Bf109s able to "stand" on their elevators in hard turns?

[Tempus]

2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

with his comfy G-suit is still ready for more

 This is only true in part. Try to fly mustang in any map out of Rhineland winter or Spring 1945. Also recomend you going Berloga to experiment all we're explainig here with no G-suit and against real bitches in the 109.Out of these 2 maps your pilot is out of the G-suit magic, so you have to deal them in "same" G-loads conditions. As an exercise, try it and then come here and explain your experience (I never recomend fighting AI's cause they fly in a weirdly infinte turning mode also machine knows every input you make). The best exercise where you will notice the insane Chopper-Hovercraft effect in 109's is merging them and try to enter in a flat sustained tight turn till both burnt energy to evade G-loc: You will flip how 109 never loose energy.

 

And one point from G-suits: they not only prevents your pilot from G-locs they also retards the high-G fatigue or said differently: it gives you more time than your opponent to perform high G's maneuvers  that maybe put you in an advantage situation respect her/him, in other words, save your ass and fry its one. So when somebody says you anything similar than: with G-suit you "ONLY" can pull around half or one plus G than me, you should answer him: enough G's to kick your ass or force you to enter in G-loc or in a wing spin. From WW2 times til nowadays modern jet fighters, the highest G restriction inside a fighter is the human being piloting it. 

 

How things have changed, 2 months after Spitfire Mk.IX was released (BoBP was just an Early Acces...) I Heard in lot of vids and read in lots of ingame chats 109 pilots complainig about its FM. I wonder how different are things today, not better...just... different IMAO, but as some collegues have pointed few posts before: Things have changed only, and just only, because people complains have been always presented with a scientific study written in times new roman in 12 size and no more than 180 characters... like twitter messages.... oh Lord!!! bless their ears because they already have lost their sight capability. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Tatata_Time

[Beazil]

Fudge it.  Nvm.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[-=No.66=-Griff1999]

3 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Fudge it.  Nvm.

 

 

You okay there Beazil? lol

[Beazil]

45 minutes ago, -=No.66=-Griff1999 said:

 

You okay there Beazil? lol

Well, "lol", I was going to comment that having a 109 out turn anyone in a given circumstance Ina given plane ( in your case, either the spit 5 or spit 9) is not an indication something is wrong.  Nor is anecdotal evidence of your or your friend's online experience indicative of an issue with the sim. 

But that would get in the way of your thread, so rather than participate in this little circle jerk I thought I would redact my comment.

But then you asked, so I responded.

Carry on.  Don't let me interfere.

[-=No.66=-Griff1999]

1 minute ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Well, "lol", I was going to comment that having a 109 out turn anyone in a given circumstance Ina given plane ( in your case, either the spit 5 or spit 9) is not an indication something is wrong.  Nor is anecdotal evidence of your or your friend's online experience indicative of an issue with the sim. 

But that would get in the way of your thread, so rather than participate in this little circle jerk I thought I would redact my comment.

But then you asked, so I responded.

Carry on.  Don't let me interfere.

 

Well I wouldn't call it a circle jerk to be honest and I don't see the necessity of hostile wording, we have multiple takes so far, some in agreement and some not, your experiences are also worthy to be noted if you have any, I merely posed the question out to the community to see if others have noticed weird 109 behavior.

 

I don't really get why there's such a hostile atmosphere here on the forums sometimes.

 

I'd be glad to have your takes with any variety of weird FM behavior (of any kite) since the recent updates!

 

Stay healthy!

[Beazil]

Well, just so you are aware, once in a while, a fellow can and does get shot down.   May I humbly suggest that your opponent simply got the better of you in a situation? The spit 5 and 9 are excellent turners- among the best in game, but without seeing what actually happened it's never as simple as "I was out turned".   

The fight is a constantly shifting affair where your energy state, situational awareness and knowledge of your plane's limitations all come into play.  While a spit is generally a better yank and bank machine in a turn fight, some take the fight vertical in a 109, where it has the advantage.  But then again woe betide the 109 jockey who tries out climbing the 9 especially vs a person who knows that plane well.... There are many factors to look at in every situation.

