Developer Diary 311 - Discussion

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

The 109s are still awesome planes. Cant say that about all the Allied planes.

 

Time to speculate!! I think he's referring to the P-47?? ?? 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Best news I've heard in a while!!! Thanks Jason and co.!

[JG7_X-Man]

3 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

...The 109 was not the UBER plane some think it was, especially later in the war. Yes, there were some later mods that boosted it's performance and I hope to model them someday when we can.

 Oh boy! You heard the man say it himself! They are on the teams radar! Bf 109 G-6/AS, Bf 109 G-14/AS & Bf 109 G-10 in no particular order! 

10 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

- The position of heavenly bodies now depends not only on time and date, but also on geographic coordinates (including when moving around the map).

 

What! 

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, QB.Buzzi said:

 

I've read similar reports. Gotta remember that when they say "improved roll", it dosn't neccesarily mean it won't have a sluggish roll. Just less sluggish than before. We can only wait for the patch to see.

 

 

That's true, but nevertheless, poor roll at speed was one of the 109's major drawbacks compared to more modern designs. Somewhat akin to the Zero's high speed handling.

 

It was always something I thought of as an unalterable fact of life, like death and taxes. Even a minor change will probably be noticeable, given how low the bar was set.

 

But yes, might as well wait to see. I'm guessing there'll be a significant adjustment period as people discover, by trial and error, what is now possible, impossible, and inadvisable regarding the modified flight model.

 

I wonder if the changes will be updated for each 109's technical information in the game? The listed turn rates, climb rates, etc. Unfortunately, roll and acceleration changes are just something we'll have to 'feel' and compare to memory.

[Asgar]

7 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

You haven't even played the patch. Wtf are you going on about?

The best thing is the nerfing axis planes AS ALWAYS… hä? I mean sure we all remember when they nerfed the entire 190 line by improving its handling and reducing the accelerated stall. I will never forgive them for that! ?

[Beebop]

7 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Nothing we do will ever be good enough.

Whaaaat?  You can't please all of the people all of the time? 

Next I'll be told the earth is round and it goes around the sun.

It's madness I tell you, madness! ?

 

 

The Ju-88C in the next release?  I seldom fly German but this one looks intriguing!  I'll move enough mud to open a new canal system in Rhineland!

[Roland_HUNter]

9 hours ago, Denum said:

We've actively said the Tempest is broken, and have a thread trying to get them to fix the CL max. 

 

Because we actually want realistic FMs. 

 

We don't try to gate keep by defending obviously broken stuff? 

*Cough* 

 

 

What exactly is broken on the P51B? Its supposed to be faster then the P51D. If you get it to slow it wants to drop a wing. At speed if the 109 driver is careful you can tire the stang out and it's a free kill. 

The infinite energy what the plane does have sometimes.
When he turning much more than you, and he still can go up.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Good News, specially reagarding details on World depiction and the fine tunning of the Me-109s flight dynamics.

[MarcoPegase44]

Spoiler

 

it would be good if @Jason also thought un the team radar Before News Bf109 of the Spitfire LFIXc which will be really missing for BON and the Normandy map.  very common aircraft in 1944. the Spitfire IXe (spitfireXVI)is not at all adapted to this period.  it would not be a big job to create it and would have a commercial success as a collector plane

Edited March 12, 2022 by MarcoPegase44
Error

[Livai]

Quote

- New sky technology and improvements to lighting. Should see a reduction in overall blue tint.

 

I will look outside when I install this update and see if it works.

[Roland_HUNter]

10 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

A lot of virtual pilots just like easy kills

Easy kill? with 109?
Are you tried to fly against experinced pilot in P-51 B vs your 109 G-6?
You can't even boom and zoom on him, because its faster and with better speed it can climb with you.

But please tell me, I doing it wrong. If yes: Tell me what should I do except bailing out.

