Jump to content

Anybody else notice some significant changes to the way the K-4 handles


karlmeyer25

Recommended Posts

I have concluded my tests with my friend who flew the 109 for me. It seems the 109 is still suffering high speed stifness as it was before. It becomes stiffer at 500kph and and nearly unberable over 600kph which is exactly what I wrote above. The elevator seems to behave at those speeds as it did before the patch.

 

The new FM seems to be way easier to stall especially in vertical and the 109 has a tendency to lose speed faster in turns. Whether or not this behaviour is intended we will see if ED says something about the slat behaviour when. We still do not know if it is just graphical or full FM problem, although the latter seems to be the case.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]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/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Or just go back to the Mustang module, which you actually have, and keepo whining about getting the best possible configuration, higher boost, .50 death star lasers that would finally allow you to club poor G-6 baby seals at ease.

 

 

Ah, so you mean basically what the K4 is currently doing to the under performing P-51D that we have?

 

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so you mean basically what the K4 is currently doing to the under performing P-51D that we have?

 

:thumbup:

 

Sadly I'm traveling for work so I can't log into play this week, but it seems this is the week Blue has a slightly better odds to compete against Red.

 

I'm SUPER interested to see what ED says regarding this issue and how they plan to "fix" it.

 

-SLACK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just go back to the Mustang module, which you actually have, and keepo whining about getting the best possible configuration, higher boost, .50 death star lasers that would finally

 

So you can have the best possible K-4 but we can't have the best possible P-51 with historical ratings and ammo? Seems about right.

 

I haven't seen much of a difference in the K-4s performance online but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why this man is so rude to anybody who didn't have same opinion with him? I saw that kinds of situation several times on forum or game.

 

 

 

Whatever, it will not end with this kinds of dicussion, I think.

 

Maybe slat problem is just animation error and instability on this version is proper to Bf109. Mustang fans want this. or Maybe slat problem is not just animation error and instability will be fixed with slat. Bf109 fans like me want this. And both of them just talking what they want. I think, Yo-Yo or FM managers(?) already know this problem and they will fix it soon. Everything I want is... Please ED fix it fast. I believe that you will do it fast.

 

 

 

IMO, I already read change log and I think there is nothing about low speed stability. No airfoil change, No shape changes. Only control surface. If angle of control surface is too high, aircraft will be stall more. However it can control with stick movement and I cannot feel it. So, I think this is slat problem. In middle speed(350~500km/h), it littlebit more wobbling than before, but still not bad. High speed stiffness? I believe ED have more detail information than me.

 

(My English is terrible, please understand it.)

 

As much as it is fun hitting 109s now, if what we are seeing here is a genuine error in the 109's performance, it has to be fixed. I piss and moan about what I want in the Mustang -I won't be any different for the 109, well, not much anyway...... :music_whistling:

Dogs of War Squadron

Call sign "HeadHunter" P-51D /Spitfire Jockey

Gigabyte EP45T-UD3LR /Q9650 3.6Ghz | 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws | EVGA GTX-1060 ACX3 FTW | ThrustMaster 16000m & G13 GamePad w/analog rudder stick | TurtleBeach EarForce PX22 | Track IR5 | Vizio 40" 4K TV monitor (stuck temporarily with an Acer 22" :( )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS World is NOT about "balance".. it's about how close to reality the planes could be modelled so we can fly them on our pitiful computers. And so far ED is doing a magnificent job.

  • Like 1

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS World is NOT about "balance".. it's about how close to reality the planes could be modelled so we can fly them on our pitiful computers. And so far ED is doing a magnificent job.

 

Exactly. Every time I read about "balance" regarding DCS I cringe. Those who want a balanced MP experience should look into *games* like Mechwarrior Online, War Thunder, etc. :thumbup:

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Every time I read about "balance" regarding DCS I cringe. Those who want a balanced MP experience should look into *games* like Mechwarrior Online, War Thunder, etc. :thumbup:

 

Except we aren't talking about balance, we are talking about historical accuracy.

 

I don't think there is ANY dispute that the models available are of the absolute highest quality. We aren't asking for things to be tweaked to make it an even playing field. What we are asking for is for the aircraft to be modeled as it was flown in combat.

 

I hesitate to post this only because I am admittedly not an expert on the history of the aircraft(s) being discussed... However I have seen ample historical evidence from others and I believe the requests that have been made are justified.

 

Whether ED decides to implement any changes that are based on verifiable information is up to them. Being basically called a group of whiny bitches (by the group that actually has the equivalent aircraft that we are asking for) is getting extremely old.

 

See you guys in the air, probably on my 6:pilotfly:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are talking about historical accuracy.

 

My assumption is that this is exactly what ED is aiming for to begin with; so no concerns here... :thumbup:

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing..