If you started with them behind you, you already started with a disadvantage and lost before you even began

"There's something wrong with the 109 because I couldn't out turn one" isn't proof of an issue, that an audit needs to happen or that a plane needs to be nerfed or boosted vs it's contemporaries.  It means the pilot didn't understand what happened.  Too often now I see a lot of knee jerk reactions from newer posters who seem to think they know more than the developers about their craft, who demand things be changed to their liking, accuse fellow players of various shenanigans or that they are somehow hard done by because the other side has it soon much better... ad nauseum.  Have a look around.

We have 9 different 109's and two (soon to be three) marks of Spitfire.  All are different.  So are the various Yaks, Laggs, etc.  Of course a spit 9 handles differently from a five.  It's a different plane.  All of them are different from each other.  All of them can kill each other in the right situation.  

You got killed.  Figure out why and don't do that next time.  Easier said than done, I know.  Nerf the ea isn't the answer though.

There are pilots here that could kill me from a hurricane if I was in a 262 because they just know the planes that well...  The plane is the tool, but it's the pilot, not the plane that determines the outcome.

Hope that was a nicer response than the one you found hostile.  Salute! 

 

 

[HandyNasty]

On 12/8/2020 at 6:07 PM, -=No.66=-Griff1999 said:

Hi chaps,

 

I was wondering if anyone else has noticed this phenomenon with the later models of 109 (G2 and later) where they are able to sustain 5G or above for a super long time in tight turn fights, my squadron and I have been turned inside of whilst in Spitfires at the very edge of black out (with the new FM).

 

We'll be doing the proper engine management and flap releasing for the maintaining of lower speed and higher speed, 5G+ turns and there will be a 109 that comes screaming in from altitude that manages to turn inside of us, and maintain the inside turn. This happens regardless of the speed we collectively travel at.

 

It is always a 109 achieving these types of turn, 190s are not able to do this.

 

I was always under the impression that the 109's main advantage was speed and the spit had superior turn capability?

 

Anybody else witnessed elevator standing from 109s?

 

 

You mention 'I was always under the impression that the [...]  spit had superior turn capability' , which is true (generally*). However, 'turn capability' doesn't mean 'outturn in any and every circumstances'. I would like to refer you to the video I linked below. It compares turn rate of F-4 and P-47B (see time stamp 52:10; whole video is recommended), but the same general principles apply for all planes. There are circumstances where a 109 will outturn a spitfire. It depends on the situation.

 

My question now becomes : what are the situations where you or your squad mates, in spitfires, get shot down by 109's in turnfights? Currently, we only have your description of the situations. That is not enough, since situations are highly complex in flight combat (that's why skill ceiling is infinite).

 

Description of situation 1 : "5G+ turns and there will be a 109 that comes screaming in from altitude that manages to turn inside of us"  : If you understand the principles explained in the video linked below, then you understand that the way I interpret this situation is like : "The 109 had probably a 100-150 kph velocity advantage initially (he come 'screaming from altitude'), and decided to burn through his velocity advantage to get better turn rate. His advantage was such that he could keep up with you for some time until he shot you down." There is no need for complaining about 109s FM in this case. 

 

Description of situation 2 : "they (=109s) are able to sustain 5G or above for a super long time in tight turn fights" : This is a nebulous description: 'super long time'.  Suppose I interpret your 'super long' by two full turn circles or more (aka 720+ degrees), at lowish speed (aka, not at 600kph or so) and on deck (aka, there is descent during the turns). Then I can say quite confidently that something is wrong : Either the game or you. The game might be wrong, because a 109 cannot sustain 5G for 2 full turns on deck at low speeds, or you are wrong in the sense that you think the 109 is pulling 5G for a 'super long time' but that this actually isn't the case. So I really want to see the flight record for such happenings, because : either you have a good 'proof' that the 109 FM is bad (and I'm always in favor of improving the FM's, all of them), or you misinterpreted the various situations, in which case we could help pointing out mistakes/errors.

 

If you have flight records, please post them. I will definitely take a look. Until you do so, however, there is no point for me to take what you say at face value (sorry). The explanation that you judge situations badly is the more likely explanation. I say that, because I myself misjudge situations all the time. 

