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

[Denum]

20 minutes ago, ICDP said:

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.

Well that's actually proving to be really difficult. 

 

We have anecdotal evidence but that's not sufficient IMO. But it's stated by allied and German pilots alike, they got hard to roll from 300mph onward. Narrow cockpit also made it difficult to get alot force on the stick. 

 

At high speed all pilots will struggle to get full aileron deflection at high speed. In game my pilot only starts to lose force at 431mph in game. 

Spitfire was about 50% at that speed and the Yaks were about 25% of stick input. 

 

I've found some stuff to support it, but some of it is questionable. 

 

A nice report from Soviet testers but I can't read Russian  (G2)

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VVS-Me_109_G2.pdf

 

Here's a NACA chart where someone added in some data points. 

 

Dark yellow is fabric aileron Spitfire 

Dark purple is 109E testing by RAE 

Light Purple is 109F testing by DVL 

 

 

@Roland_HUNter

 

We aren't saying it shouldn't roll.

 

The issue is that it's roll rate is nearly unchanged from 300kph all the way to 650kph+.

 

As it sits now it out rolls the clipped Spitfire and nearly keeps up with the P47. NACA tests show a 360° roll taking 5ish seconds at 380mph for the P47 and the 109F should be over 14. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Denum

[86th_Buzzi]

19 minutes ago, ICDP said:

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.

This was RAF testing of captured 109E. From the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109 at War" by Armand van Ishoven.

 

Quick and dirty testing in single player found the 109 E7 rolling to approx. 45deg bank in about 2 seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roland_HUNter]

Just now, QB.Buzzi said:

This was RAF testing of captured 109E. From the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109 at War" by Armand van Ishoven.

 

Quick and dirty testing in single player found the 109 E7 rolling to approx. 45deg bank in about 2 seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

E-7 FM is not changed..........................................................

[Denum]

1 minute ago, Roland_HUNter said:

E-7 FM is not changed..........................................................

Exactly....

 

Hence why using it as a example ?

 

I feel bad even mentioning anything because I know people put some serious time and hard work into this. 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Denum

[Cravis]

2 hours ago, Sneaksie said:

4.703b hotfix
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;
 

 

This  may be a stupid question... but how do I skip a day?

 

Sorry... rather new a few days ago I also didn't know you could transfer in career... 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Cravis

[Roland_HUNter]

20 minutes ago, Denum said:

Exactly....

 

Hence why using it as a example ?

 

I feel bad even mentioning anything because I know people put some serious time and hard work into this. 

 

 

The E7 wing/propeller/fueslage/tail etc. are different than the F-G-K.....

[86th_Buzzi]

51 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

"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.

 

 

I'm specifically discussing high-speed roll rate. I agree that at low to mid speed the 109 should roll well.

 

Responding to the info you posted, a single player quick and dirty tests at approximately 400mph show the 109G6 Late out-rolling the FW190 A-6, P-47 D22, and Spitfire Mk IX (elliptical and clipped wing), contrary to the anecdotes you have provided. The only aircraft that bested it was the P-51 D15. 

 

I want to emphasize that I like 75% of the changes to the 109. The increased turn rates of the late war 109s and the better performance of the F2 seems correct. It's only the high-speed roll that appears off to me. 

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

E-7 FM is not changed..........................................................

But why would it be so drastically different than tests from the time?

Edited March 17, 2022 by QB.Buzzi

[Denum]

5 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

 

I want to emphasize that I like 75% of the changes to the 109. The increased turn rates of the late war 109s and the better performance of the F2 seems correct. It's only the high-speed roll that appears off to me. 

 

I'm in the same boat. 

 

The low speed handling seems a bit wild to me but I can also agree it needed some attention regardless. 

 

Overall very positive change. 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Denum

[LukeFF]

19 minutes ago, Cravis said:

This  may be a stupid question... but how do I skip a day?

 

Sorry... rather new a few days ago I also didn't know you could transfer in career... 

 

The best thing to do if you are not the unit commander is to load the mission, then press Esc and finish the mission. Once all missions for the day have been shown as being flown, you can then move to the next day. Once a new day is loaded, the game will draw fresh data from the config files, and the waypoint issue should no longer be present.

[oc2209]

49 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

I want to emphasize that I like 75% of the changes to the 109. The increased turn rates of the late war 109s and the better performance of the F2 seems correct. It's only the high-speed roll that appears off to me.

 

Makes sense. This is why I was originally asking (before the update) whether the sim took stick forces into account, or whether we would be reaching the mechanical limit of the 109's roll rate.

