BF 109 with Gunpods 7km/h now slower since update , specification is 12 km/h , since update 19 km/h /Which documents justify this?

[III/JG52_Speedwulf77]

Spoiler

 

 

Since update the BF109 with Gunpods are 8km/H slower than before . Before it was 12 km/h , now its 19 Km/h  slower.  This is not acording to the written specifications , Will those written Specification (when you select weapons and so on ) be changed in the future?  And how are they justified ? Which documents do justify this. As i heard till now the official Messerschmitt testing documents were justifing the 12Km/h slower , Where do the 19Km/h documents come from ?       And was it "wrong" all the years till now ??  now suddenly it gets changed ?  How does it come ?      Who has complained , where did this "new" documents come from?       hmm......     Who decides this ... 

 

hmm ...     lot of questions.....

 

maybe someone could give me/us some answers....  

[NIK14]

It's a game...game developers decide it.

Is this the biggest concern you have regarding realism for this game?

Edited March 20, 2022 by NIK14

[fogpipe]

Seems a valid concern to me. If its a sim then the game performance should match the docs/ testing of the real aircraft as closely as possible.

[the_emperor]

@III/JG52_Speedwulf77 I am by no means an expert on aerodynamics, but I dont think, it is that simple. IIRC the 12kph decrease for the gun pods is at a speed of ~500kph at sea level.

that drag penalty might increase for higher speed e.g. on a G-14 when throttled to MW-50 Notleistung.

Then with increasing altitude the speed penality for parasite drag decreases  (e.g. a G-6 and a G-4 do roughly the same top speed at FTH 6600m of 630kph for the 1.3/2600 setting). So how, did you test that?

I did a quick test on Kuban Autumn for the G-6 at 1.3/2600 at sealevel (~20m):

511kph IAS clean

496kph IAS with gun pods -> ~15kph IAS difference looks fine to me

Edited March 20, 2022 by the_emperor

[III/JG52_Speedwulf77]

2 hours ago, NIK14 said:

It's a game...game developers decide it.

...aah , okay .... hmm   true .. 

but :    

1. you get an update  where you only get told about the "nice " things they have changed , other things they wont tell you .  ?!?  ( haee?? what is this ?!)

2. It is allways said this is a sim where they try to match with the real flown documents as close to reality as possible  ( well , than how and where is justified to just reduce 8km/h  when official papers test papers say something different ?!?)

3. The BF109 is the main Fighter of the Axis side for all this IL2 Sturmovik Game    I personally expect a certain respect for it an a real accurate and proffessionality when trying to get as closed as possible to the real "Flight Modell"  in a computer game/simulation.   To just change the values as it has been done now , just reducing the speed and this means for all  BF109 , meaning all main Fighters of the axis side   without informing the comunity or any argument is for me   

     

  VERY VERY DISSAPOINTING !   

   I have allways had  a lot of trust in the DeVS trying really to give a acurate research in historical Data , tech files, flown test of engeneers and so on.  This is really been killed somehow with this "strange action/update"   ...feels like "  ...ahh ,we have given the 109 better speed and rollrate and all in all better performance" ....... without telling you all the other things they have changed.  And this is a very big "Trust" issue if it seems that you dont get the truth told.......  hmmm 

 

Its less about the gunpods and speed issue itself its more about how things just get changed 

 

maybe  iam absolutely wrong and now its correct.  But..... that would also mean it was allways wrong in the written specs of the 109 when you open it while flying or before start in the game ???     And than ..  will this be changed  from 12 to 19 km/h ?   

I personally only tested F4 and K4  same way i tested it before update..   

mabe its just a bug that havent been notice , maybe  iam the only one with this , all possible ...

i will apologize of course !!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MK108gondies/MK108gondies.html

 

this is just one test regarding the aerodynamic speed decrease ...    

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by III/JG52_Speedwulf77

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

This team is among the most transparent you have in the industry. No DEV team is ever going to show you all of their cards and no change list will ever be all inclusive.

[Denum]

It honestly cracks me up people are complaining about the 109 and it's arguably easier to fly then before. 

 

The only thing it can't do is pull magic levels of pitch from nothing. 