 

 

 

* I use 'generally' in the sense that, to my knowledge, Merlin spitfires always had better turn capabilities than their contemporary 109 variants. I am not comparing implausible stuff like 'Emil against late griffon'. Am also unsure about how clipped wings affect turn capabilities. Hence the "generally".

 

(link to video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KahHLtYlveQ&t=3247s&ab_channel=Greg'sAirplanesandAutomobiles)

 

[-=No.66=-Griff1999]

Good God.......

 

 

If this doesn't prove that something is broken with the DM/FM then I have no idea what else to say.

 

Griff

[Tempus]

I understood the E-7 was the only 109 that didn't suffer from FM-DM issues ;)))))))...... Surelly I understood it wrong. My bad..... as always.

[Creep]

6 hours ago, -=No.66=-Griff1999 said:

Good God.......

 

If this doesn't prove that something is broken with the DM/FM then I have no idea what else to say.

 

Griff

 

i love that he was still fighting, lol. a 109 without control surfaces still handles better than a p47 with all of its control surfaces ?

[Tempus]

45 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

i love that he was still fighting, lol. a 109 without control surfaces still handles better than a p47 with all of its control surfaces ?

 

Only cause is the beginning of the year I'm going to laugh too, but if you think twice and in depth..... it's a bit sad.

 

In a couple of days I'm sure any fandome freak is going to doubt about those images, also they will question the veracity of that vid due the mate haven't contributed with plausible data. Truth is a question that mainly depends from the point of view of the observer...... but if you close your eyes you can do as it never happened.

 

As I said before....... ;)))))))))).

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

 

i love that he was still fighting, lol. a 109 without control surfaces still handles better than a p47 with all of its control surfaces ?

 

It is pretty obvious really what is really happening here.......... 

 

The loss of excess control surface material has improved the location of of the aircrafts centre of gravity (COG).

 

Will admit though, the pilot of the ME109 is somewhat lucky in that diagonally opposite control surfaces have been lost and this stabilises the planes handling.  If the control surfaces had both been lost on the same side they would have had to step out of the cockpit to the side that had lost control surfaces to maintain the COG.  This technique is not widely publicised but was known to all good bush pilots.  Do a Google search on "Counter Rotation Assisted Performance" otherwise known as CRAP for more details.

 

?

 

 

[Beazil]

Also noteworthy is how he crashed and died. 

It was amusing watching him fly with no control surface I could see, but I've seen stranger things!  

Edited January 6, 2021 by JG51_Beazil

[Pikestance]

The other day I proactive diving down by using the flaps and reducing the speed. I was able to get inside. This wasn't against a Spit but A Lagg or Yak. (1b I think). This was also against the AI who tends to like to turn and force an overshoot. I didn't come close to blacking out. I think one time there was some heavy breathing. I was in a G2. 

 

Anyway, since the changes to the physiology I have had more incidences of blacking out. So, I do not think that is the problem. I think someone just got the better of you and your squad mates. I am not that skillful and someone more skilled than me will certainly do what I have done and if you are not expecting it, I can see how it would seem like magic. 

 

 

[Beazil]

Trouble is there is the issue of confirmation bias.  A video like that (where visual issues show greater damage on the 109 in this case than seems plausible for it to be in the air at all) will only serve to rile up those who believe that there is an issue with a particular plane.  In this case our friend the E7 is the example.  I can hear the arguments of its over performance coming already.  And to be fair, there is definitely something (amusing) up in this vid.  I'm pre disposed to think it was a visual bug, but I would ask questions too.

[Beazil]

How about you just enjoy your tantrum then?  

[gimpy117]

I mean the only confirmation bias we have is the confirmation that, under some circumstances it can appear as if the E4 can fly without most of it's empennage.

It's possible it's a graphics bug, but if it isn't it's extremely unlikely a fighter aircraft such as the E4 can maintain stability in flight with no vertical stabilizer.   