 

My understanding was that the Mustang was generally considered to have an okay roll rate, as I assumed the 109's was. Not as poor as the full-winged Spitfire, and not as good as a 190. What I further assumed was that a 109's stick forces would get higher as the 400 MPH threshold was neared, while a P-51's would be not quite as high. But mechanically speaking, they both should be able to roll at roughly the same rates, at least up to 400-ish. I know nothing beyond that, since speeds above 400MPH are not commonly mentioned in testing.

 

It's possible that the clipped-wing Spitfire is badly underperforming. I can't speak for the 109 beating a 190A-6. Something like that would have to be precisely measured, and if the 109 is still winning, yeah, that's something of a problem.

 

P-47's agility, so I believe, was somewhat dependent on altitude, was it not? I assume this relates to both turning and rolling. Could be wrong.

 

As for the 109F-2, yeah, I hated that thing. I mean, really, really hated flying it. In many respects it felt vastly inferior to the E series. One of the first 109s I tested after this update was an F-2, as I figured if I could stand flying it, the changes must be pretty substantial.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

3 hours ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

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

yes, most of the stars are still huge.  especially what i think is mars.. looks a stone throw away from the moon......   in VR.

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, QB.Buzzi said:

This was RAF testing of captured 109E. From the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109 at War" by Armand van Ishoven.

 

Quick and dirty testing in single player found the 109 E7 rolling to approx. 45deg bank in about 2 seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

About cramped cockpit:

Visibility from the cockpit and how cramped it war?
- Me 109 cockpit is often mentioned to be very cramped and to have poor visibility. Both are true to large extent, but we have to also remember that both are faily common features for the planes of the day. The Spitfire cockpit is very cramped as well and many Spitifre pilots felt the same as the Messerchmitt pilots - the felt they wore the plane around them.
- Let's see what a USN report has to say about P-51B for comparison: "Vision in the P-51B is notably poor forward, because of the low pilot position and heavy framing. VIsion aft also is poor, because of the limited head travel allowed by the narrow cockpit. The cockpit is cramped for space." That's pretty comparable to the 109.

And what are you quoted, I already mentioned before:

" 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. "

[[CPT]Crunch]

Something I don't get is how anyone can possibly claim reduced stick travel at greater speeds kills the rates.  Since more airspeed requires less deflection to get the same effects.  Some of the very writings presented here as evidence mention all of squat about the actual roll rates or effects on said.

[Bert_Foster]

para 21

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

[Jason_Williams]

Guys,

 

Take flight-model discussions to the proper area. This is not the thread for it.

 

Jason

[Denum]

If y'all have flown on Luki with the new lighting. 

 

Oh my sweet jesus.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

"Landing gear strut won't be erroneously shown together with upper left detached part of the Handley Page O/400 wing"

 

Thank you for that as, indeed, I've noticed this issue before it had been corrected. Today I'm testing again, turning 0/400s into pieces with my "spandaus", and all  falling debris behave now as separated pieces. I wonder if something hadn't change in the meantime. Before this later hotfix, the game gave the impression that the debris fell down to the ground and stayed on the ground a few minutes before disappearing. Now they disappear before even touching theground... is this correct or it is an impression of mine only?

 

 

[RyanR]

Many thanks for the update! Indeed, some strange stuff happened with BoM. All fixed.

 

-Ryan

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Here's a couple of things I noticed that may help those who cannot get the game to launch:

 

1).  After a complete uninstall and re-install, I noticed the main directory file has been placed in PROGRAM FILES instead of PROGRAM FILES (x86).  

      If you can't get the game to load, try a full re-install.

 

2). The new graphics system might be conflicting with user's graphics settings.  I'm not sure where the file is kept to save user graphic settings, but it might be helpful to find that file and either remove it before trying to start the program or to manually set all the parameters to the lowest possible settings. After that, if the game runs, you can set the graphics back to your previous settings.  

 

I hope this helps.  

[too-cool]

On 3/16/2022 at 11:47 AM, 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?

How do you get the pilot out of the cockpit? I'm not using any mods and I don't know where to look in order to remove the pilot.  TC

[ChicagoChad_VR]

22 hours ago, =LG/F=Gora_ said:

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.

Wow, I'm glad someone said it. Everyone in VR on the VirtualPilots server was mentioning how bright the sun is - hard to stay in formation when just feet away. I hope it's fixed soon. G2 user.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Managed to try out the new update on Wednesday on Flugpark. The resolution to the Airco's bombsight bug is much appreciated. Though do the trees in no mans land looks kind of large to anyone else? It looks similar to the Alternate Visibility that made aircraft appear larger when zoomed out and smaller when zoomed in. Might be able to grab some example footage tonight.

 

Also suggest changing the name of the O/400 skin that's currently named "RNAS" because the aircraft that the skin represents is not a RNAS machine.

 

[Sneaksie]

13 minutes ago, RNAS10_Oliver said:

Also suggest changing the name of the O/400 skin that's currently named "RNAS" because the aircraft that the skin represents is not a RNAS machine.

