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[wastel]

The gear angle did not change during the F to K development.

 

The increased weight was compensated with bigger tires, and not with changing the angle

 

right now, it seems that the 3d Modell is wrong , so this thread must be moved to the bugs area. 

 

Wastel

[DB605]

Yep. Wheel angle and tyre size was changed several times and gear leg was braced between f-k but gear angle stayed same. Could some moderator move this topic to bug section please.

[Foobar]

This is a G-2 manufacturer drawing.

 

And a F and G scheme drawing. This should tell it all:

[DB605]

And here's one last pic, there should not be doubts anymore.

 

 

I did bug report about it earlier today.

[Venturi]

There has been numerous problems with the oleo legs not being compressed when drawing the correct sitting angle of the plane...

[Sternjaeger]

I want to believe that the team used reliable sources for their 3d models, e.g. actual blueprints, which are fortunately widely available..

[Reflected]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I'm curious if this has been fixed since?

[Feathered_IV]

Good catch.  That definitely needs looking into.

[Jocko]

Definitely a bug... This needs to be fixed.

[DB605]

Really old topic but now, as K4 is coming, would be good time to finally correct landing gear angle. It affects the looks of 109 quite lot after all.

 

 

[Kurfurst]

Great eye for detail, 605. I hope they do get fix it.

[DB605]

On 11/10/2018 at 8:55 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

Great eye for detail, 605. I hope they do get fix it.

 

Thanks, too bad they did not fix it for K4, so fix probably never come. This and couple other things means few years old DCS K4 will stay the most accurate 109 in any sim so far.

[Kurfurst]

Too bad :/

 

Its been a while that I flew the F-4, but IIRC they did not fix the radiator exit flaps 3d model either. There should be a visible double ducting on the upper exit flaps (for the boundary layer separator ducting, this was only on the F series and later models deleted it), but the 3d model looks just like that on the G models.

 

See:

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[DB605]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Too bad ?

 

Its been a while that I flew the F-4, but IIRC they did not fix the radiator exit flaps 3d model either. There should be a visible double ducting on the upper exit flaps (for the boundary layer separator ducting, this was only on the F series and later models deleted it), but the 3d model looks just like that on the G models.

 

 

 

Yep, still not fixed. Not to mention rudder that should have airfoil shape, too thin windshield/canopy frames and front window panzer glass (G/K). Of course most of casual players doesen't care about those little details but now as incoming new aircarft 3d models seems to be top notch (P-47 for example), some "facelifting" for 109 would have been nice. At least for the most noticeable parts like langing gears.

[Kurfurst]

Well on the plus side, they DID fix the missing ‘ruhe’ label under on the radiator control handle on the 109K. It was missing on the first shots, I mentioned it in the dev blog, and they got it fixed on the live version. Kudos to the Devs for reading that stuff and reacting. Even it’s a small detail.

 

Regarding the rest, I do not have high hopes to see them fixed. I guess it is just though to find time to go back to fix older models. Still not as bad as the remnant bars on old Il-2s Erla Haube.

[DB605]

20 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Well on the plus side, they DID fix the missing ‘ruhe’ label under on the radiator control handle on the 109K. It was missing on the first shots, I mentioned it in the dev blog, and they got it fixed on the live version. Kudos to the Devs for reading that stuff and reacting. Even it’s a small detail.

 

Regarding the rest, I do not have high hopes to see them fixed. I guess it is just though to find time to go back to fix older models. Still not as bad as the remnant bars on old Il-2s Erla Haube.

 

That seems to be the case. Now that you mentioned erla haube, that's another thing that went wrong in modelling. In game it's completely flat, missing the bulged top of the real one. Also frames have bit incorrect shape. Oh well.

 

But as you said, i guess it's better just suck it up and attend to shooting down enemies instead...?

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by DB605

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, DB605 said:

That seems to be the case. Now that you mentioned erla haube, that's another thing that went wrong in modelling. In game it's completely flat, missing the bulged top of the real one. Also frames have bit incorrect shape. Oh well.

 

But as you said, i guess it's better just suck it up and attend to shooting down enemies instead...?

 

If you want to see it fixed (and a whole host of 3D models have been fixed in recent months), you need to post some detailed images, drawings, comparison images, etc. showing what's wrong. Posting a sarcastic "better to just suck it up" statement isn't going to change anything.

[DB605]

13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

If you want to see it fixed (and a whole host of 3D models have been fixed in recent months), you need to post some detailed images, drawings, comparison images, etc. showing what's wrong. Posting a sarcastic "better to just suck it up" statement isn't going to change anything.

 

I know, i actually have done 3 bug reports about those things i've listed above. Maybe my screenshots/drawings and pics haven't good enough or devs tought mistakes were not worth of fixing, dunno but fix have never come anyway. Hence my comment wich was not meant to be sarcastic.

 

Maybe, if i found time to catch better images and drawings some day, i may do one more report about them, but as said already, i don't have high hopes that they will be ever fixed.

 

Those errors are not deal breakers any way but as a life long 109 nut, after thousands of pictures and hundreds of drawings i just cannot unsee them.

 Devs have really stepped up on modelling with latest aircraft, IMO Jug is first AC that pass or is on level with DCS  in 3d modelling. And judging by screens, it won't be last one.