[Pikestance]

@gimpy117That is not what is meant by confirmation bias. Conformation bias is when you seek out evidence to support your assertion, but you will ignore any other evidence that may bring your assumption into question. The problem with the video is that it does not support the OPs assumption that there is a problem with the model because what is being asserted is that pilots/ aircraft are making unnatural turns with a Spit. There were a number of factors brought up here that is being ignored, except this one video which could just as easily be an anomalous occurrence. 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther

[Aurora_Stealth]

16 hours ago, -=No.66=-Griff1999 said:

Good God.......

 

 

If this doesn't prove that something is broken with the DM/FM then I have no idea what else to say.

 

Griff

 

@-=No.66=-Griff1999

 

Hi, the above video was released on the 28/12/2020 and the one below on the 29/12/2020... so the day the new patch came out and the day after (ver 4.505) and was widely reported to have broken the damage modelling of all aircraft under certain circumstances. A hotfix has since come out.... (I haven't tried it out yet).

 

Here's the second video she uploaded showing effects on multiple aircraft. It's not just the Bf 109... although that is always and conveniently blamed.

 

 

...as uploaded by Sharfi.

 

I'd ask people... please check around before immediately blaming the Bf 109 for being German.

 

There are (well known and discussed) issues with how the .50 calibre rounds perform (some of which is genuine and much of which is blown well out of proportion), you can discuss that in the relevant threads (there are several). There are very specific issues with the Bf 109 tail / rear fuselage which were highlighted in the past and investigated (there are videos)... but these issues also affect other aircraft to a similar/lesser degree. That issue hasn't stopped people from shooting these aircraft down or anything like the issues shown in Scharfi's first video posted...

 

If you wish to discuss damage modelling, discuss it on a thread about damage modelling please. Here's one below.

 

 

Thanks,

[Tempus]

6 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

How about you just enjoy your tantrum then?

 

This is what normally happens to biased people used to.... argue..... like you?. I'm used to discuss..... different concepts, IMAO. But I parke your personal discussion in this point.

 

30 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I'd ask people... please check around before immediately blaming the Bf 109 for being German

 

Once I watched the second video..... I blame the 50's also the 109 FM-DM, like I've been doing all this past year. I don't blame 109 for being german, I blame it because patch after patch, update after update 109 got any issue that makes it the main character of these videos. 2 months ago was the K4 doing tight turns after loosing flaps, ailerons & rear stabs. I also can blame about 190- A8 and same issues as shown in E-7 video. I DON'T LIKE any of those repetitive issues, DO YOU? Also if they were from P-51's, P-47's, P-38's.....

Reading your oppinions I finish concluding you really like these issues, not only like them you defend them at all costs!!!! Also you're so biased that we all own all planes in the game and think we only criticize one specific plane that we also own and at the same time we also fly it, and the most important fact: We also paid for it... As you, don't you?

If your main worry is we only have eyes for the 109, I got to say NO and NEVER, but as you said before this is a matter to be discussed in other places.

 

An 8 years old Game ( from my point of view I can't consider it yet a simulator, neither WW2 DCS) SHOULD NOT HAVE those stupid errors. FIX ,from once and for all, these issues in BoBP because they're affecting, and the will affect, to BoN. Today this stupid FM-DM video, tomorrow again the 50's lack of punch, next month..... whatever the future holds to us....and this is not the right path for everybody's (Users & Producers) benefit.

[Aurora_Stealth]

1 hour ago, Tatata_Time said:

This is what normally happens to biased people used to.... argue..... like you?. I'm used to discuss..... different concepts, IMAO. But I parke your personal discussion in this point.

 

Once I watched the second video..... I blame the 50's also the 109 FM-DM, like I've been doing all this past year. I don't blame 109 for being german, I blame it because patch after patch, update after update 109 got any issue that makes it the main character of these videos. 2 months ago was the K4 doing tight turns after loosing flaps, ailerons & rear stabs. I also can blame about 190- A8 and same issues as shown in E-7 video. I DON'T LIKE any of those repetitive issues, DO YOU? Also if they were from P-51's, P-47's, P-38's.....

Reading your oppinions I finish concluding you really like these issues, not only like them you defend them at all costs!!!! Also you're so biased that we all own all planes in the game and think we only criticize one specific plane that we also own and at the same time we also fly it, and the most important fact: We also paid for it... As you, don't you?