 

Except we aren't talking about balance, we are talking about historical accuracy.

 

I don't think there is ANY dispute that the models available are of the absolute highest quality. We aren't asking for things to be tweaked to make it an even playing field. What we are asking for is for the aircraft to be modeled as it was flown in combat.

 

I hesitate to post this only because I am admittedly not an expert on the history of the aircraft(s) being discussed... However I have seen ample historical evidence from others and I believe the requests that have been made are justified.

 

Whether ED decides to implement any changes that are based on verifiable information is up to them. Being basically called a group of whiny bitches (by the group that actually has the equivalent aircraft that we are asking for) is getting extremely old.

 

See you guys in the air, probably on my 6:pilotfly:.

You are free to come with these "evidence" and I'm more than certain that ED will comply with them..

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rrohde:

"Exactly. Every time I read about "balance" regarding DCS I cringe. Those who want a balanced MP experience should look into *games* like Mechwarrior Online, War Thunder, etc."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

My thoughts also. I learned long ago to accept these AC for exactly what they are. And to think that any of them could "in any reality" be accurate to their real world counterparts is just a fantasy.

I watch all of these graphs, FM's, and documents get posted constantly that are meant to get E.D. to make them more accurate, and it just makes me chuckle to myself any more. D.C.S. is no more reality than Battlefield or C.O.D. And in all of these games, there are a majority that just take it all in as it was reality.

It's all just for fun.


Edited by Zimmerdylan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a matter of opinion. If you want to know, I flew bf 109 for years in other sims and I've read a lot about the airplane to describe its behavior, based on test pilot's reports and 109G elevator forces chart...........

 

 

First of all I think that you should be the one to make the 109 FM.

Secondly David wasn't even talking to you.So no reason to be so defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except we aren't talking about balance, we are talking about historical accuracy.

 

I don't think there is ANY dispute that the models available are of the absolute highest quality. We aren't asking for things to be tweaked to make it an even playing field. What we are asking for is for the aircraft to be modeled as it was flown in combat.

 

I hesitate to post this only because I am admittedly not an expert on the history of the aircraft(s) being discussed... However I have seen ample historical evidence from others and I believe the requests that have been made are justified.

 

Whether ED decides to implement any changes that are based on verifiable information is up to them. Being basically called a group of whiny bitches (by the group that actually has the equivalent aircraft that we are asking for) is getting extremely old.

 

See you guys in the air, probably on my 6:pilotfly:.

 

This is really the key point. Nobody who plays DCS wants a War Thunder experience in MP. That's why there's War Thunder. We want the joy and excitement of flying exacting computer simulations of WWII aircraft, and we want the ability to fly them against each other. ED is doing an excellent job delivering that and I'm grateful for that!

 

It would also be awesome if ED considered the MP realm, and if possible, try to offer balance by focusing on developing aircraft that have a legitimate chance of being as even as possible against each other. I get it that the K-4 is the zenith of 109 production. I'm not asking ED to model crappy alloys, crappy manufacturing, crappy quality control or all the other hurdles Germany faced when trying to deliver these aircraft to its air force. I want to fly that ideal K-4 and fight with it. But can we not get a P-51 at its zenith as well? How about the zenith of Spitfire production? It makes MP that much more enjoyable to know that there is no doubt about the aircraft you fly, you're not being held back by model/machine limitation.

 

My thoughts at least if we're getting a bit off topic.

 

-SLACK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really the key point. Nobody who plays DCS wants a War Thunder experience in MP. That's why there's War Thunder. We want the joy and excitement of flying exacting computer simulations of WWII aircraft, and we want the ability to fly them against each other. ED is doing an excellent job delivering that and I'm grateful for that!

 

It would also be awesome if ED considered the MP realm, and if possible, try to offer balance by focusing on developing aircraft that have a legitimate chance of being as even as possible against each other. I get it that the K-4 is the zenith of 109 production. I'm not asking ED to model crappy alloys, crappy manufacturing, crappy quality control or all the other hurdles Germany faced when trying to deliver these aircraft to its air force. I want to fly that ideal K-4 and fight with it. But can we not get a P-51 at its zenith as well? How about the zenith of Spitfire production? It makes MP that much more enjoyable to know that there is no doubt about the aircraft you fly, you're not being held back by model/machine limitation.

 

My thoughts at least if we're getting a bit off topic.

 

-SLACK

 

ED already said they are going to address the P-51 so I'm assuming you will eventually get what you want.

 

Update to the actual topic: I've gotten used to the changes to the 109 and pretty much fly the way I did before. It still seems like the slats are not working, but maybe that's in my head.

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Slats were really fixed retracted for experiments and the wires were forgotten to remove after it...

 

So, after the next patch, you will be able to feel the difference slats provide.

 

 

Nothing were changed in normal AoA area, so the energy, the steady turns, etc were not affected.