 

It still does everything the Yak or P47 can do and has substantially higher control then them. 

 

Anyone saying the P39 can hover clearly needs more stick time.

 

It can keep pace with a Spitfire on the deck and it can roll with the P47 to nearly 400MPH. 

DVL testing showed none of that being possible. 

The pilot is so strong now that it can exceed 800kph and escape the dive.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Denum

[357th_KW]

16 minutes ago, GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* said:

 So , maybe what we must do is forgot anything about this, and fly Allied only and enjoy the game.

 

This sounds like a great idea! Spend a month or so flying only the LaGG, P-39 and P-47 and report back on how OP they are.

[Denum]

Just now, VBF-12_KW said:

 

This sounds like a great idea! Spend a month or so flying only the LaGG, P-39 and P-47 and report back on how OP they are.

I REALLY want these guys to do this. 

 

Man they are in for a shock. 

 

Especially the non-150 Jug! 

[the_emperor]

what currently is missing in the game, is artifical True airspeed indicator, which has been requested for many years, but thus far been denied.

That would make flight testing much easier.

[CountZero]

are z 109s so bad that ppl are considering flying allied side more ? lagg3 51b 39 and 47 ? did devs achived imposible and found way to balanced the sides with new 109 fm changes ? great job if true but somehow i doubt axis 109 flyers will switch, and for 47 kkkk ?

[Roland_HUNter]

Boi:
Gunpod estimated speed losses:
F-4: 12
G-2:12
G-4:12
G-6:12
G-6Late:13
G-14: 17
K-4: 17

I guess the estimated speed loss is calculated to the max speed.

On 3/19/2022 at 7:28 PM, III/JG52_Speedwulf77 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Since update the BF109 with Gunpods are 8km/H slower than before . Before it was 12 km/h , now its 19 Km/h  slower.  This is not acording to the written specifications , Will those written Specification (when you select weapons and so on ) be changed in the future?  And how are they justified ? Which documents do justify this. As i heard till now the official Messerschmitt testing documents were justifing the 12Km/h slower , Where do the 19Km/h documents come from ?       And was it "wrong" all the years till now ??  now suddenly it gets changed ?  How does it come ?      Who has complained , where did this "new" documents come from?       hmm......     Who decides this ... 

 

hmm ...     lot of questions.....

 

maybe someone could give me/us some answers....  

 

[CountZero]

I just check 109F4 at 7km, best speed alt , and your 26kmh TAS slower there, if you opt for gunpods ?  461 IAS no gunpods, 443 IAS with gunpods.

 

[Hoots]

If 7/12/19 kph is causing you problems then you're doing something else wrong. Treat it as an aircraft made on a bad day. Or atmospheric conditions. Or flying slightly out of trim. Or poor piloting. Or anything. The real world is rarely that precise every single flight, especially with ww2 technology

 

Really, nothing will ever be as exact as you want it, but anyone that says 7kph speed difference needs investigation needs to just sit down with a cup of tea and a biscuit and  have a rethink.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Hoots said:

If 7/12/19 kph is causing you problems then you're doing something else wrong. Treat it as an aircraft made on a bad day. Or atmospheric conditions. Or flying slightly out of trim. Or poor piloting. Or anything. The real world is rarely that precise every single flight, especially with ww2 technology

 

Really, nothing will ever be as exact as you want it, but anyone that says 7kph speed difference needs investigation needs to just sit down with a cup of tea and a biscuit and  have a rethink.

Why then specifie what is loss of speed when equiping gunpods ? why say its 12kmh when thats not what you see in game, why not say speed loss is 20kmh? thats more true to what game shows then what specs say ? whats the point of having ingame specs when they are clearly wrong or when they dont mather what they say lol  7kmh speed differance is not 2-5% wrong, its more then 50% wrong to what specs say...

Edited March 24, 2022 by CountZero

[Hoots]

7 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Why then specifie what is loss of speed when equiping gunpods ? why say its 12kmh when thats not what you see in game, why not say speed loss is 20kmh? thats more true to what game shows then what specs say ? whats the point of having ingame specs when they are clearly wrong or when they dont mather what they say lol  7kmh speed differance is not 2-5% wrong, its more then 50% wrong to what specs say...

