109 FM - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-03-2017, 06:30 PM   #1
jackdaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 47
Default 109 FM

Does the 1.5 dcs have a different FM to the 2.1 version.
I find the 109 smoother in the 1.5 dcs, I use the same settings in both, also the trackir seems smoother in 1.5
jackdaw is offline  
Old 12-03-2017, 06:51 PM   #2
razo+r
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,330
Default

You may think it changed like a lot of other people do, but it shouldn't have changed.
__________________

Rig: Maximus VII Ranger, 4790K @ 4.00 Ghz, MSI GTX 980 Ti, 16 GB non-oc RAM, 250 GB SAMSUNG EVO 850 SSD, 2TB HDD, Win 10 64-bit
razo+r is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:02 AM   #3
jcomm
Senior Member
 
jcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by razo+r View Post
You may think it changed like a lot of other people do, but it shouldn't have changed.
Latest 1.5.8 update not only changed the Spitfire a bi deal ( rudder forces and ground handling is fine tuned ) but I am also among those who thing there's something changed in the 109 K-4 too, for the better...

I am still testing...

And, no mention of the Spitfire updates was listed in the features list for this 1.5.8 update, so, it wouldn't surprise me there can also be "new things" in the 109...
jcomm is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:27 AM   #4
Buzzles
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 2,486
Default

Considering OP is saying it is smoother in v1.5.8 of DCS than 2.x, the first question is what are your framerates like?
Buzzles is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:36 PM   #5
jackdaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzles View Post
Considering OP is saying it is smoother in v1.5.8 of DCS than 2.x, the first question is what are your framerates like?
my frame rate in 2.1 are better than 1.5, but seem to get stutters in 2.1 as i said before the trackir isway less smooth with 2.1
jackdaw is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:28 AM   #6
Solty
Senior Member
 
Solty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,687
Default

What does it mean though? Are the control surfaces more responsive? Do they stiffen more but transition is more detailed? Is there a change is max AoA? Less drag? Less buffeting?

What do you mean by saying that it is "smoother"?
__________________
In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.
My channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA..._Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Last edited by Solty; 12-05-2017 at 10:30 AM.
Solty is offline  
Old 12-08-2017, 02:52 PM   #7
skliff13
Member
 
skliff13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Posts: 183
Default

Are controls settings (especially Axes) the same? They may differ (in theory).
__________________
skliff13 is offline  
Old 12-29-2017, 10:34 PM   #8
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,569
Default

Sadly it still flies nothing like the real thing, it's still incredibly jittery on the edge and the stall + accompanying wing drop is nowhere near "mild" as described by those who fly the real thing, instead it's violent and sudden.

Atm it easier to ride every other prop aircraft near the stall in DCS, the P-51 is a puppy by comparison, which is telling of how completely off DCS's FM for the 109 is. Somewhere, somehow, something went horribly wrong when making this FM.

The guys at 777 & 1C did a much better job on this one, sorry. Jets are ED's forcé, not props atm.

PS: Not meaning to bash ED, just saying it like I genuinely see it.

Last edited by Hummingbird; 12-29-2017 at 11:03 PM.
Hummingbird is offline  
Old 12-30-2017, 05:19 AM   #9
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,328
Default

Quote:
just saying it like I genuinely see it.
Which is your right. Still, no evidence produced, only opinions.
__________________
"The DCS NS 430 currently available for DCS: Mi-8MTV2. DCS NS 430 licensing and distribution policy for other modules is being discussed and will be disclosed later. Belsimtek team"
msalama is offline  
Old 12-30-2017, 06:24 AM   #10
NeilWillis
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
Sadly it still flies nothing like the real thing, it's still incredibly jittery on the edge and the stall + accompanying wing drop is nowhere near "mild" as described by those who fly the real thing, instead it's violent and sudden.

Atm it easier to ride every other prop aircraft near the stall in DCS, the P-51 is a puppy by comparison, which is telling of how completely off DCS's FM for the 109 is. Somewhere, somehow, something went horribly wrong when making this FM.

The guys at 777 & 1C did a much better job on this one, sorry. Jets are ED's forcé, not props atm.

PS: Not meaning to bash ED, just saying it like I genuinely see it.
I am afraid this is purely conjecture on your part. Expecting ED to conform to other simulations of a module purely to satisfy your - possibly jaundiced - view is unreasonable.

As stated by the last poster, it is all well and good to pluck ideas out of the air as to what should and shouldn't be happening is simply not enough. Anecdotal evidence needs to be supported by some hard facts. And yes, I am fully aware that this is the same old argument that detractors always use when someone sticks their head above the parapet and complains.

Or are you a real world 109 pilot with some insight that no one else has? I'd be very interested to know if you do have some foundation for your assertions.
NeilWillis is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.