 

Do you know what ASD and COL mean? Or "Rec Pk".

[RNAS10_Oliver]

11 minutes ago, Sneaksie said:

 

Do you know what ASD and COL mean? Or "Rec Pk".

 

Yes.

 

ASD = Aeroplane Supply Depot.

COL = Crashed on Landing.

Rec Pk = Reception Park.

 

But the important bit's are the dates. They are all after 1st April 1918 which is when the RNAS and RFC amalgamated to become the RAF.

None of the 50 aircraft from the same production run as this serial number appear to have been delivered before this date.

 

ISBN: 9780851301914 is the source for that image.

Edited March 18, 2022 by RNAS10_Oliver

[BitchMadeLightGreenMarine]

400 kb per second Downloading speed for the update... It's gonna take like 2 hours to finish.  Just saying.  Thank you all for the hard work tho.  I do appreciate the game

Edited March 18, 2022 by BitchMadeLightGreenMarine

[Bilbo_Baggins]

8 minutes ago, BitchMadeLightGreenMarine said:

850 kb per second Downloading speed for the update... It's gonna take like 2 hours to finish.  Just saying.  Thank you all for the hard work tho.  I do appreciate the game

 

It jumps up and down. Might get boosted up and finished before you know it. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Am I the only one getting the canopy to open with the flaps up key bind (with the latest patch)?

[ACG_Saintt]

3 hours ago, ChicagoChad_VR said:

Wow, I'm glad someone said it. Everyone in VR on the VirtualPilots server was mentioning how bright the sun is - hard to stay in formation when just feet away. I hope it's fixed soon. G2 user.

Me too. I just can not remember the sun having such a dramatic effect when looking in that general direction.

[=IRSS=3wu]

?

Edited March 18, 2022 by =IRSS=3wu

[Gribb23**]

Whoah! Has Il-2 been hacked? My first download of his ver. failed to run properly (e.g. niggling issues like no aiming assist, no guns and unable to configure to correct). Just completed a 12 hour (!!) overnight reinstallation and on initialization got a Ransomware Program Blocked threat (never seen this before) warning (heu-aegis-crypt) from my virus protection program ( Micro Trend) indicating 3 campaign spitfire files affected and advice that Ransomware Program not removed. (Can't remedy this until after the weekend as MicroTrend only weekday technical help. But I am wondering if this may be related to hacker activity associated with the events in Ukraine and targeting of Russian business services?  Anyone?

[yeikov]

8 minutes ago, Gribb23** said:

indicating 3 campaign spitfire files affected

 

Which files are those? The campaigns included in the game (coming from the IL2 server) are packed in .gtp files, they are not separate mission/campaign files. Could they be from a campaign you downloaded and installed manually? If so, it would be good to know for the rest of potential downloaders.

[racketyjack]

Thank you. The sky is definately looking up.?

[Gribb23**]

Hi Yeikov - I did not download any files manually - just set in motion the auto download. Does attached help?

[yeikov]

@Gribb23** sorry, I've no idea of what those files are

[No.23_Triggers]

S.E.5a aldis alignment change was an entirely unexpected and extremely welcome change. Well done team! Nice to see FC getting some attention! 

[Jaegermeister]

3 hours ago, Gribb23** said:

Whoah! Has Il-2 been hacked? My first download of his ver. failed to run properly (e.g. niggling issues like no aiming assist, no guns and unable to configure to correct). Just completed a 12 hour (!!) overnight reinstallation and on initialization got a Ransomware Program Blocked threat (never seen this before) warning (heu-aegis-crypt) from my virus protection program ( Micro Trend) indicating 3 campaign spitfire files affected and advice that Ransomware Program not removed. (Can't remedy this until after the weekend as MicroTrend only weekday technical help. But I am wondering if this may be related to hacker activity associated with the events in Ukraine and targeting of Russian business services?  Anyone?

 

Most likely your internet firewall connection has been breached, if you have one. Not a server issue anyone else has had. 

[US103_Baer]

Quite a few of our Squad getting this uber bright, white-out affect on the horizon after the update. Not VR, just regular screens.

Gamma 0.9 - 1.0

Is there a fix?

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by US103_Baer

[Skycat1969]

The Achtung Spitfire campaign seems to be broken. I am not able to advance past the intro slide at the start of the mission.

[Gribb23**]

Jaegermeister & Yeikov - will check with tech help at Trend Micro when I can.  Apologies to all if I have taken up your time and appear to have been been alarmist. The following was flagged - which I took to mean the origin of the problem was with my attempt to reinstall the current ver. Regards and thanks.

[YoYo]

New hot fix? I have samll patch, about 400 Mb.

Any info about this?