109 sounds and other so called improvements

As for sound. It does not really matter how good or accurate you record the engine sounds on location if you don't know how to deal with it in post. Mixing and editing is key. The real sound and what is perceived as real in a sim/game are two different things. Sound is difficult. I work in the post-production industry for feature films and television. You won't believe how much work has to be done by a sound technician to make a show sound "real" :)

Not saying that there should be Hollywood sounds, but to make it truly sound like "on location" it still needs a lot of work even if recorded straight from the source (like an engine).

 

As of late it seems like ED has been getting better and better at sounds, so I hope that this is an area that keeps improving. There are some sound-modders who are also doing nice work for the community. Great sounds are very important for an immersive experience.

Valid point.

 

 

 

 

I'll take Nick Grey's opinion over yours.

 

do that. no problem with that.but as you are an experienced dcs pilot, even better would be to take a few flying lessons in high powered tail draggers and then judge for yourself, if you have the chance to.

 

i know Nick Grey is a professional pilot with incredible experience on various types irl. what i do doubt though, is that he has even half the flying hours of for example yourself in dcs.

it can be tricky for very experienced rl pilots to then start with computer games trying to simulate it.

 

of course he is right when saying that you lose the feeling of flight because a pc game is still a visual thing only. but, with experience, you begin to "feel" due to those visual cues. after enough hours, you begin to "feel" the onset of a stall even without a ffb stick, although literally you cant feel anything....you know that. i somehow doubt that Nick Grey spent that much time in the warbirds in dcs. i might be wrong about that and maybe he logged several hundreds of hours in the dcs spit etc...i just cant imagine that, and i for myself know, that for me personally its a bigger challenge in real life even though it became second nature.

 

 

 

and back to the sounds. nobody says its easy to produce realistic sounds. i am not even questioning the overall tune of the new sound....but when i completely lose the sensation of being able to know at which rpm my engine is running currently only by listening, from one patch to the other, then for me thats a considerable step backwards.

you say, at the very first beta version of the 109, the dcs sound engine was more limited...i say i liked the sounds back then more...not because im of the opinion that back than it sounded more like a DB engine than it does now, but because back then, the sounds gave the engine a "life". you could hear it breathing. you knew whether you are at 2800rpm or at 2600rpm only by listening to the engine. this is all gone now.

Edited December 21, 2018 by birdstrike

I AGREE with birdstrike.

 

while the overall sound is good, the difference between different rpm settings is not noticebale anymore. please dont forget, that contrary to the other ww2 birds, the 109 has the option to use manual prop pitch. to use this feature successfully, its very important to be able to hear the different rpm settings. for example AT LEAST there should be a noticeable difference between 2600rpm and the upper limit of what the engine can handle, 2800-2900rpm...please this is important for MANUAL PROP PITCH PILOTS.

thank you

I'mma throw my two cents in here.

Sounds are fine, don't resist change.

do that. no problem with that.but as you are an experienced dcs pilot, even better would be to take a few flying lessons in high powered tail draggers and then judge for yourself, if you have the chance to.

 

i know Nick Grey is a professional pilot with incredible experience on various types irl. what i do doubt though, is that he has even half the flying hours of for example yourself in dcs.

it can be tricky for very experienced rl pilots to then start with computer games trying to simulate it.

 

of course he is right when saying that you lose the feeling of flight because a pc game is still a visual thing only. but, with experience, you begin to "feel" due to those visual cues. after enough hours, you begin to "feel" the onset of a stall even without a ffb stick, although literally you cant feel anything....you know that. i somehow doubt that Nick Grey spent that much time in the warbirds in dcs. i might be wrong about that and maybe he logged several hundreds of hours in the dcs spit etc...i just cant imagine that, and i for myself know, that for me personally its a bigger challenge in real life even though it became second nature.

 

 

 

and back to the sounds. nobody says its easy to produce realistic sounds. i am not even questioning the overall tune of the new sound....but when i completely lose the sensation of being able to know at which rpm my engine is running currently only by listening, from one patch to the other, then for me thats a considerable step backwards.

you say, at the very first beta version of the 109, the dcs sound engine was more limited...i say i liked the sounds back then more...not because im of the opinion that back than it sounded more like a DB engine than it does now, but because back then, the sounds gave the engine a "life". you could hear it breathing. you knew whether you are at 2800rpm or at 2600rpm only by listening to the engine. this is all gone

 

Have you thought about getting a jetseat, so you can actually feel the engine sounds/stalls/stops and RPM’s etc? When you can actually feel the sounds it makes a world of difference, especially in VR with a good pair of headphones. It can create the illusion that the sounds are changing, even when perhaps they are not really doing so.

