DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 It's a nice thought but the likelihood of reaching the critical AoA on a neg g bunt is very remote, the negative g required would be impossible at low speeds. I can assure you I have eliminated stick jerkiness from my assessment of the FM stability issues.
Sternjaeger Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 Not quite. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7067-big-problems-fm/?do=findComment&comment=126796 come on, it needs tweaking and we know this, but it's not a bad FM!
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Yes, I'm saying it needs tweaking, but getting very confused by the voices claiming perfection.
BlackDevil Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WyEtvB0ja7g I tried to find that wobbling nose, but even the zoomed gun cam shots are smoother than any RL shots I have seen. How can it be, that the 109 FM is porked on some users end, and seem to be perfect on others ?
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 The game is at 51% but we were told the FM's are at 90% and that's the worrying part It's not worrying - just enjoy the early access and refrain from 'worry' until at least after the release.
URUAker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Whats the idea of worrying AFTER th release????? Will they change anything then? The time to voice any concern is NOW 3
LLv34_Flanker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 S! The old ghosts, too familiar words They fixed the Pe-2 oscillation and whatnot within a couple of weeks, the Bf109 problems or whatever have been going on for months now. Go figure. If the FM i 90% done then the last 10% must be a radical change to put an end to the stupendous flap fighting and climbing etc. in the game.
Bassly Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 If the FM i 90% done then the last 10% must be a radical change to put an end to the stupendous flap fighting and climbing etc. in the game. Wouldn't that be more like a lack of DM, not lack of FM?
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Whats the idea of worrying AFTER th release????? Will they change anything then? Uhh...yes. Happens all the time. That's beside the point though at this stage. It's not finished yet, so let's just see how things progress. Edited June 10, 2014 by Gambit21
Tab Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I want that planes in BoS virtualy fly as close as possible than real planes. I don't want that under very high pressure the devs change anything about what (after a lot of research) they think is correct. That's a great point, thanks. The FM quality should not be questioned by the number of people complaining or frequency with which they repost their complains over and over. We are at the page 7 and not a single proof was provided for anything. Not a single calculation, not a single evidence, that something is not right. Two videos? Yeah, they both are totally repeatable in the BoS-environment. Every time I see "109 should ..." and "109 should not ..." I imagine a WW2 veteran or aircraft engineer on the other end writing this stuff and then laugh because I know, how far is it from the reality.
Tab Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Not sure how you feel you know better than someone that flew the real 109 in real life. There was a video of a veteran 109 pilot talking about the 109 after seeing how it was modeled in BoS. One of his comments was about the rudder authority being wrong in BoS. Unfortunately the thread was trashed and the video marked as Private. I never said I know better. I never did any claims about how 109 should fly, because I am not able to provide proofs for that. I just expect such proofs or any sort of evidence by those, who make claims to know, how it really should be. The videos are private and the summary does not say anything about comparison with BoS and mentions rudder efficiency only indirectly, so yeah, I guess it falls into category of "proving nothing" at the moment. 2
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 if you wanted somebody's opinion on what 'could' be expected of a 109 would you trust the opinion of a modern day licensed pilot or a toilet cleaner who has never seen an aircraft? I make my claims on the former basis, I know there are serious physics problems happening that defy all my experience as a pilot.
Crump Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 think this is a very good point and I really hope this is the issue. RoF does not model stick forces, does it? This means that - like the trim system - it's something that's got to be coded up and hopefully will be part of that remaining percentage of the game still to be produced. It is not really representative of the aircraft to model the high stick force per G without the stability of the design. It just would not be a Bf-109. 1
sturmkraehe Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) And the thread goes on and on and on. Do you all really believe that the devs did not get the message up to now? If they haven't done anything right now they have their internal reasons about which we can only speculate. Such reasons (speculating here) could be one or more of these or maybe some completely different ones we have a hard time to imagine: - They think they got the FM right. We don't know which sources and reflexions went into the modelling of the 109. - Their few FM experts work full time on the Focke Wulf and the He111 and cannot take the time to revisit an already existing plane right now because the release date is pressing hard on the time schedule - They like to read this endless circle debate - <place for your conspiracy theory> - ... BTW: The Yak also wobbles a bit so it is not a problem entirely restricted to the 109 even if it is worse there perhaps. Just test it. Edited June 10, 2014 by sturmkraehe
AX2 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) - <place for your conspiracy theory> Sturmkraehe sorry I could not resist Weapons , 20 mm German vs 20 mm Rusian, test it on ground, was not fixed after 6 months Look the video please Also you can test 20mm cannons at russian planes , don't takeoff test on ground please . BF 109 20mm vs La 5 20 mm then change the ammo for AP and HE only Machineguns do not count for the test , machineguns in the yak 1 are affected by engine RPM for the fire rate , at the BF 109 apparently not. But 20mm vs 20mm is a valid test, German guns are very worse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUzYXCiX9FM With high ping ..I notice difference between Russian and German weapons on fly at multiplayer. On the other hand, the scale of the power output for DB 601 was fixed in 3 weeks after bug report. Edited June 10, 2014 by Mustang
falstaff Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 DD_Bongodriver said: if you wanted somebody's opinion on what 'could' be expected of a 109 would you trust the opinion of a modern day licensed pilot or a toilet cleaner who has never seen an aircraft? 'Toilet-cleaner air-lines.' I can see it now. Look out Mr Richard Branson. A voice comes over the plane intercom. It reaches me in the window seat, row 23: 'Hello, this is your pilot speaking. I am glad to report that the toilet flushing mechanism is in tip-top order, and the handle has been cleaned to a beautiful standard of perfection. We hope you find your use of the toilet roll today a pleasant one. I would like to personally assure you that the toilet bowl is delighfully clean under the rim. You should be landing approximately one hour after dinner is served. The exits are...well, there's only one...' You might have a point. But swinging the 'pilot thing' around doesn't automatically confer god-like status. Even on a plane game forum.
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 You might have a point. But swinging the 'pilot thing' around doesn't automatically confer god-like status. Even on a plane game forum. I'm only interested in making a valid point, if you perceive the pilot thing as 'swinging it around' then I'd say there is an envy complex creeping in somewhere.
Tab Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) if you wanted somebody's opinion on what 'could' be expected of a 109 would you trust the opinion of a modern day licensed pilot or a toilet cleaner who has never seen an aircraft? I make my claims on the former basis, I know there are serious physics problems happening that defy all my experience as a pilot. Pilot license does not make you automatically right. It gives you a benefit of a knowledge, that you can apply to produce some real proof, if you want to prove anything at all. Which is not necessary your intention. Sharing your thoughts and expectations is not wrong, but your wording does not contain "could"s. You pretend like you would know, how it really should be. There is, the 109 shouldn't spin from a moderate negative g bunt, the rudder is too effective and it wobbles like a jelly. and also what is "moderate"? I have posted here videos from BoS with negative g and no spin... and use your own postings containing similar claims as a backing. Not quite. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7067-big-problems-fm/?do=findComment&comment=126796 Also you are doing it may be a bit too often for a "just opinion sharing". It does not apply only to you by the way, the demanding tone without any proofs is sadly typical here. I don't think you'll disagree that we all (for the most part) want the sim to succeed. No doubt about that. But sometimes it seems like some people just want to have a better performing (or easier to handle) Bf-109, and the game's success does not play the most important role here. Edited June 10, 2014 by Tab 1
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 10, 2014 1CGS Posted June 10, 2014 Thats why im sure that these game never be better regarding flight characteristic of 109 if we have such experten. Mustang leave it some never understand BOS 109 flight model problems. Thats why for some time i lost my interest for flying BOS and posting on these forum. Because you're such a real-world expert in flying the 109? I'm trying to see where people are seeing the spin when performing a negative-G maneuver in the 109, because I can slam my CH Fighterstick all the way forward (with stock response settings), and I don't perceive a bit of spin.
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Pilot license does not make you automatically right. It gives you a benefit of a knowledge, that you can apply to produce some real proof, if you want to prove anything at all. Which is not necessary your intention. Sharing your thoughts and expectations is not wrong, but your wording does not contain "could"s. You pretend like you would know, how it really should be. I don't pretend anything, my experience tells me that the issues mentioned are not correct, they are beyond the unique quirks an aircraft can have, they are simply blatant malfunctions of physics, there is no way the 109 rudder was as powerful as modelled in game, it is a small rudder, small rudders simply are weaker, a fact of aerodynamics, the snap roll effect from that overmodelled rudder is again complete fantasy, even an aircraft with a powerful rudder will have a tendency to resist yaw before it reaches a point where it induces an uncontrollable roll, the pitch wobble would require control surfaces that automatically reverse themselves on release of input, these things need no proof, they are just simple and understandable facts, these opinions are shared, there is no need for all the condescending voices here questioning it all, it is up to the developers to listen and decide if they will take action and there is no need for anyone else to give input, that is why there are endless repeats of these threads.
Nonolem Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 @bongodriver : Are you realy flying three tones propeller planes with a single 1400 hp engine on a regular basis?Because if you fly some Cessna or other modern planes, I don't think it will behave the same way. Furthermore, nowadays airplanes are not designed on the same standard than a plane designed in the thirties. Even if you are flying bigger and more powerfull planes, it doesn't count .I am respectfully thinking that, if you have never piloted what is called a "warbird", you can't really tell what is physically possible or not. As I said, I have never piloted anything except virtually, but I have done some physics and fluid mechanic, and the way this Me 109 is flying in BoS doesn't seem odd to me.Opinions which really count on that matter are the opinions of pilotes who are currently flying these planes. And devs have communicated a lot during the months before this pre-release. We saw them meeting and interviewing some of these actual WWII plane pilotes. They also have flew on acrobatic planes to feel what it's look like. Maybe because they didn't want to read this kind of thread again and again...I don't know if the 109 FM is close to the real one or not.. I just don't know like 99,999999% of living humanity (which, ofcourse, a big part of it really doesn't care about...). And I really think you are a part of this 99,999999%...
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 What, a T6? Night and day different from a Yak or a 109 from a polar moment perspective, among others. Still basic physics apply, and yes some things need tweaking. I just don't think we need to keep beating the horse though - the devs are on it.
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 No, a Stearman, but I'd be fascinated to know your experience that should make me change my mind. the only dead horses being beaten are by all the people who insist on arguing with everyone that raises the issue, you won't change our minds and we are waiting for the devs to answer or do nothing, so if you don't mind please stop jumping on all these threads and let nature take it's course.
Sternjaeger Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 Nonolem, there's a wide variety of real life pilots here, and we all agree about the issues. Some of us have experience on real warbirds as well, and Bongo in particular is someone I completely trust with his opinions because he has flown quite a variety of machines, and he can surely appreciate the differences and peculiarities of different setups..
Tektolnes Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I'm trying to see where people are seeing the spin when performing a negative-G maneuver in the 109, because I can slam my CH Fighterstick all the way forward (with stock response settings), and I don't perceive a bit of spin. 500km/h below and it'll spin easily - once you start to get higher speeds than that it gets more difficult to enter a spin with a negative G bunt. The Yak and La-5 are impossible to depart like this.
Tab Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Nonolem, there's a wide variety of real life pilots here, and we all agree about the issues. Some of us have experience on real warbirds as well, and Bongo in particular is someone I completely trust with his opinions because he has flown quite a variety of machines, and he can surely appreciate the differences and peculiarities of different setups.. this thing in bold is a strong exaggeration. Anyways, the devs flew yak-52, and besides that there is a guy who flew il2, mig-3 and i-16 and he is integrated in the developing and hell even a real ww2 pilot. I guess I will stay with trusting them. 2
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 No, a Stearman, but I'd be fascinated to know your experience that should make me change my mind. the only dead horses being beaten are by all the people who insist on arguing with everyone that raises the issue, you won't change our minds and we are waiting for the devs to answer or do nothing, so if you don't mind please stop jumping on all these threads and let nature take it's course. No, that's not the only horses that are being beaten - but please continue. Maybe things will happen faster if you keep typing. 3
Nonolem Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Real WWII pilote who is not nobody...I fell of my chair when I understood who he is. The nephew of Mikoyan who design MiG planes, and the son of Staline's minister! 2
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I'm curious now. What is it that makes you say that? Do you mean that the devs "are ON it" - the devs have things correct as they are? Do you mean the devs "ARE on it" - the devs are working on improving what we have now? How do you know what they're feeling/thinking/planning about the 109 we have at present? I mean they're not finished with the sim, and they've indicated they're aware of the issues. I'm not worried about the 109 at this point. I've seen these guys fix things multiple times long after something is released. I've also seen them leave things long after release (Camel comes to mind) but we're far from that point. Some people like to get worked up about these things, and that's fine. They just shouldn't expect to do so without the behavior being noted.
DD_bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 No, that's not the only horses that are being beaten Yes, they are. I mean they're not finished with the sim, and they've indicated they're aware of the issues. Then why are you arguing against people who have raised the issues?
Gambit21 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Nobody is against Yes, they are. Then why are you arguing against people who have raised the issues? 'sigh' Look, nobody is "against" you - relax. You're being too sensitive - that's making it hard for you, but no need to take it so personally. If the devs are aware of the problem, and the sim is still in development, logic would dictate that perhaps the problems your so worried about are being delt with and maybe you can stop worrying so much. Your choice. See - these things can be worked through.
DD_bongodriver Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 How exactly have you come to the conclusion I have taken it personally? Have you taken it personally and that is why you are in this debate?
Sternjaeger Posted June 11, 2014 Author Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) this thing in bold is a strong exaggeration. Anyways, the devs flew yak-52, and besides that there is a guy who flew il2, mig-3 and i-16 and he is integrated in the developing and hell even a real ww2 pilot. I guess I will stay with trusting them. So a yak-52, a tricycle, radial-engined dual seat is ok as reference, whilst a T-6, which at least is a taildragger, isn't? As for the "real ww2 pilot", do you really think that it's the sort of stuff that really helps? I mean, the memories of an +85 years old man? The only input I'd value for FM would be from modern warbird operators, so if Steve Hinton sat there with me and talked me through stuff, I'd surely pay attention to what he says, especially because he has VAST experience on a hugely diversified array of warbirds.. have a look at the dev work done for the DCS Mustang, in comparison flying a Yak-52 for an afternoon and is a bit of a laughable experience, don't you think? Seriously guys, do you even realise how silly some of the statements you make are?! Edited June 11, 2014 by Sternjaeger 1
DD_bongodriver Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 I know I had a laugh in a yak-52, loved every minute of it.
Gort Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 There is only one solution- let's buy our own Bf-109 and test it ourselves. We won't need a Spit, they will show up on their own when they learn of our intent. Who's in?
Nonolem Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Seriously guys, do you even realise how silly some of the statements you make are?! No I don't. I have not yet read anything written by a BF 109 pilote.
Recommended Posts