Game version 4.703 discussion: New Sky, Ju-88-C6, Gotha G.V, H.P.400, Griffons Campaign

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Oh!  Can there be something done about the brightness of full map during night missions?  Since they are more appealing to fly now it’s like a flash bang when you open it up for navigation…    then closing it takes some time for the eyes or the screen to adjust in vr… ?

[Monksilver]

 

Anyone else notice a black hole above Orion? 

[too-cool]

5 hours ago, Vishnu said:

 

If you have pilot in cockpit mod, this happens.

 

 

AS well, I've tried starting a career in JU88C and for the life of me, I can't find it on Stalingrad or Kuban.   I even looked in the squadrons listed by Jason.    What am I doing wrong?

No mods installed/activated and the pilot appears to be jumping up/down in cockpit.  TC

[BMA_FlyingShark]

32 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

Anyone else notice a black hole above Orion? 

Maybe it's an anachronism and Beatlegueze went supernova a few years to soon?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[moeburn]

3 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

Maybe we could do like another certain sim and dim the screen to mimic the human eyes reaction when looking into direct sunlight...
 

 

We do, tick the "HDR" box in the graphics settings.  It is not 10-bit Dolby HDR that requires an HDR-compatible monitor.  It is the old school HDR setting like the one we saw in Half Life 2, that includes eye adaptation. 

[kendo]

Just tried the Ju88 C-6 for first time. I always expected this to be the 'so what?' aircraft in BON for me, the least interesting and least used.

 

But I've had my mind changed completely. What a gem! Just did a take-off and train hunting mission on one of the winter maps. Really surprised by the speed and handling. And a great stable gun platform. Huge fun..... until I clipped a tree with my wing and fireballed into the ground.

 

It was actually an inspired choice to include it.

 

You've really hit it out of the ballpark with this update. 3 great planes, plus the new lighting and sky.    ?

[Vishnu]

8 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Try using the filter system, and toggle off all of the aircraft aside from the 88C. In kuban they are located on the west side of the Kerch strait. 

Problem solved....It was the extended careers mod.... 

[[CPT]Crunch]

5 hours ago, moeburn said:

I'm new to this game so I didn't know "prop hanging" was a controversial feature of the BF-109's flight model.  I'll agree it looks silly and definitely wouldn't have been seen by combat pilots in WW2, but did anyone point out that "prop hanging" is actually a perfectly realistic depiction of a high-TWR plane in slow flight?

 

I just hope this fix is actually realistic, and not because nobody knew you could actually do that with a BF-109 irl. 

And you can still prop hang, but what you can't do anymore is redirect your nose while exceeding your alpha for an accurate shot, especially while at the lower end speed region.

[US103_Baer]

Really liking this update for FC. Great job Dev team.

I know the release has a few little bugs here and there and there's still a huge amount to work on for FC, but the HP400 and Gotha are amazing and should have a big impact on the Sim.

Sky, clouds and evening/mornings look great too.

 

An unexpected improvement is Convergence. It now visually models the various bullet trajectories depending on their weight and your desired convergent distance.

This has been a thing since forever so thank you to whoever sorted this out.

The Aldis/gun angle fix for SE5a is another longtime issue now resolved. Look forward to the SPAD 7 getting it's Aldis visuals fixed too ?

[Blitzen]

10 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Because I'm such a nice guy:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Apologies for my poor framerate, my poor gunnery, and my lack of smooth camera movement. Otherwise, it's an okay video.

 

The plane feels pretty nimble for its size. I was flying with about a 50% fuel load.

 

Don't know what you mean about the cannon breeches exactly. I took a screen of the ventral tray:

 

  Hide contents

 

Many thanks for your efforts…I wonder if anyone ever looped a Ju-88 on purpose & still had wings afterwards? 

Canon breeches…oh… in the CloD DW version ( not to compare too much…) you see the recoil as the canon blasts away .There may be some differences in the weapons available in the sims …

I’ve had lots of ttime double getting the Ju-88 off the ground on take off , is the new “C” any better/easier?