If your main worry is we only have eyes for the 109, I got to say NO and NEVER, but as you said before this is a matter to be discussed in other places.

 

I can see you're bundling different problems together which causes paranoia and hassle, some of what you said is not accurate - flaps and ailerons have only a small part to do with sustaining a turn. Once actually in a turn, its the elevator doing most of the work. Chances are, its when trying to straighten out or change direction that causes the aircraft to crash if it has no ailerons.

 

Please do not assume my point of view - I deliberately avoid agreeing with some of this language and picking sides. I want what is technically correct. Pandering to people isn't a smart idea as an engineer - so I refuse to do it. The fact you think I'm biased for not agreeing with you says more about you than me.

 

To clarify (again) - I don't want to see issues like this for any aircraft - I never have and never do (you are assuming that of me and others which is a mistake) - that's why I play this as a flight/combat simulator - that's why I chose to play this like most people. Period.

 

The problem is you're potentially blurring one issue with another and this all ends up becoming a bitching session. This detracts from the actual core issues.

 

Raising a picket up in every single thread about the DM / .50 calibre is not helpful, and causes more politicisation / controversy - its inappropriate and causes me to think you are the one trying to push this agenda and then makes it harder to deal with other issues that people are having or trying to identify.

 

That's why different issues need to be separated in different threads because otherwise it ends in another toxic conversation.

 

1 hour ago, Tatata_Time said:

An 8 years old Game ( from my point of view I can't consider it yet a simulator, neither WW2 DCS) SHOULD NOT HAVE those stupid errors. FIX ,from once and for all, these issues in BoBP because they're affecting, and the will affect, to BoN. Today this stupid FM-DM video, tomorrow again the 50's lack of punch, next month..... whatever the future holds to us....and this is not the right path for everybody's (Users & Producers) benefit.

 

Fair enough, but those views about the "stupid" errors assume they are simple to fix, and also means in your eyes every single game ever produced is not trying to be a simulator. You want the highest quality AND the highest quantity of content... that's the most challenging combination you can make. What you are demanding is real life, and you will never have that unfortunately through playing a game. It's more complicated than that, you're just seeing it as the end result.

 

Frankly, I'd also like the developers to do a deep dive on some of this stuff, but they already have a schedule and priorities - taking this stuff on could be another three or four months of work. So you can see they won't be in a rush to do it with all the other new aircraft (20+) and large maps coming up this year.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[gimpy117]

On 1/6/2021 at 12:58 AM, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

@gimpy117That is not what is meant by confirmation bias. Conformation bias is when you seek out evidence to support your assertion, but you will ignore any other evidence that may bring your assumption into question. The problem with the video is that it does not support the OPs assumption that there is a problem with the model because what is being asserted is that pilots/ aircraft are making unnatural turns with a Spit. There were a number of factors brought up here that is being ignored, except this one video which could just as easily be an anomalous occurrence. 

 

 

i was using a play on words...

[Beazil]

No need to continue here.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by JG51_Beazil

[NIK14]

I like how people who are questioning existing FM's or DM's for planes on here are always asked to present facts to prove every little point they have. It seems there can not be any questioning on existing FM's and DM's because they were done by the developers and therefore they are correct.

All I have to add here is...I recognize the posters initial point, and I can live with 109's flying like the Pitts Specials...but when we get proper 50 cals (read AP) in the game. I am sure there will be a massive thread from some 109 flyers claiming they were BB guns in real life

[Pikestance]

I agree, this thread needs to be closed ; it has digressed into a juvenile discussion. 

[NIK14]

Yup, agree close it. The adult men on their high horses have spoken and deem this not to be an issue.

[JG7_X-Man]

I am sick and tired of people posting these videos of unrealistic flight characteristics without more detail of their settings (or the settings of the server).

What happens is two things:

1. Those that are not smart enough to think on their own or had doubt before loose faith in the flight model/game to provide an accurate representation of reality.
2. We send the developers on a wide goose chase to look for issue where there are none, taking time away from the next update.

This is how rumors start that IL-2 GB has a crappy/unrealistic FM - which is a lie and will mislead people and cost 1C revenue!