Possibly the energy effects, somebody reports, are results of changing the wrong realisation of control llimits (compressing) to the right one - clipping, as it was standard for the number of planes in DCS.

 

 

I mean "compressing" and "clipping" exactly as they are used in sound engineering.

 

 

As the aircraft response had changed, the trained skills became wrong regarding energy retaining, etc.


Edited by Yo-Yo
  • Like 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slats were really fixed retracted for experiments and the wires were forgotten to remove after it...

 

So, after the next patch, you will be able to feel the difference slats provide.

 

Glad to hear! So as a newbie to the 109 this will only change the characteristics of the aircraft at or near the stall speed correct? I think I flew it only 3 or 4 times before the last patch so I wasn't able to build a clear picture of how they worked.

 

 

Possibly the energy effects, somebody reports, are results of changing the wrong realisation of control llimits (compressing) to the right one - clipping, as it was standard for the number of planes in DCS.

 

 

I mean "compressing" and "clipping" exactly as they are used in sound engineering.

 

[/Quote]Hold on... so you went from compressing to clipping the input signal (the player input on the stick)?

 

I would think that compressing the signal (compression rate being a function of airspeed) would correlate much more to what a real world pilot would feel as they would be able to move the stick less and less as the controls stiffened.

 

Clipping would mean they could move the control in the same manner up until some arbitrary limit (a "critical" airspeed?) where more force on the stick would suddenly cause no more displacement...

 

Am I misunderstanding?

 

Edit- Just did a quick test with the controls window open and the behavior of the controls makes sense.:thumbup:


Edited by Integrals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slats were really fixed retracted for experiments and the wires were forgotten to remove after it...

 

So, after the next patch, you will be able to feel the difference slats provide.

 

 

Nothing were changed in normal AoA area, so the energy, the steady turns, etc were not affected.

Possibly the energy effects, somebody reports, are results of changing the wrong realisation of control llimits (compressing) to the right one - clipping, as it was standard for the number of planes in DCS.

 

 

I mean "compressing" and "clipping" exactly as they are used in sound engineering.

 

 

As the aircraft response had changed, the trained skills became wrong regarding energy retaining, etc.

 

Thanks so much for responding on this issue! One of the reasons I keep paying good money for DCS are little tweets like this from the developers as I find the making of a flight sim as much value as the sim itself! FM discussions are an especially interesting aspect of the development process. I've always thought Yo-Yo's post are so very interesting and thought provoking and have always learned something from them. I look forward to the next patch when the situation is rectified. Perhaps a hot fix is coming soon?

 

I'm a 45 year old mechanical engineer who has enjoyed "all things that fly" since as early as I can remember. As such I suspect the terms "compression" and "clamping" may be a bit of a translation issue into their English use as. My circle of engineers use "compression" and "clamping" to describe a few things, none of which I readily understand in the context of FMs (but admittedly I am not a programmer).

 

English speaking engineers will generally use compression in the following contexts:

 

1) A structural member under load that is receiving a "pressing force" (opposite of a "pull" when a member is in tension).

 

2) A gas that is in a container which is made smaller as it is squeezed, thereby decreasing the volume (and correspondingly increasing the pressure within the gas).

 

3) When a series of events or data points is shrunk down by throwing out unneeded resolution of the data into more coarse data points. In this way, one might say the "data is compressed" into something more useful than in its raw state. Perhaps there may be additional data points added into a given area that give the appearance of compression in the sense that there are many points crammed into a smaller area.

 

On "clamping", this term is not so widely used:

 

1) One could say "clamping" to describe a method in which the end result is compression. i.e. clamping 2 pieces of a composite material together as they are bonded. In this situation, the composite pieces are "clamped".

 

2) In a more esoteric way, someone may refer to clamping as "truncating" or stopping the flow or calculation of something...

 

I suspect in Yo-Yos vernacular, the FM changes regarding compression and clamping have to do with definitions 3 and 2 respectively. Then again, I'm a mechanical engineer, not an expert in computer science. Hoping he will chime in again...

 

To be perfectly blunt, I think the change was not a step in the right direction for the plane (outside the context of behavior isolated to slats) and hope it returns to something very close to the way it was prior to the coding algorithms (wires?) for the slats being removed. Hopefully when the links are reestablished, the 109 will fly similarly to how it did before the latest change. I have no interest in "performance" one way or another (I love low performance planes as long as they "feel" right). The 109 flew very believably prior to the last change. After the last change it just felt much less like a flying object under the influence of physical laws as it transitioned through the various regimes of flight, and more like something that seems "forced"... No, I haven't flown a 109 in real life, but I have flown other full scale planes, simulators, and RC planes for many years so I have an understanding of what is "believable".