[oc2209]

19 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

Many thanks for your efforts…I wonder if anyone ever looped a Ju-88 on purpose & still had wings afterwards? 

Canon breeches…oh… in the CloD DW version ( not to compare too much…) you see the recoil as the canon blasts away .There may be some differences in the weapons available in the sims …

I’ve had lots of ttime double getting the Ju-88 off the ground on take off , is the new “C” any better/easier?

 

I'd loop the Spruce Goose if it was in the sim.

 

In fairness to the Ju-88, it did have stronger than average wings because of its secondary dive bomber role. Also, I'm not really doing a powered loop all the way through. I'm only flying at ~75% throttle, so I'm stalling at the top of the loop, and not really picking up much speed at the bottom.

 

As for takeoff, it did pull me off the runway my first attempt; after which I decided to ride the brakes really hard, since opposite rudder is useless. I brought the throttle up to about 20%, braked as I started to veer off, then increased to 50%, then finally went to full.

[IckyATLAS]

Historically has the JU-88C seen action in the Kuban in 1943?

If yes I would put it in my Kuban campaign.

10 hours ago, Monksilver said:

 

Anyone else notice a black hole above Orion? 

Well done, this means that you checked the sky map and the star and constellation positions etc. And so you found the Easter Egg that the developers put in hoping it would not be discovered before Easter 2030 ?

Kidding, no idea what it is but really nice to have. I would keep it that way.

[Youtch]

6 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

And you can still prop hang, but what you can't do anymore is redirect your nose while exceeding your alpha for an accurate shot, especially while at the lower end speed region.

I am very glad for any change that made the game realistic and this is a fantastic updates.

 

There are some videos showing other planes like P47, Lagg3, Hurricane helicoptering on their prop while being in perfect control. Do we know if there are plan to review the flight model of other planes as well at some point?

 

I understand those things take time and will come gradually.

[Elem]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

Historically has the JU-88C seen action in the Kuban in 1943?

If yes I would put it in my Kuban campaign.

It is.

[CountZero]

21 minutes ago, Youtch said:

I am very glad for any change that made the game realistic and this is a fantastic updates.

 

There are some videos showing other planes like P47, Lagg3, Hurricane helicoptering on their prop while being in perfect control. Do we know if there are plan to review the flight model of other planes as well at some point?

 

I understand those things take time and will come gradually.

and if you bather to read devs explanation ,insted looking at axis fans propaganda, about 109 helecopter fix you would see that they already chack all other airplanes and error was only found on some 109 types.

[Youtch]

5 hours ago, CountZero said:

about 109 helecopter fix you would see that they already chack all other airplanes and error was only found on some 109 types.

I m not saying that 109 did not need a fix, just the opposite I clearly said that i am very glad Bf109 got an adjustment. I actually tend to fly RAF or USAF planes.

 

But there are videos of other planes, flying vertical with no speed and maintaining full control, which seem to be defying the laws of physics.

 

I understand that this behavior might correspond to another type of issue, and hence it is not related to the specific problem addressed for the Bf109.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Youtch

[=621=Samikatz]

Fixing every flight model issue at once is obviously a much greater task than going through them one at a time. These take research, effort, and testing, of course they're doing it an airframe at a time

[DragonDaddy]

1 hour ago, GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* said:

.

The sad issue here is that if you post any videos with proves that planes like the 47, lagg 3 , or 51b makes " hovering" , the admins here just delete the video.. 

After all the good work the developers have done, why would you think they’re trying to hide flaws? They are continually repairing and upgrading this sim. But they can’t do it all at once or in the order that we might prefer. I believe they will continue to attempt to make this a great experience. 

[radio]

Please repair the turret mistakes for the tanks in TC !

Edited March 17, 2022 by radio

[Bilbo_Baggins]

17 minutes ago, radio said:

Please repair the turret mistakes for the tanks in TC !

 

What's wrong with the turrets?

[[CPT]Crunch]

109's excel near that 300 Mph zone, for the first time the later models bring readily noticeable improvements over the earlier birds especially in their upper speed band as you go with increased power.  I'd say common sense and history seem to align, certainly they didn't build upon the earlier models for a negative return, not when survival was at stake.  But unfortunately many of the western allies can match it and spank them by simply staying above those optimal speeds, not so hard to do with a power and maneuverability advantage above 270 Mph.  There's now a reason to ditch F's and the early G's, and that lines up with what they did historically.  The early 109's while able to reach those combat speeds simply can't fight at or maintain them long enough to be effective.  Pretty much should change the entire way to view the 109's as a series in Il-2.

 

Whats really noticeable is the lagging Russian plane set now.  Think that's where the anger issues are really going to brew, they're badly outmatched against late model Luftwaffe, but is that really a wrong thing.  Needs more La-7's... 

[Denum]

The Yaks are absolutely garbage against the 109s right now. Even with the Yaks speed it's really hard to survive a engagement as the instant turn is so high they practically flip out of your sights. You can't follow the turn as you are really ripping G's at speed. 

 

Flying the P40 against the F2/F4 is absolutely out of the question now also. 

 

It wasn't fun. I just went back to flying my iL2 and hitting rear depots.

 

I still feel the roll rate over 400mph is wildly high. The clipped wing spits had incredible roll rates and at speed the 109 can flat scissors you with ease. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Denum

[JG5_Schuck]

19 hours ago, moeburn said:

 

We do, tick the "HDR" box in the graphics settings.  It is not 10-bit Dolby HDR that requires an HDR-compatible monitor.  It is the old school HDR setting like the one we saw in Half Life 2, that includes eye adaptation. 

Sorry, i was always under the impression that HDR extended the range of contrast and colours so these would be closer to the human eye.
Not that it dimmed the screen in the manner that the pupil does, ie reducing the amount of total light entering the eye?

[Luftschiff]

Of course I choose the first day of this patch to go allied for a campaign and got absolutely trashed by 109's experience told me I could outdive and outturn. This will need some re-learning but I'm glad the extreme lawn-dartiness of the later schmitts is gone and, as other have said, finally there's are reasons to ditch the Fs. I can't speak for the need to tune it, it seems a step in the right direction in general terms though. 

[Sneaksie]

4.703b hotfix

 

1. Bf 109 G6 boost corrected (it was wrong with one of the modifications);
2. Handley Page O/400 pilot has a sidearm;
3. Handley Page O/400 and Gotha G.V can drop all the bombs at once;
4. Handley Page O/400 sideslip indicator is working;
5. Landing gear strut won't be erroneously shown together with upper left detached part of the Handley Page O/400 wing;
6. Turret gunners should no more get stuck in a position after quick switching between different turrets;
7. P-51D-15 flight stick looks fine with gyro gunsight installed;
8. A critical issue with Battle of Moscow Career mode phases 2-5 has been fixed. To apply the fix, please skip a day and it should be fine the next day;
9. Many historical campaigns scenarios were corrected so they won't start when it's too dark;
10. The visible size of the stars has been reduced.

[Gora_]

Thx for the quick patch. Are there any plans to fix the sun effect in the VR? It is very annoying. 

 

Same with the broken nav lights that you managed to fix but rolled it back in the last patch  

 

EDIT: I just saw new stars and.... hmm, how to say. I really appreciate your fix and that you are trying to do something but... plenty o them are still too big. Like ping pong balls  Ask anyone playing Reverb G2.

Edited March 17, 2022 by =LG/F=Gora_

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

42 minutes ago, Sneaksie said:

10. The visible size of the stars has been reduced.

Thanks for the review.

Question without malice, just to clarify and have more information if possible. Are VR people taken into account for the star size issue? I still see them as big, not all of them, but the ones that stand out are obviously excessive, it's not natural, I understand that my fellow monitors see small pixels, but in VR it's like playing Elite Dangerous, all with the utmost respect, I know you do a amazing job.