If you are going to post videos or make claims like these both your settings and the server setting if the anomaly occurred online.

 

Here are my settings and I have never seen such behavior.

 

 

...and not doctored/edited video to prove your point (we want to whole video next time RG!)

 

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by JG7_X-Man

[Pikestance]

 

 

[-=No.66=-Griff1999]

Lol who deleted my response to X-Man then?

 

A man can't even make a well reasoned counter argument on here now?

 

As I said before, people pay good money to fly this sim, it's not unreasonable to ask for a certain degree of realism.

 

 

[-=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah]

This forum and community is such a toxic place. 

From my experience it seems people often question the characteristics of the 109's here, only to be told by everyone to provide proof or to 'get good' 

Someone (beta tester) puts up a vid showing a broken 109 with minimal control surfaces flying relatively unchallenged online (you can see player names in the clip) and the people who defend it oh so just get butt hurt, telling you that the pretty solid proof is just a one off anomaly, not credible and it's just an attempt to discredit 1C Studios.

This place is madness. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by -=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah

[Pikestance]

You are purposely giving a slanted view of the discussion. The OP fist complained that a 109 pilot exhibited super human ability by being able to turn inside of him. Later a video was posted without any context as some sort of "proof." Then it got childish when claims biased opinions based on a silly notion of supposed aircraft preference. I don't know; maybe this is a thing. I can't imagine why. Most are here because they love flight sims and desire nothing more than realism. Moreover, there is a specific forum to discuss FM stuff. FM / AI discussion.

 

If you really want to make a difference post there. To be honest, this thread was someone whining because they couldn't believe that got bested in MP and then the goal post was moved for more whining. Stop whining and post in the appropriate area. This was already suggested in this thread and it was "ignored" and childish ranting of bias opinions ensued. This was the first call for the closing of the thread. Of course, then there was even more whining of biased opinions. There is a proper procedure for reporting these issues so why they are being ignored and this sort of discussion is being continued is baffling. 

 

I don't find this forum to be toxic. They are certain posters who toxic or engage in constant disingenuous discussion. Then again, I am very much a student in aviation, so I spend my time reading threads that are more education. I tend stay away from the MP threads; they have incessant whining. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther

[-=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah]

Haha exactly my point buddy, people seeing other people's opinions and queries as whining when it differs from your own. That is this forum in a nutshell. 109s broken, 50s don't work, your wrong, no your wrong, stop whining, post in the correct place with 150 tacview recordings to have any validity in anything you say.

People writing essays about how other people are just whining because they love whining about people whining. 

Madness 

[Pikestance]

10 minutes ago, -=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah said:

Haha exactly my point buddy, people seeing other people's opinions and queries as whining when it differs from your own. That is this forum in a nutshell. 109s broken, 50s don't work, your wrong, no your wrong, stop whining, post in the correct place with 150 tacview recordings to have any validity in anything you say.

People writing essays about how other people are just whining because they love whining about people whining. 

Madness 

 

If this is was your take away from my comments, then you need to reexamine if you are contributing to toxicity. My contribution to this thread was me remarking how I was practicing diving using flaps and reduce speeds to get on the inside in a dive. I also stated I had some issues with the new physiology. However, this is only my experiences. It was after this that the video was thrown in on a different issue. Anyway, we could go all day with people posting their experiences. The developers would need more than that. You make asking for scientific data seem like an impossible task. I have read threads where people have gone into incredible detail about the smallest of details, so I am at a lost on why data is one step too far. You can't demand realism and then "bark" at request for demands. Going on anyone's whim or feelings is not going to cut it. 

[-=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah]

Oh you assumed that out of the x amount of comments on this thread, that I must solely be referring to yourself. Top chap.

A few decent suggestions on how to improve flying and evasion against such menouvers in this thread yet at the same time a lot of 109 pilots replying with toxicity as per usual. 

As for data, I have no issue with it, I use tacview (although it's banned from the only MP server I really fly on) and I use it badly to try and see where I went wrong in sorties when available. Not everyone has access to these features, or has a machine that can run recording software, tacview and fly at the same time. Just because you don't have all kinds of data and proof that it's undoctored, your not allowed to even hint at the idea you suspect something amiss? 