 

Thanks again for a great simulator and the dedication to realism which are what keep me coming back.


Edited by Cavemanhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

330px-Compression_knee.svg.png

Pictures are worth a thousand words :)

 

Above is a very simplified plot of the behavior... Just imagine that it is the same stick input and the x-axis is airspeed instead of how it is labeled.

 

I'll admit the electrical engineer in me panicked when I read clipped :megalol:

 

 

To be perfectly blunt, I think the change was not a step in the right direction for the plane and hope it returns to something very close to the way it was prior to the coding algorithms (wires?) for the slats being removed. Hopefully when the links are reestablished, the 109 will fly similarly to how it did before the latest change. I have no interest in "performance" one way or another (I love low performance planes as long as they feel "right"). The 109 flew very believably prior to the last change. After the last change it just felt much less like a flying object under the influence of physical laws and more like something that seemed "forced"... No, I haven't flown a 109 in real life, but I have flown other full scale planes, simulators, and RC planes for many years so I have an understanding of what is "believable".

 

Thanks again for a great simulator and the dedication to realism which are what keep me coming back.

 

I agree that the 109 feels very twitchy in the air. Have you tried playing with axis curves at all? I think that will be my next step to try to make it a little more manageable.

 

Also, for as much complaining as I've done the last few weeks I want to echo the sentiment in the last line in Cavemanhead's post (awesome name for an ME btw LOL!!). Thank you to everyone at ED for all of the hard work that's been done to bring us the quality product that we are lucky to be able to enjoy.


Edited by Integrals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would also be awesome if ED considered the MP realm, and if possible, try to offer balance by focusing on developing aircraft that have a legitimate chance of being as even as possible against each other. I get it that the K-4 is the zenith of 109 production. I'm not asking ED to model crappy alloys, crappy manufacturing, crappy quality control or all the other hurdles Germany faced when trying to deliver these aircraft to its air force. I want to fly that ideal K-4 and fight with it. But can we not get a P-51 at its zenith as well? How about the zenith of Spitfire production? It makes MP that much more enjoyable to know that there is no doubt about the aircraft you fly, you're not being held back by model/machine limitation.

 

My thoughts at least if we're getting a bit off topic.

 

-SLACK

 

If you want a most realistic experience, than you need to except, that there were rarely ever fair and balanced fights, as one side or the other constantly made advancements in order to imbalance the status quo in their favor... One could say they tried hard to win the war, by being as "unfair" as it gets.

 

So fighting rarely put matched planes against one another. The top notch 109 K4 was mixed with lots of "inferior" 109 G against "superior" P-51Ds.

The P-51D in its latest build pitched against the Me-262 Jets... Inferior P-40Fs fought 109s in Africa and got their fair share of victories against the odds.

As has been stated time and time again, neither ED nor 3rd Parties consider to go for a plane, because it is a good match to another module in the first place. The important questions are, do they have access to the necessary data? Can we get a license/agreement with Intellectual Property owners? Do we have access to a real plane and pilots?

 

 

Just my two cents.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Glad to hear! So as a newbie to the 109 this will only change the characteristics of the aircraft at or near the stall speed correct? I think I flew it only 3 or 4 times before the last patch so I wasn't able to build a clear picture of how they worked.

 

Hold on... so you went from compressing to clipping the input signal (the player input on the stick)?

 

I would think that compressing the signal (compression rate being a function of airspeed) would correlate much more to what a real world pilot would feel as they would be able to move the stick less and less as the controls stiffened.

 

Clipping would mean they could move the control in the same manner up until some arbitrary limit (a "critical" airspeed?) where more force on the stick would suddenly cause no more displacement...

 

Am I misunderstanding?

 

Let's start from the basic rule of thumb for all simulations that want to be claimed as real: to have POSITION related controls but not the force related. The reason is that 100% of available game controllers can not provide sufficient loading even close to real controls, so we have to watch travel more likely than force. In the real plane you always use both.

And now imagine, that you enter a maximal AoA turn at high speed with compressed input. To get the limit you have to pull the joystick to its rear limit having the rate of turn increasing. As your speed bleeds, you need to progressively release the stick MOVING it forward to avoid stall, that is real nonsense in RL.

So, the compressing interferes with your input, even if you do not get the limits - as you are at high speed area, your input is being modulated, that ruins your control.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic news on the slats issue, and thanks for the detailed information as to what's going on under the hood in terms of controls now, Yo-Yo! :thumbup:

  • Like 1

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Thank you very much for your kind words!

 

Anyway, I need to clear things up regarding the terms.

 

When I mention compression I mean it exactly as a sound engineering term:

Out = K x Inp, where K is changing much slower than a signal.

 

Clipping means clipping.... horrifying an electrical engineer but pleasant for a guitar player.

Out = minmax(lowlim, Inp, highlim)

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...