With this image I want to convey what is really shocking, to the eye, from the VR

Edited March 17, 2022 by Ala13_UnopaUno_VR

[BP_Lizard]

Message shows that the game needs to be updated to the latest version but there’s no download available on Steam yet.

[Roland_HUNter]

2 minutes ago, BP_Lizard said:

Message shows that the game needs to be updated to the latest version but there’s no download available on Steam yet.

Restart steam.

[BP_Lizard]

5 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Restart steam.

 Thanks. But I have done so several times already. Maybe the server is just busy, I'll try later.

[Guest deleted@134347]

Love the update. Thank you, devs!  C6 is awesome and a total surprise to the allied attackers when they over shoot the 88 and get several 20mm in their behinds. lol.

 

 One pet peeve:   

VR limit bubble size in C6 is ridiculously small on its left/right sides. If i'm sitting right in the CENTER of the bubble I can't even turn/pan my head left/right without moving the whole bubble with it. C'mon.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

as other have said, finally there's are reasons to ditch the Fs.

 

Never! F-4 forever!

 

1 hour ago, Sneaksie said:

4.703b hotfix

10. The visible size of the stars has been reduced.

 

I shall mourn you, overly bright stars. Gone too soon.

 

Bright Star

by John Keats

 

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art--
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
No--yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever--or else swoon to death.

[86th_Buzzi]

What's going on with the 109s new roll rate at high speed? It seems a bit high compared to tests and documents from the period. 

[Dr_Molem]

3 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

What's going on with the 109s new roll rate at high speed? It seems a bit high compared to tests and documents from the period. 

 

It clearly is...

[Denum]

24 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

What's going on with the 109s new roll rate at high speed? It seems a bit high compared to tests and documents from the period. 

Yeah the high speed handling and low speed turn rate are pretty phenomenal right now. 

 

I was always under the impression that the Yaks really held their own on the deck in turn fights but as mentioned earlier we got absolutely whipped under 350kph.

 

I always felt the roll at high speed was pretty accurate before. 

 

Some allied aircraft were definitely over performing at low speed (P51s and Tempest mostly come to mind) 

 

 

[86th_Buzzi]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

Yeah the high speed handling and low speed turn rate are pretty phenomenal right now. 

 

I was always under the impression that the Yaks really held their own on the deck in turn fights but as mentioned earlier we got absolutely whipped under 350kph.

 

I always felt the roll at high speed was pretty accurate before. 

 

Some allied aircraft were definitely over performing at low speed (P51s and Tempest mostly come to mind) 

 

 

At this point the low speed turn rate seems reasonable to me, as I understand the 109s handled exceptionally well at low speed. It's the high speed roll, particularly approaching 400mph. The game's current implementation is contrary to everything I've read about their high-speed handling.

[Denum]

9 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

At this point the low speed turn rate seems reasonable to me, as I understand the 109s handled exceptionally well at low speed. 

I think they'd be in spitfire territory for roll and turn rate below 400mph.

But I'm curious if they're actually out turning the spitfire now. Haven't really had a chance to test it but in quick missions I almost never had a moment where I could not pull enough lead for a shot.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Denum

[ICDP]

Can the people saying the 109 is wrong please post their test results and their source data please?  I'm genuinely interested to see where or if it is indeed wrong.

[Roland_HUNter]

5 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

At this point the low speed turn rate seems reasonable to me, as I understand the 109s handled exceptionally well at low speed. It's the high speed roll, particularly approaching 400mph. The game's current implementation is contrary to everything I've read about their high-speed handling.

Me 109 E-4:
"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls. I established a recommended minimum looping speed of 450 kmh and found that the gearing of the propellor control was just right for looping with a little practise it was easy to keep the RPM at 2300 throughout looping manoeuvres. I would not however describe looping as easy. The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. I was all sweaty. At that time the Me's were new to us."
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank."
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

109 G-2/Trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.

- AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. [...] It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without apparently being fired at. Please see sections diving and stick forces for pilot comments on the subject.

[senseispcc]

Tanks, for this very fast corrections.