 

Exactly, why bother. Equally why bother worrying about them if you think they're wrong. Go and have a cup of tea and a biscuit instead

[CountZero]

20 hours ago, Hoots said:

 

Exactly, why bother. Equally why bother worrying about them if you think they're wrong. Go and have a cup of tea and a biscuit instead

i dont think they are wrong r right, devs say speed drop is 12kmh, they decided its that from what ever documents or calculations, but game clearly shows that what they say speed drop they set to be is wrong when tested in game.

 

but if thngs like this dont mather then whats stoping us from doing PTO, what high standards lol if ppl dont care about 50% wrong speed why would they care about funky DM/FM of japan airplanes or not historicly correct cockpits or gunner positions with lack of documents, or wrong internal systems of japan airplanes if data is missing, just make it as WT do, and its OK it seams

Edited March 25, 2022 by CountZero

[-250H-Ursus_]

Guys, in current game, there is no such thing as 100% accuracy to the real data. Every plane have some differences to they current  IRL values. And that is without any intention to happen. Its programing an already almost 10 years game, with a small team and without the finantiation that Airbus or Boeing can provide to their simulators. Things after FM revision, specially in marginal things like gunpod speed loss, can go a bit off, considering the things changed.

I really do not like the way that the developers are pointed, accused of doing, more like, nerfing things in the ninja way, even less with doing the propper testing with tracks or a real in game screenshot, because the specefications in game sometimes are inaccurate.

 

In the specs in game says 12km/h speed loss right? And in current data says 8km/h. I did some trials.

I took best planes for each models. F-4 G-4 and K-4, i do not include G-2 because is the 1.3ata version.

 

All trials are done in Kuban Autumn, sea level, 1.42ata (No damages to the plane for doing this, so you can tell how really fast they are)

 

Bf-109F-4 in game testings

Spoiler

Bf-109F-4 1.42ata 400lts, clean settings.

• 547km/h reached

 

Bf-109F-4 1.42ata 400lts, gunpods settings.

• 530km/h reached

 

Difference is 17km/h between clean settings and gunpods.

 

9km/h of difference with the IRL data. And 5km/h difference with the in game specifications. 

 

This is as i said at first. A difference almost marginal.

 

Bf-109G-4 in game testings

Spoiler

Bf-109G-4 1.42ata 400lts clean settings.

 

• 545km/h reached.

 

Bf-109G-4 1.42ata 400lts gunpods settings.

 

• 528km/h reached.

 

 

Again, difference is 17km/h between clean settings and gunpods.

 

9km/h of difference with the IRL data. And 5km/h difference with the in game specifications. 

 

This is as i said at first. A difference almost marginal.

 

 

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata in game testings 

 

Spoiler

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata 400lts clean settings.

 

• 600km/h (+5 km over IRL data)

 

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata 400lts gunpods.

 

• 581km/h reached.

 

 

This is the hugest speed loss, about 19km/h and is over 11km/h the real value.

 

 

If needs to be patched needs to be patched, but always was like this. Just deal with it or just do not take the gunpods and fly without it as intended. There is no B-17 or B-24 to use those things.

 

Another thing i would like to point at, is that for me is very annoying seeing complains about 109 beign slower with gunpods, thing which should be obvious and not surpising at all, even if the speed loss is a bit, just a bit, over the real values, at least acording to german testings, but, and i can say this now because got fixed with 4.703, NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, raised the hand, about Bf-109K-4 outspeeding his real values about 30km/h with DB, and 15km/h DC engine, with the addition of beign abble to RUN WITH MW50 FOR 22 MINUTES NO REST TIME (17'30'' In my track, because is random limit). Off course, it was a in game exploit one was able to abuse so i keeped it quiet.

 

This is Bf-109K-4 with DC Engine previous to 4.703 patch. Running like a mad man at 630km/h, 15km/h over the data, and without using manual engine tricks to reach 634km/h which was the actual top speed of Bf-109K-4 for 4 ENTIRE YEARS, and i quote myself, NO ONE RAISED THE HAND when the problem was a benefit. No at least something i can remember here on forums. But when is something so marginal like a bit of speed loss one is actually looking for, due to the fact of beign using 2 pods for increase fire power instead of aim better there is complains, accusations, and a pseudo-scandal on forums. Can we act without personal bias and beign objective once?