[Pikestance]

True to real life; no experience pilot will be an easy kill in any (contemporaneous*) aircraft. The difference between an easy kill and a not so easy kill is "self-awareness." There is one added factor that virtual pilots will be less familiar with the nuance of the aircraft they are in than an actual real life pilot. (Better training). So, in virtual world you have those odd pilots with experience and self- awareness, but are not as familiar with their aircraft. In the end, it is the pilots that lack self-awareness or lack the ability to spot other aircraft that ultimately are the "easy kills." 

 

Anyway, if you want balance over realism is what you want, then this is probably not the game for you. 

[354thFG_Leifr]

19 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

But please tell me, I doing it wrong. If yes: Tell me what should I do except bailing out.

 

You haven't even had an opportunity to try the update; can you not at least hold your reservations until you've played for a couple of hours? ?

[Aurora_Stealth]

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

What confuses me about that change, however, is that stick forces were supposed to be very high at combat speed.

 

I have an account from a modern warbird pilot who also interviewed WWII German pilots. He says that the aileron is so heavy over 300 knots, that he cannot roll the plane to the right (he's right-handed). He can only roll it to the left, and then with two hands.

 

I have another pilot's account (modern) from the Haynes 109 book, where the pilot compares the E to the G. The E, he describes, has clean and responsive aileron control and roll rate. The G, he calls 'positively pedestrian'.

 

The E was the last good roller.

 

Stick forces were indeed high enough that you would ideally want two hands on the stick for a hard manoeuvre or turn, above speeds of 300/350mph. Stick forces for 109G are approximately 10lbs per G, similar to Mustang. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do it - it's just physically tiring, especially in a small cockpit to keep doing it lots.. plus the fatigue from G's. 

 

I've got that Haynes manual too, it's okay but has many gaps in it. The E model did have a particularly nice roll rate... but this was best around 250mph/400kmh. The faster you go above that, the more that roll rate starts to taper off, so that around 350mph its just slightly above say the Spitfire which didn't have a great roll rate (without clipped wing) ... but at that point it was a marginal advantage. The F/G models with the altered wing have a slightly lower roll rate at lower speeds, but better maintains its roll rate up the speed range - meaning you can remain more agile at higher speeds.

 

This was part of the aerodynamic research that went on, as the Germans were pushing to reduce drag from the E model and optimise the F and then G models for higher speeds including to some degree combat manoeuvring.

 

Ran out of upvotes yesterday, liked Jason's message.. cheers to him for the extra information about what instigated the changes; to reassure people. I agree with him - the 109 has its limitations which the allies sought to overcome, yet it proved a tough nut to crack.

 

I'm sure the team will do a great job with it.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Aurora_Stealth

[dburne]

All sounding great really looking forward to the update!

[LLv24_Zami]

Before going too much drama about 109 FM, I`d suggest wait a bit to try it for yourself. In the list there`s also corrections which benefits 109 pilots. What I`ve seen so far, no need to overreact. You still kill and die in 109 as before. Which one it is, depends on you basically.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, Leifr said:

 

You haven't even had an opportunity to try the update; can you not at least hold your reservations until you've played for a couple of hours? ?

What I said, its is in the game at the moment.

[jeanba]

18 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The Churchill always evoked images of a prehistoric thing crawling from the swamp.

That is why il is my favorites tank

[purK]

10 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Easy kill? with 109?
Are you tried to fly against experinced pilot in P-51 B vs your 109 G-6?

You know very well even non mw50 109s can out climb a 51b, especially if it only has the -3 engine. You even did this to me once, climbed away but for some reason gave up all your advantage and chased me afterwards, so I reversed you and won the fight. Yeah I'd say that's pilot error, the 109 you complain is underperforming gave you the initial advantage, and you the pilot threw that advantage away.

109s are great planes if you fly them properly and with a bit of patience, and this isn't going to change with the next update.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Krupnski

[Denum]

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Easy kill? with 109?
Are you tried to fly against experinced pilot in P-51 B vs your 109 G-6?
You can't even boom and zoom on him, because its faster and with better speed it can climb with you.