With most other games, you can raise issues without having to provide this data yourself. It is the job of the developer and testers to find and amend such issues and the right of a consumer to give their opinions and feedback. 

Why should people have to do all of that work themselves after paying for a finished product.

This community, yourself included, often tell others that their opinions are useless because they aren't willing to shell out extra bucks on buying software to run/record the exact details of a flight.... The job of the developers and testers again I might add, not the consumer. 

This is what I mean by toxic. The 'your opinion is invalid because data' 

[JG7_X-Man]

@-=No.66=-Griff1999 All I am saying is that your settings matter and the settings of the server matter. If one is flying around with anything checked other than unlimited fuel, ammo and warmed up engine, you will see some weird things! That is just fact!

[Pikestance]

40 minutes ago, -=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah said:

Oh you assumed that out of the x amount of comments on this thread, that I must solely be referring to yourself. Top chap.

A few decent suggestions on how to improve flying and evasion against such menouvers in this thread yet at the same time a lot of 109 pilots replying with toxicity as per usual. 

 

 

You responded with "haha, exactly my point" immediately after my post. I assumed you were addressing me. 

 

42 minutes ago, -=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah said:

As for data, I have no issue with it, I use tacview (although it's banned from the only MP server I really fly on) and I use it badly to try and see where I went wrong in sorties when available. Not everyone has access to these features, or has a machine that can run recording software, tacview and fly at the same time. Just because you don't have all kinds of data and proof that it's undoctored, your not allowed to even hint at the idea you suspect something amiss? 

With most other games, you can raise issues without having to provide this data yourself. It is the job of the developer and testers to find and amend such issues and the right of a consumer to give their opinions and feedback. 

 

It was suggested to bring up the discussion in the relevant thread (referring to the FM discussion). I also suggested the same thing. I am baffled to why you think that is unreasonable. There is no "Us vs. Them " as you seem to think. Plus, the development team is a small team. They rely on the community for assistance. I am not sure why this fact as alluded you. 

 

43 minutes ago, -=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah said:

Why should people have to do all of that work themselves after paying for a finished product.

This community, yourself included, often tell others that their opinions are useless because they aren't willing to shell out extra bucks on buying software to run/record the exact details of a flight.... The job of the developers and testers again I might add, not the consumer. 

This is what I mean by toxic. The 'your opinion is invalid because data' 

 

I am not sure why I am included in this grouping. I have made no such statements whatsoever. 

let me remind you this thread started off as a MP player complaining when he was bested by a 109 pilot in a turn. It was later that a FM issue was brought up. So, where do we go from here? There is an opinion. Some agree and others do not. What are we doing now? We are going back and forth in an endless circle. There is one video. There is a forum to discuss FM issues. If this is serious for you, then take the next step. Calling people toxic because they see the futility of the discussion resolves nothing and will lead to nothing. 

 

The ball is in your court! 

[-=No.66=-Griff1999]

Just now, JG7_X-Man said:

@-=No.66=-Griff1999 All I am saying is that your settings matter and the settings of the server matter. If one is flying around with anything checked other than unlimited fuel, ammo and warmed up engine, you will see some weird things! That is just fact!

 

That's fairly obvious, your prior comment makes it out that the video clip I presented is mine, my original response to your comment (which was rudely deleted) stated that the clip actually belonged the Scharfi and not me, which was very obvious also.

 

Griff

[-=No.66=-GetSaltyBrah]

The ball is in your court? .. Again, the exact mentality of this forum. My opinion is its toxic, yours isn't, so you will try and argue back and forth about whos opinion (is it even about the 109s anymore) correct and who has the data to back it. 

Laughable 

[jollyjack]

On 1/5/2021 at 5:36 PM, -=No.66=-Griff1999 said:

Good God.......

 

 

If this doesn't prove that something is broken with the DM/FM then I have no idea what else to say. Griff

 

Well it's proof aiming for that forbidden marking first works best.

 

[Pikestance]

You were informed of an avenue to help improve the FM/DM of the sim. If you choose to not to take and to instead argue with those that d not agree, then the toxicity is of your own making.