 

 

Here is the video proof of what i said, recorded a year ago, this was possible to do untill 4.703. 

So, in the end, got fixed because got noted, but as i said. Most of the time when something is a benefit i don't see any intentions of point that. 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[JtD]

I suppose the stats figures are for combat power (1.3 ata) sea level standard conditions. It is clear that emergency power would give higher figures, as do flights at higher altitudes than 0.

 

Here's the original test where 12kph speed loss are probably take from, 0m alt, 1.3 ata:

 

German:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-10-L-43.pdf

English:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g-16476.html

 

 

 

 

[-250H-Ursus_]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

I suppose the stats figures are for combat power (1.3 ata) sea level standard conditions. It is clear that emergency power would give higher figures, as do flights at higher altitudes than 0.

 

Here's the original test where 12kph speed loss are probably take from, 0m alt, 1.3 ata:

 

German:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-10-L-43.pdf

English:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g-16476.html

 

 

 

 

Not mentioning that climate conditions probably were perfect for doing trials.

 

Radiators on 109s when they are self adjusting could be tricky, and ends affecting the speed

Edited March 25, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[Giggles]

On 3/20/2022 at 10:43 AM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

This team is among the most transparent you have in the industry. No DEV team is ever going to show you all of their cards and no change list will ever be all inclusive.

but no change list is supposed to be used to HIDE things from PAYING customers.. 

 

its like apple gives a change list for the next ipad, but forgets to include wifi is now an extra 20$ a month fee

On 3/25/2022 at 7:52 AM, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Guys, in current game, there is no such thing as 100% accuracy to the real data. Every plane have some differences to they current  IRL values. And that is without any intention to happen. Its programing an already almost 10 years game, with a small team and without the finantiation that Airbus or Boeing can provide to their simulators. Things after FM revision, specially in marginal things like gunpod speed loss, can go a bit off, considering the things changed.

I really do not like the way that the developers are pointed, accused of doing, more like, nerfing things in the ninja way, even less with doing the propper testing with tracks or a real in game screenshot, because the specefications in game sometimes are inaccurate.

 

In the specs in game says 12km/h speed loss right? And in current data says 8km/h. I did some trials.

I took best planes for each models. F-4 G-4 and K-4, i do not include G-2 because is the 1.3ata version.

 

All trials are done in Kuban Autumn, sea level, 1.42ata (No damages to the plane for doing this, so you can tell how really fast they are)

 

Bf-109F-4 in game testings

  Hide contents

Bf-109F-4 1.42ata 400lts, clean settings.

• 547km/h reached

 

Bf-109F-4 1.42ata 400lts, gunpods settings.

• 530km/h reached

 

Difference is 17km/h between clean settings and gunpods.

 

9km/h of difference with the IRL data. And 5km/h difference with the in game specifications. 

 

This is as i said at first. A difference almost marginal.

 

Bf-109G-4 in game testings

  Hide contents

Bf-109G-4 1.42ata 400lts clean settings.

 

• 545km/h reached.

 

Bf-109G-4 1.42ata 400lts gunpods settings.

 

• 528km/h reached.

 

 

Again, difference is 17km/h between clean settings and gunpods.

 

9km/h of difference with the IRL data. And 5km/h difference with the in game specifications. 

 

This is as i said at first. A difference almost marginal.

 

 

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata in game testings 

 

  Hide contents

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata 400lts clean settings.

 

• 600km/h (+5 km over IRL data)

 

Bf-109K-4 1.8ata 400lts gunpods.

 

• 581km/h reached.

 

 

This is the hugest speed loss, about 19km/h and is over 11km/h the real value.

 

 

If needs to be patched needs to be patched, but always was like this. Just deal with it or just do not take the gunpods and fly without it as intended. There is no B-17 or B-24 to use those things.