But please tell me, I doing it wrong. If yes: Tell me what should I do except bailing out.

 

The 51B is super fast yes, and if you boom and zoom one that's got a few hundred MPH it won't be fun. 

 

I try to just push them to turn, if they run that's fine, but if they commit to the turn fight retain your speed. The 51 will gas its pilot before the 109 most of the time and then the fight is entirely yours. 

 

You can out climb them at will and if you beat them to sub 300mph you can clown them in the vertical at will. 

 

I've been on the receiving end of some really good 109s. I'm either to tired to keep turning or out of speed and get murdered from above.

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, Krupnski said:

You know very well even non mw50 109s can out climb a 51b, especially if it only has the -3 engine. You even did this to me once, climbed away but for some reason gave up all your advantage and chased me afterwards, so I reversed you and won the fight. Yeah I'd say that's pilot error, the 109 you complain is nerfed gave you the initial advantage, and you the pilot threw that advantage away.

109s are great planes if you fly them properly and with a bit of patience, and this isn't going to change with the next update.

For "some reason" you started to catch me, after you started flying in a straight line and with bigger speed you started to climb after me.

That's why I attacked you.

2 hours ago, Krupnski said:

so I reversed you and won the fight.

And it was a 3vs1 afterwards....So please if you mention a specific dogfight, do not distort it.
Thank you!

PS: After that specific dogfight, we did some practice duel, and I know you are a better pilot than me, much better, and I respect that, but I hate when someone distort things.

[purK]

46 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

For "some reason" you started to catch me, you started fly in straight line and with bigger speed you started to climb after me.
That's why I attacked you.

The fact is my P51B was unable to climb with your 109, so I broke off and flew away for a bit until I noticed you gave up your altitude advantage by chasing me. Your mistake put me in the perfect position to turn and equalize/win the fight.

The first step to improving your own skill is acknowledging those mistakes and learning from it, not blaming it on your plane.

It was not a 3v1, I was already on your 6 shooting at you by the time some P38 flew in and tried to as well. ?

Edited March 12, 2022 by Krupnski

[Roland_HUNter]

21 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

The fact is my P51B was unable to climb with your 109, so I broke off and flew away for a bit until I noticed you gave up your altitude advantage by chasing me. Your mistake put me in the perfect position to turn and equalize/win the fight.

The first step to improving your own skill is acknowledging those mistakes and learning from it, not blaming it on your plane.

Interesting, I don't "suffer" with my F4 in CloD...Hmmmm.
And I doing the same.

21 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

It was not a 3v1, I was already on your 6 shooting at you by the time some P38 flew in and tried to as well. ?

I really should not delete that replay I thought we already discussed that....before the practice...but looks like I cannot do nothing about toxicism.
But nevertheless. I Forgive you! o7

[purK]

48 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Interesting, I don't "suffer" with my F4 in CloD...Hmmmm.
And I doing the same.

I really should not delete that replay I thought we already discussed that....before the practice...but looks like I cannot do nothing about toxicism.
But nevertheless. I Forgive you! o7

I am not trying to be toxic, I am trying to help you understand there's always room to improve your own skill as we discussed before in practice fights. Throwing around accusations and such about the 109 under performing, when it's not the case, is not helping yourself or anybody here.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

This is a flight model rework based on new data on the VDM propellers the devs asked a few years ago, it allows to correct some of the performance discrepancies the devs acknowledged a while ago, that included too much climb rate in some cases, too much acceleration in a dive, but also too bad sustained turn across the board, some speed discrepancies as well.

So some variants will get faster or slower at different altitudes depending on what was wrong with them, or climb less, and most of them should have better sustained turn rate too.

[MasterBaiter]

A lot of skill issues in the comments here.

 

The more realistic the better; good job devs.

 

Tempest and P-47 next? Or the flip-flop 190s?