 

I agree about realism physics though, nerf them if you want but leave the options to play either realistic or simplified open for players to choose.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Wolf8312

do that. no problem with that.but as you are an experienced dcs pilot, even better would be to take a few flying lessons in high powered tail draggers and then judge for yourself, if you have the chance to.

 

i know Nick Grey is a professional pilot with incredible experience on various types irl. what i do doubt though, is that he has even half the flying hours of for example yourself in dcs.

it can be tricky for very experienced rl pilots to then start with computer games trying to simulate it.

 

of course he is right when saying that you lose the feeling of flight because a pc game is still a visual thing only. but, with experience, you begin to "feel" due to those visual cues. after enough hours, you begin to "feel" the onset of a stall even without a ffb stick, although literally you cant feel anything....you know that. i somehow doubt that Nick Grey spent that much time in the warbirds in dcs. i might be wrong about that and maybe he logged several hundreds of hours in the dcs spit etc...i just cant imagine that, and i for myself know, that for me personally its a bigger challenge in real life even though it became second nature.

 

 

 

and back to the sounds. nobody says its easy to produce realistic sounds. i am not even questioning the overall tune of the new sound....but when i completely lose the sensation of being able to know at which rpm my engine is running currently only by listening, from one patch to the other, then for me thats a considerable step backwards.

you say, at the very first beta version of the 109, the dcs sound engine was more limited...i say i liked the sounds back then more...not because im of the opinion that back than it sounded more like a DB engine than it does now, but because back then, the sounds gave the engine a "life". you could hear it breathing. you knew whether you are at 2800rpm or at 2600rpm only by listening to the engine. this is all gone

 

Have you thought about getting a jetseat, so you can actually feel the engine sounds/stalls/stops and RPM’s etc?

 

I agree about realism physics though, nerf them if you want but leave the options to play either realistic or simplified open for players to choose.

Have you thought about getting a jetseat, so you can actually feel the engine sounds/stalls/stops and RPM’s etc?

 

I agree about realism physics though, nerf them if you want but leave the options to play either realistic or simplified open for players to choose.

 

nah i dont like those massage seats i think...i do fly with the msffb2 stick though...but before i flew for years with non ffb sticks like the fighterstick from ch and later the thrustmaster warthog..

but even with these jetseats and ffb sticks you still lose the sensation of acceleration and g force inlfuencing your body.

nah i dont like those massage seats i think...i do fly with the msffb2 stick though...but before i flew for years with non ffb sticks like the fighterstick from ch and later the thrustmaster warthog..

but even with these jetseats and ffb sticks you still lose the sensation of acceleration and g force inlfuencing your body.

 

 

Really? Cause I find without the JS there is absoloutely no feeling of G force, or acceleration as there is when actually using the JS.

 

I mean honestly with the jetseat I can feel myself stall. It's not so much about what I can feel but what I can't. I mean sometimes the engines just cut out and you feel nothing at all. I can feel my engine/rpm ramping up, or

 

accelerating. I can feel my guns firing, and my landing gears folding downwards.

I have tried one of these seats once and found it to be annoying at best. The visual buffet gives me more than enough indication of when a stall is imminent. However with the new sounds there is no indication of what RPM I am flying at currently, honestly this is not an upgrade! It just makes live much harder. I do like the new cockpit glass effects, but these sounds cmon ED..

I have tried one of these seats once and found it to be annoying at best. The visual buffet gives me more than enough indication of when a stall is imminent. However with the new sounds there is no indication of what RPM I am flying at currently, honestly this is not an upgrade! It just makes live much harder. I do like the new cockpit glass effects, but these sounds cmon ED..

You know constant speed props doesn't change "volume" or even sound pitch to throttle changes, do you? The sound is just kinda more intense, but no change whatsoever as governor keeps revs constant. That's a problem until you learn to listen, yeah, it is. I remember it happened to me back in the day the first time I went to my school and they gave me a ride in a C172RG, it was weird after so many years listening the (wrong) sound of simulators. But in the end when the time came (after getting my license) and I wanted to solo fly the RG it was obvious, so in the end you learn.