 

Another thing i would like to point at, is that for me is very annoying seeing complains about 109 beign slower with gunpods, thing which should be obvious and not surpising at all, even if the speed loss is a bit, just a bit, over the real values, at least acording to german testings, but, and i can say this now because got fixed with 4.703, NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, raised the hand, about Bf-109K-4 outspeeding his real values about 30km/h with DB, and 15km/h DC engine, with the addition of beign abble to RUN WITH MW50 FOR 22 MINUTES NO REST TIME (17'30'' In my track, because is random limit). Off course, it was a in game exploit one was able to abuse so i keeped it quiet.

 

This is Bf-109K-4 with DC Engine previous to 4.703 patch. Running like a mad man at 630km/h, 15km/h over the data, and without using manual engine tricks to reach 634km/h which was the actual top speed of Bf-109K-4 for 4 ENTIRE YEARS, and i quote myself, NO ONE RAISED THE HAND when the problem was a benefit. No at least something i can remember here on forums. But when is something so marginal like a bit of speed loss one is actually looking for, due to the fact of beign using 2 pods for increase fire power instead of aim better there is complains, accusations, and a pseudo-scandal on forums. Can we act without personal bias and beign objective once?

 

 

Here is the video proof of what i said, recorded a year ago, this was possible to do untill 4.703. 

So, in the end, got fixed because got noted, but as i said. Most of the time when something is a benefit i don't see any intentions of point that. 

 

 

You should know by now that the ones paying 80$ for the new mustang and the fancy spitfire are the ones who get all the favoritism here. 

 

with things the way they are, i bet the me410 will loose 200km/h if you use the 50mm gun

[Pikestance]

On 3/24/2022 at 2:04 PM, Hoots said:

 

Exactly, why bother. Equally why bother worrying about them if you think they're wrong. Go and have a cup of tea and a biscuit instead

 

This is an odd opinion given the subforum you are posting on. LOL

Developer Assistance  FM / AI discussion  ....

 

[-250H-Ursus_]

4 hours ago, Giggles said:

but no change list is supposed to be used to HIDE things from PAYING customers.. *1

 

its like apple gives a change list for the next ipad, but forgets to include wifi is now an extra 20$ a month fee

 

You should know by now that the ones paying 80$ for the new mustang and the fancy spitfire are the ones who get all the favoritism here. *2 

 

with things the way they are, i bet the me410 will loose 200km/h if you use the 50mm gun

 

1* Again with accusing without evidence. How you can prove that this is actually a ninja nerf instead of a simple human error in the programming and checking in the process of testing. 

 

2* You cannot be serious. The  AKA: "Fancy New Spitfire", or Spitfire Mk XIV is one of less liked Spits because turns with him is complex. Way more complex than a Spit IX. His strong point is his speed at high alts. And the P-51B? Only because can outrun a Bf-109K4 with 81" manifold and 75"? Again because the only strong point is outrun. Bf-109K can outclass in climbrate, turn, dive any P-51 in game. I said. Bias out of the equation here please if you gonna try to argument something

Edited April 1, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[JtD]

5 hours ago, Giggles said:

i bet the me410 will loose 200km/h if you use the 50mm gun

 

You're on, I bet it doesn't.

 

And just to summarize the issue of this topic - there's a historical reference that states a 12km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas. The in game stats say 12km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas and reproducing the test in game gives 14km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas. The historical reference also says it is accurate to around 3km/h.

 

Conclusion: The game - in this issue - is correct.

[-250H-Ursus_]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

You're on, I bet it doesn't.

 

And just to summarize the issue of this topic - there's a historical reference that states a 12km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas. The in game stats say 12km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas and reproducing the test in game gives 14km/h speed loss for the use of gondolas. The historical reference also says it is accurate to around 3km/h.

 

Conclusion: The game - in this issue - is correct.

Someone had to say this ?

[MisterSmith]

For clarification; There is no pay to win in BoX. The DEV's do not balance sides and never have. Multiple sources of data are used for all FM's where available. 

 

If you have FM/AI complaints/assistance, file them in the proper manner. If you have complaints about the DEV's, address them via PM. This was not the manner prescribed for either.

 

 

[CUJO_1970]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with performance with gondolas added and their never has been.