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I've got that Haynes manual too, it's okay but has many gaps in it. The E model did have a particularly nice roll rate... but this was best around 250mph/400kmh. The faster you go above that, the more that roll rate starts to taper off, so that around 350mph its just slightly above say the Spitfire which didn't have a great roll rate (without clipped wing) ... but at that point it was a marginal advantage. The F/G models with the altered wing have a slightly lower roll rate at lower speeds, but better maintains its roll rate up the speed range - meaning you can remain more agile at higher speeds.

 

I have a few other books besides the Haynes. This excerpt in particular stands out to me:

 

"It is very light on all controls below 400 KPH, but the turning radius is poor compared to our fighters. At high speed the controls become very heavy."

 

Major Frederic Borsodi, chief of fighter aircraft testing (US), referring to a 109G-6 trop, flown in clean configuration (no underwing guns). It was captured in May of '43 in Tunisia. Its seat armor was removed for testing.

 

Note that he makes the cutoff from light to heavy at 400 KPH. Of course that doesn't mean it instantly becomes heavy at 401 KPH, but we can assume it gets proportionally worse with more speed.

 

One of the few good things he had to say about it was its rate of climb.

 

So, this is my point:

 

Does the sim calculate stick forces, or does it only factor in the mechanical limits of an airframe? Obviously with things like rate of climb, it's all mechanical. But turning and rolling tests (real world) require human inputs and are thus influenced by stick forces. If the stick forces become so high that no one other than an ambidextrous superman can move the stick fully to impart maximum control efficacy, wouldn't that render the mechanical limit meaningless?

[Donik]

Please revamp all flight models so they are the best only when I'm flying them.  That way I am sure I can only blame myself and not the flight model.  kthx!

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 3/11/2022 at 3:14 PM, JG5_Schuck said:

Hmmmm does this mean prop hanging?
I see a lot of fighter planes hanging in mid air for several seconds, and not just the 109/Axis.
It applies to all, i always thought it was a limitation of the game in able to produce the effects of gravity effectively..... 
As quite clearly this would be a difficult think to achieve considering the complexities of modeling it correctly at different altitudes etc..
As long as it is applied equally to all aircraft  i'm fine with it!

As a Red flyer, I agree. The Hurricane is another bad offender and definitely worse than the 109 at prop hanging. The 110 even more so. Not sure about Yaks because I never fly them, but I wouldn't doubt it. 

[Pikestance]

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

<snip>

 

Does the sim calculate stick forces, or does it only factor in the mechanical limits of an airframe? Obviously with things like rate of climb, it's all mechanical. But turning and rolling tests (real world) require human inputs and are thus influenced by stick forces. If the stick forces become so high that no one other than an ambidextrous superman can move the stick fully to impart maximum control efficacy, wouldn't that render the mechanical limit meaningless?

 

I would be totally fine if they would calculate (or measure) stamina in the similar fashion as they do "G's." With each extreme maneuver you lose stamina to the point you may not be able to perform certain maneuvers. The recovery system can be similar to the engine recovery system, but gradually becomes cumulative. Of course such an inclusion would revolutionize it. I know in PS if you sprint you eventually tire out and you have trouble aiming the rifle. However, in PS drinking water is magic, but it is something. 

 

[firdimigdi]

On 3/11/2022 at 10:14 PM, JG5_Schuck said:

Hmmmm does this mean prop hanging?
I see a lot of fighter planes hanging in mid air for several seconds, and not just the 109/Axis.
It applies to all, i always thought it was a limitation of the game in able to produce the effects of gravity effectively..... 
As quite clearly this would be a difficult think to achieve considering the complexities of modeling it correctly at different altitudes etc..
As long as it is applied equally to all aircraft  i'm fine with it!

It's not just being able to hang off the prop, any plane with decent power/weight ratio can achieve that to some degree, it's also a matter of maintaining rudder authority to the point of being able to accurately maneuver. As far as I understand that's the issue addressed here.

[Aurora_Stealth]

14 hours ago, oc2209 said:

So, this is my point:

 

Does the sim calculate stick forces, or does it only factor in the mechanical limits of an airframe? Obviously with things like rate of climb, it's all mechanical. But turning and rolling tests (real world) require human inputs and are thus influenced by stick forces. If the stick forces become so high that no one other than an ambidextrous superman can move the stick fully to impart maximum control efficacy, wouldn't that render the mechanical limit meaningless?

 

Good question, I can't really answer that specifically as I'm not sure.

 

But speculating here, perhaps there is some proportional baseline calculation? maybe linked to an amount of force defined for an 'average' pilot which then gets influenced by the pilot physiology (G-forces etc).

 

The control column / stick can be the mechanical limit IRL - although its not exactly desirable to have it that way when you are on the limits of the flight envelope. On the other hand, just because you reach the limit of the stick travel doesn't mean the aircraft isn't responding. It does depend on the stability & control philosophy of the designer and how much mechanical force you want to put in the hands of the pilot. Too much mechanical advantage or 100% stick efficiency if you want to call it that can cause oversensitivity and overcompensation by a pilot in certain situations or areas of the flight envelope which could contribute to a stall/spin or potentially a catastrophic result (e.g. high speed dives, when using large amounts of trim or when the aircraft and its control surfaces become damaged, or aircraft in an unbalanced state etc) so its not always desirable.

 

Regarding how much stick force to manoeuvre with; I'd have thought most healthy adults are going to be able to pull 50 to 60 lbs of force with two hands for a few seconds at least (something akin to a stiff high speed pull out in a 109), the real question is... for how long can they do this as an individual? some perhaps only a few seconds, others minutes... hence stamina/physiology playing a key role here.

 

However seeing as you can modify your own control input sensitivity for the stick and other settings, it could be used to manipulate how quickly you can apply that force in-game I guess.

 

But for example you're probably looking at well past 450 mph for the '109 G for the kind of truly stiff and almost unresponsive levels of control forces described above; which is going to be in a high speed dive; so serious manoeuvring isn't going to be possible there. There would be some control over the ailerons; but elevator forces do become progressively quite stiff - almost rock solid at extreme speeds around 450mph - 500mph. Yet pilots were still able to pull out at 560mph, so... the aircraft was able to respond even if a very slow response/delay from holding that stick at max limit (being very disconcerting) when you are that fast. Then again, as your altitude drops the air density gets thicker which is probably going to help you out on dive recovery. In that situation its also down to the pilot's instinct and experience to give sufficient time to recover by pulling back on the stick early enough - something that training and familiarity would build up over time.

 

The alternative would be to offer more control stick 'efficiency' but potentially offer the pilot enough stick and control force to cause premature structural failure in high speed manoeuvres or dives if overdone, or causing excessive sensitivity and control surface oscillation at high speed or the opportunity to achieve excessive pull-out forces causing violent pilot blackout etc which may inadvertently create a worse situation than simply having to hold a high stick force for a relatively short period of time.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Aurora_Stealth

[=621=Samikatz]

The game definitely calculates pilot strength because when you get shot your pilot gets weaker and you can't pull as hard

[9JG52_Bubi]

Great work.

[[CPT]Crunch]

In a way other flight sims have it easier, they get to model modern aircraft with actual flight control limiters and systems limiters actually built in.  We don't get that luxury and someone has to decide where to draw the line that wasn't ever there.   I like the Tomcat/Tiger II type solutions better in another sim, pull it too hard and the stubs where your wings formerly were are burning as your tumbling into the ground, or you suffer other mechanical damages to the air frame. 

 

Sure its like flying with auto assist via a computer, but I'm also a realist and know there are programming and game play expectation limitations piled in the mix.  Realism via onboard Flight Limitations Computer Controlled Systems, just like those F-16's Baby!  So anyone crying about realism, just STFU already, be happy what you got and where its at, the level is pretty darn good for most aircraft.  The ones that can't seem to stall or ever depart controlled flight really should get some tuning though, that should be a game play priority thing if nothing else.  I'd like to see more crutches kicked out to take it all up a notch.