 

 

S!

You know constant speed props doesn't change "volume" or even sound pitch to throttle changes, do you? The sound is just kinda more intense, but no change whatsoever as governor keeps revs constant. That's a problem until you learn to listen, yeah, it is. I remember it happened to me back in the day the first time I went to my school and they gave me a ride in a C172RG, it was weird after so many years listening the (wrong) sound of simulators. But in the end when the time came (after getting my license) and I wanted to solo fly the RG it was obvious, so in the end you learn.

 

 

S!

 

Since when did the 109 have a constant Speed Prob?

You know constant speed props doesn't change "volume" or even sound pitch to throttle changes, do you? The sound is just kinda more intense, but no change whatsoever as governor keeps revs constant. That's a problem until you learn to listen, yeah, it is. I remember it happened to me back in the day the first time I went to my school and they gave me a ride in a C172RG, it was weird after so many years listening the (wrong) sound of simulators. But in the end when the time came (after getting my license) and I wanted to solo fly the RG it was obvious, so in the end you learn.

 

Well I can clearly hear a difference between 2000 rpm and 2600 in a C172. Actually it is night and day..

 

This:

 

Since when did the 109 have a constant Speed Prob?

Edited December 22, 2018 by rel4y

Since when did the 109 have a constant Speed Prob?

Since Komandogerat do all of that and more for you but the result is the same as having a constant speed prop, or is it you have ever over-rev the 109 without going manual?

 

 

Well I can clearly hear a difference between 2000 rpm and 2600 in a C172. Actually it is night and day...

C172 is a fixed pitch thing, of course you hear it, I meant C172RG, a very different aircraft with a constant speed prop and retractable gear, it's an advance or complex aircraft vs the basic trainer with fixed pitch, born indeed from C175 not 172 despite the commercial name.

 

 

S!

Edited December 22, 2018 by Ala13_ManOWar

The 109 does have a constant speed propeller, but the automatic manifold pressure/RPM linkage means that different throttle settings have different RPMs.

 

Say 1.15 ata with 2300 RPM, 1.3 ata with 2600 RPM and 1.42 ata with 2800 RPM in early 109G.

 

So changing throttle should sound different. At a given throttle position the sound should be the same regardless of speed (only in very fast dives when the governor can't keep up or once the prop reached it's pitch limit and can't adjust anymore, then RPM will start to rise and you will notice sound change).

Since Komandogerat do all of that and more for you but the result is the same as having a constant speed prop, or is it you have ever over-rev the 109 without going manual?

 

First of all the 109 did not have the Kommandogerät, the FW190 had it. The system in the 109 was differently implemented and less complex. The result is absolutely not the same, because it allocates an optimum pitch angle to a specific manifold pressure. So it constantly adjusts pitch angle and therefore RPM based on boost pressure to sustain optimum prop efficiency.

 

constant speed prop: different blade angle, same RPM (above full RPM threshold)

109: different blade angle, optimum efficiency RPM

 

C172 is a fixed pitch thing, of course you hear it, I meant C172RG, a very different aircraft with a constant speed prop and retractable gear, it's an advance or complex aircraft vs the basic trainer with fixed pitch, born indeed from C175 not 172 despite the commercial name.

I have flown several types and I didnt list a specific model because it is essentially the same sound mechanics for all.

If the boost/ torque is not enough to deliver full RPM on a constant speed prop with fine prop pitch, you will get below governed RPMs. If you prop brake at idle you hear the RPM increase and soak up energy. Sound instantly changes. You can even rather finely adjust your RPM in flight as long as you are below the full RPM threshold and the sound difference is there. There is simply no arguing about that!

 

Listen to the first seconds, are you honestly telling me you cant hear that? Thats from going roughly 1000 RPM to 2600 with a 180 hp motor.

 

 

Here listen to that 109 while taxiing, huge changes in sound just with some short power bursts.

 

 

It is after all not just the prop making the noise but the whole engine revving up and outputting enormous power (span). The K-4 already pumps out 1050 hp at 2000 RPM. Now compare that to your Cessna..