When was the last time anyone banked a 109 or many others and pulled the stick full back and as they're bleeding off speed so fast and hard they eventually fell out, lost sufficient energy to maintain, or snapped of their turn?  That's simply not even possible, instaAce with a flying aid.

[CUJO_1970]

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

But for example you're probably looking at well past 450 mph for the '109 G for the kind of truly stiff and almost unresponsive levels of control forces described above; which is going to be in a high speed dive; so serious manoeuvring isn't going to be possible there. There would be some control over the ailerons; but elevator forces do become progressively quite stiff - almost rock solid at extreme speeds around 450mph - 500mph. Yet pilots were still able to pull out at 560mph, so... the aircraft was able to respond even if a very slow response/delay from holding that stick at max limit (being very disconcerting) when you are that fast.

 

This is where the powered horizontal stab comes into play for the 109/190. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

 

The only place you can possibly get hurt in the flight envelope seems to be landing these days, or shot. 

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The game definitely calculates pilot strength because when you get shot your pilot gets weaker and you can't pull as hard

 

Good point.

 

4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Regarding how much stick force to manoeuvre with; I'd have thought most healthy adults are going to be able to pull 50 to 60 lbs of force with two hands for a few seconds at least (something akin to a stiff high speed pull out in a 109), the real question is... for how long can they do this as an individual? some perhaps only a few seconds, others minutes... hence stamina/physiology playing a key role here.

 

I think a successful 109 pilot had to be above average in terms of strength and endurance. Hartmann mentioned something along these lines, and he was very athletic in his youth.

 

Being able to make a hard turn/roll at 350+ MPH, 5 minutes into a combat situation, versus 15 minutes in, with the same level of control, was likely the difference between life and death in many cases.

 

I tested the P-51B in the sim the other day, just rolling, and it performed very well at any speed. I rolled it at 250 MPH, 300, and 350. Could barely tell the difference. This correlates with real world accounts (Wikipedia quote):

 

"The U.S. Air Forces, Flight Test Engineering, assessed the Mustang B on 24 April 1944 thus:

 

'The rate of climb is good and the high speed in level flight is exceptionally good at all altitudes, from sea level to 40,000 feet. The airplane is very maneuverable with good controllability at indicated speeds up to 400 MPH. The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent; however, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter. The cockpit layout is excellent, but visibility is poor on the ground and only fair in level flight.' "

 

So a Mustang pilot would have an absolute advantage over a 109 pilot in a long fight, assuming both pilots are of equal strength and conditioning. And, I'm sure, a P-47 pilot as well. This could well explain how so many experten bit the dust as 1944 progressed, along with plenty of other factors.

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

Best tip for 109 pilots, Flight High, do boom and zoom, and NEVER use the 109 for dogfight at the deck , it's hard when you see a single 109 trying to turn agains 3 yaks and been raped. Many people here blame the plane but they don't even know how to fly it. It's easy, just fly the whole thing high and be patience.

 

And thanks for the dev team for moving foward on every update in terms of fidelity to the real deal.

Edited March 14, 2022 by GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR*

[Gora_]

13 hours ago, GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* said:

Best tip for 109 pilots, Flight High, do boom and zoom, and NEVER use the 109 for dogfight at the deck , it's hard when you see a single 109 trying to turn agains 3 yaks and been raped. Many people here blame the plane but they don't even know how to fly it. It's easy, just fly the whole thing high and be patience.

 

And thanks for the dev team for moving foward on every update in terms of fidelity to the real deal.

It is always safer to flight high, but... that way you will never give support to the attackers that are working low over the target or your team mates that have to go low for many reasons. So flying high is... hartmaning  and it is not so good for winning the map.