Edited December 23, 2018 by rel4y

The 109 does have a constant speed propeller, but the automatic manifold pressure/RPM linkage means that different throttle settings have different RPMs.

 

Say 1.15 ata with 2300 RPM, 1.3 ata with 2600 RPM and 1.42 ata with 2800 RPM in early 109G.

 

So changing throttle should sound different. At a given throttle position the sound should be the same regardless of speed (only in very fast dives when the governor can't keep up or once the prop reached it's pitch limit and can't adjust anymore, then RPM will start to rise and you will notice sound change).

 

generally i agree with the above...except the 109 has no usual constant speed prop. and has nothing to do anymore with a constant speed prop, as soon as you fly with manual prop pitch.

 

Since Komandogerat do all of that and more for you but the result is the same as having a constant speed prop, or is it you have ever over-rev the 109 without going manual?

 

 

C172 is a fixed pitch thing, of course you hear it, I meant C172RG, a very different aircraft with a constant speed prop and retractable gear, it's an advance or complex aircraft vs the basic trainer with fixed pitch, born indeed from C175 not 172 despite the commercial name.

 

 

S!

 

Kommandogerät?:music_whistling:

 

and of course you hear different rpm settings quite good also with constant speed props...

we are talking about different rpm...you hear this regardless whether its a constant speed prop, fixed pitch props, or a car or a motorbike...change rpm->change sound.

Edited December 23, 2018 by birdstrike

internal sounds

 

For me bf109 sounds very good now form cocpit view now i can hear engine rpm and can here engine it self that is most what you hear in those planes bacouse you are so close to engine in those planes and cocpit is not pressrised i would turn down wind sound a little bit for me its showing a little too early in terms of speed and a little too loud at low speeds engine sound should be more clear. But overal good job on internal sound tweak its much much better then before i am flying bf109 12h per day now heh :P

BF 109 do not have constant speed prop

its electric prop controled by engine control unit it will differ engine/prop speed on quite few factors like airspeed autiside pressure throttel setting

Edited December 23, 2018 by grafspee

I have opened a separate thread on this topic but would like to know how you guys feel about the lack of visual graphical representation of the spinning prop with this aircraft.

I concur with the OP regarding the new and 'horrible' sound of the 109. I think the devs are really mocking us with this kind of updates..

Great sounds are very important for an immersive experience.

 

Agree that sounds are critical to the experience and worth the investment. I see vids of the DCS huey and the sounds make it totally convincing. I know the wwii birds are a much greater challenge but compare say the in game spit flyby sounds to the sounds they used in the release trailer.

of course you hear different rpm settings quite good also with constant speed props...

we are talking about different rpm...you hear this regardless whether its a constant speed prop, fixed pitch props, or a car or a motorbike...change rpm->change sound.

Yeah, of course you do hear rpm changes with constant speed props, except throttle changes MP, not rpm.

 

With komandogerat or whatever it’s written given a certain MP is reached it’s pretty much the same as a simple constant speed prop, so far from unexpected it sounds pretty much alike.

 

S!

I concur with the OP regarding the new and 'horrible' sound of the 109. I think the devs are really mocking us with this kind of updates..

Have you heard what real 109 sounds like? YT videos are pretty clear, it’s the same as DCS sound, an old motorbike :lol: . Blame Daimler for that.

 

S!

Yeah, of course you do hear rpm changes with constant speed props, except throttle changes MP, not rpm.

 

With komandogerat or whatever it’s written given a certain MP is reached it’s pretty much the same as a simple constant speed prop, so far from unexpected it sounds pretty much alike.

 

S!

 

Except with throttle set at a manifold pressure not enough to sustain governed RPM it does...

 

You know what, with the engine turned off it also suprisingly keeps the sound steady. No RPM change, no sound change. So you must be right, eh!?

 

You know Ive been in Manching quite a few times and strangely I do not recall either the G-4, G-6 or G-10 sounding like a motorcycle? Maybe somewhere in Spain you have V12, 1400 hp motorcylces, that would be an amazing feat of spanish engineering I guess.

Whatever mate.

 

S!

Have you heard what real 109 sounds like? YT videos are pretty clear, it’s the same as DCS sound, an old motorbike :lol: . Blame Daimler for that.

 

S!

 

Of course, YouTube has the best sound.. :doh: