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

Hmmm, so if someone like that guy who has lost one arm and uses some other physical interface, to cope with that deficiency you want ED to punish him for his disability?

 

So let's see what we can do about someone, rigging a potentiometer to an axis control of his joystick or rudder... Hmmm, nothing?

 

Or he puts two sticks/cords and a wiper motor to his pedals and physically moves the rudder pedals?

 

Or he could rig two cords to the pedal and bind it into position on his chair...

 

How again should a programmer monitor and prevent the use of "unrealistic" trim again?

 

Just my two cents...

So you presume I don't have a disability perhaps. Don't forget anyone who may be blind or not be able to move from the head down or joined twins, etc, etc. I know I will have to give the flight sim up one day because I will be too old and frail and may develop disabilities, but I would not want the flight sim to be compromised to suit me. But hey, that's just me. I hope your post was not an attempt to get this thread closed down.

As for your last comment, I have no idea whether it can be done or not, but I wish it could. As I said earlier, I don't know much about computers.

If unrealistic primary aircraft controls are to be the accepted order of the day, perhaps a space star wars sim might be in order instead.

Happy landings,

Talisman

P.S. I did say above that I understood the need for easy settings like rudder assist, so I hope you did not miss that.

Wait, my understanding of how the scripting HOTAS software works (i.e. TARGET) is that one can only add fake trimming effect by changing the roll/yaw response curve on the fly by offsetting the center point. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

From flight model's point of view that results in the movement of the control surfaces the same way as if the player would do it "manually". So the workload of the player is "unfairly" reduced indeed (might be considered a bit of a cheat), but performance and control limitations of the plane are still exactly the same.

So you presume I don't have a disability perhaps. Don't forget anyone who may be blind or not be able to move from the head down or joined twins, etc, etc. I know I will have to give the flight sim up one day because I will be too old and frail and may develop disabilities, but I would not want the flight sim to be compromised to suit me. But hey, that's just me. I hope your post was not an attempt to get this thread closed down.

As for your last comment, I have no idea whether it can be done or not, but I wish it could. As I said earlier, I don't know much about computers.

If unrealistic primary aircraft controls are to be the accepted order of the day, perhaps a space star wars sim might be in order instead.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

P.S. I did say above that I understood the need for easy settings like rudder assist, so I hope you did not miss that.

I'm not presuming anything. The whole point is just that there is no way to prevent people from manipulating their hardware and the software to control the axis.

So if somebody "wants" to put a trim wheel simulation in, he will do so.

He can't do more then what you could with the feet on the rudder or the hand on the stick... The flight model can't be changed anyway. :)

sooo patch notes say "Wing slat will be animated".

Is that all it was? Just animation?

I was hoping to get a bit of that slow turn stability back.

Guess I try it myself when I get home.

May just be inaccurate translation.

Nope. She definitely turns like she used to again. Seems like the roll got slower again and the energy bleed increased as well. Pretty much feels the same as how it was before.

sounds good to me! :) guess the hate of P51 pilots can continue...if it ever stopped :-p

sounds good to me! :) guess the hate of P51 pilots can continue...if it ever stopped :-p

We do not hate what the real aircarft is capable of. It is the stuff that it is not capable of that makes us, and should make everyone mad.

I am glad the slats work now, and that it did impact the roll rate making it slower and allowing for higher aoa at low speeds as it is closer to the correct behaviour.

I still think that old compression was a better idea, so that you would feel the airplane stiffen up gradually.

I spent a little time in the 109 last night and it definitely felt stiffer, especially at higher speeds. I also noticed that it felt much less nervous when just putting around.

Even though I have very limited time in it it feels much improved over the previous iteration. The current version made me miss flying the 51 after a few hours :thumbup:... except for that low speed turn rate, I'll take a little of that please :)

Put her through some brief trials today, personally I like the new "clipping" controls a lot more, even with the non-FFB joystick, it feels far more natural.

There is one serious issue though, which is that during dive trials as ca 2-3 km altitude and at around 700 km/h indicated the ailerons suddenly stop working. Completely Pitch is still controllable. Could be down to the

There is definietely something wrong with this, since its not that the roll rate would get reduced roll rate (with the increased stick forces), but the rolling ability is completely gone. The aircraft does not react to rolling inputs at all, not even slowly. Even if the pressure on the control surfaces is very great at low speeds and seriously limit deflection, you should still get some effect.

And I am pretty sure its not hitting aileron reversal speed since that would (theoretically) happen only at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K...

Yeah I have posted about this already some time ago in the bugs section. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388) Funny thing is after the latest update all the control surfaces even break off at TAS 900 kph at 4 km altitude (ICAO standard conditions in ME). The document clearly states full controllability at these speeds in roll and in yaw after attachment of the new taller rudder. The K-4 even has a Flettner tab installed in the rudder which will reduce control forces further. Ill just add the graph again even though in the bug report I posted all important passages including the graph attached. Not sure why this behavior isnt being revised yet.

Put her through some brief trials today, personally I like the new "clipping" controls a lot more, even with the non-FFB joystick, it feels far more natural.

 

There is one serious issue though, which is that during dive trials as ca 2-3 km altitude and at around 700 km/h indicated the ailerons suddenly stop working. Completely Pitch is still controllable. Could be down to the

 

There is definietely something wrong with this, since its not that the roll rate would get reduced roll rate (with the increased stick forces), but the rolling ability is completely gone. The aircraft does not react to rolling inputs at all, not even slowly. Even if the pressure on the control surfaces is very great at low speeds and seriously limit deflection, you should still get some effect.

 

And I am pretty sure its not hitting aileron reversal speed since that would (theoretically) happen only at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K...

I am suprised you do not know about that. Thats how it was IRL, I even wrote a post about it.

Let me show an account for that, from a pilot that flew the real Me109:

Me 109 G:

- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?

The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Much depends on a pilot, as it is the physical froce that he has to overcome, so a very strong man, could possibly move aileron control 1cm, but that doesn't mean an average pilot would.

Yeah I have posted about this already some time ago in the bugs section. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388) Funny thing is after the latest update all the control surfaces even break off at TAS 900 kph at 4 km altitude (ICAO standard conditions in ME). The document clearly states full controllability at these speeds in roll and in yaw after attachment of the new taller rudder. The K-4 even has a Flettner tab installed in the rudder which will reduce control forces further. Ill just add the graph again even though in the bug report I posted all important passages including the graph attached. Not sure why this behavior isnt being revised yet.

Yeah I have posted about this already some time ago in the bugs section. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388) Funny thing is after the latest update all the control surfaces even break off at TAS 900 kph at 4 km altitude (ICAO standard conditions in ME). The document clearly states full controllability at these speeds in roll and in yaw after attachment of the new taller rudder. The K-4 even has a Flettner tab installed in the rudder which will reduce control forces further. Ill just add the graph again even though in the bug report I posted all important passages including the graph attached. Not sure why this behavior isnt being revised yet.

 

I don't there is an issue with the control surfaces ripping off at 900 TAS. The max permissiable dive speed after all was 850, so anything above that is just pushing your luck.

Now, the dive tests in 1943 with the 109F did indeed note very rough aileron overbalance encountered, so in the max speed dives that resulted 906 kph TAS they actually limited aileron deflection by half to prevent a possible flutter.

The thing is the ailerons just magically stop working at around 700 kph IAS, which at around 1500 meters would still work out as around only as cc. 770 TAS. Thing is, the aileron reversal and "0 degrees of roll" point is far, far higher than that, even on this tested F-2 (and as an educated guess, even higher on the K, since wings were reinforced already on the G), at around 1000 km/h TAS.

The guy behind the stick in a 109F-2 was still measuring about 0.6 radians (cc 34 degrees per sec) at 780 km/h TAS, there is no reason why our pilot couldn't do that. Perhaps the new "clipping stick" model prevents us from rolling. see attached graph.

I am suprised you do not know about that. Thats how it was IRL, I even wrote a post about it.

 

Meaning that elevator was operational but very stiff and required lots of force and rudder still worked, but ailerons were disabled.

Nonsense, Solty, nonsense. How can a control be just 'disabled'..?? The subjective feeling may be that it's very hard to move, but however high the aileron stick forces raise with speed, you could still deflect them somewhat, the controls WILL react to force, WILL deflect the surface. Meaning that they would have still some effect, not diminished to ZERO. That can only happen if either the surfaces are in a aerodynamic shadow, stalled position or if you reach the aileron reversal point... which is not happing until at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K.

Something is seriously botched up in the aileron model I am afraid.

See attached graph.

Nonsense, Solty, nonsense. However high the aileron stick forces raise with speed, you could still deflect them somewhat. Meaning that they would have still some effect, not diminished to ZERO. That can only happen if either the surfaces are in a aerodynamic shadow, stalled postion or if you reach the aileron reversal point... which is at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K.

 

See attached graph.

Or if the pilot doesn't have enough room and strenght to deflect them. It is not about the plane itself but pilot as well, and we know that because of the tight and small 109 cockpit and due to very high stick forces, moving the stick at 700+ kph is a superhuman feat.

EDIT: Also the graph doesn't state its for any 109, I will read it when I translate it.

Or if the pilot doesn't have enough room and strenght to deflect them. It is not about the plane itself but pilot as well, and we know that because of the tight and small 109 cockpit and due to very high stick forces, moving the stick at 700+ kph is a superhuman feat.

And why is that, exactly?

I have been in the 109 cocpit. There is nothing extraordinary in moving the stick left and right. Its exactly the same as in the Mustang, for example.

Solty you write now every 2 pages this science what is max personal opinion, there is no evidence 109 have high stick forces at high speed.

But seem's like in the comment 2 Sides early 109 pilots didn't have this trouble with to small cockpit and love it.

And Messerschmitt did high Speed test where they recover from IAS around 750 km/h with out kill him self should not possible or?

I don't there is an issue with the control surfaces ripping off at 900 TAS. The max permissiable dive speed after all was 850, so anything above that is just pushing your luck.

 

Now, the dive tests in 1943 with the 109F did indeed note very rough aileron overbalance encountered, so in the max speed dives that resulted 906 kph TAS they actually limited aileron deflection by half to prevent a possible flutter.

 

The thing is the ailerons just magically stop working at around 700 kph IAS, which at around 1500 meters would still work out as around only as cc. 770 TAS. Thing is, the aileron reversal and "0 degrees of roll" point is far, far higher than that, even on this tested F-2 (and as an educated guess, even higher on the K, since wings were reinforced already on the G), at around 1000 km/h TAS.

 

The guy behind the stick in a 109F-2 was still measuring about 0.6 radians (cc 34 degrees per sec) at 780 km/h TAS, there is no reason why our pilot couldn't do that. Perhaps the new "clipping stick" model prevents us from rolling. see attached graph.

 

 

 

Nonsense, Solty, nonsense. How can a control be just 'disabled'..?? The subjective feeling may be that it's very hard to move, but however high the aileron stick forces raise with speed, you could still deflect them somewhat, the controls WILL react to force, WILL deflect the surface. Meaning that they would have still some effect, not diminished to ZERO. That can only happen if either the surfaces are in a aerodynamic shadow, stalled position or if you reach the aileron reversal point... which is not happing until at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K.

 

Something is seriously botched up in the aileron model I am afraid.

 

See attached graph.

If i read the "attached graph" correct, it says "Konstanter knüppelausschlag"(constant stickdeflection)

of 7.5degrees at around 750kph ....

wait ... did they actually move the stick at 750kph ??? if so , then we have a serious problem....

at750kph the stick in the K4 doesnt move AT ALL... how is that supposed to be ? maybe yoyo can actually explain that ?

;2914442']If i read the "attached graph" correct, it says "Konstanter knüppelausschlag"(constant stickdeflection)

of 7.5degrees at around 750kph ....

wait ... did they actually move the stick at 750kph ??? if so , then we have a serious problem....

at750kph the stick in the K4 doesnt move AT ALL... how is that supposed to be ? maybe yoyo can actually explain that ?

-------------------------

I am checking the data. Also, Kurfurst claims it is for the Bf109F, not Bf109K4, so it will be a bit different. Again, the chart doesn't state that its for any 109.

Also, test was done at 3000m, so at different speeds and alitudes the difference will be more noticible.

From my observation and test done by my friend, the above mentioned roll tests were done with full rudder coordination. Thefore, it is not aileron effectivness alone.

What I've gathered from the document and tests performed by my friend:

Document ~550kph the airplane is capable of 1,2ωx/sec=67,4°/sec to achieve full 360° roll it requires 5,34sec. Seems to be the best possible roll rate achievable.

My friend's test shows:

7,19sec; 7,47sec at 550kph without rudder.

5,32sec; 5,48sec; 5,50sec at 550kph with rudder.

Now try rolling the airplane at 750kph and use both ailerons and rudder to do so and at 3000m.

Solty you write now every 2 pages this science what is max personal opinion, there is no evidence 109 have high stick forces at high speed.

But seem's like in the comment 2 Sides early 109 pilots didn't have this trouble with to small cockpit and love it.

And Messerschmitt did high Speed test where they recover from IAS around 750 km/h with out kill him self should not possible or?

These tests were done in shallow dives, and there are reports from BoB and I think it was Africa, where Spitfire pilots would pull up and the 109 would go into the ground in a steep dive. I think I've read a report of a P-38 encounter where a Me109 went into a dive and never recovered.

Also, it is possible to recover from a dive in a 109 at 750kph by using the horisontal stabilizer trim wheel.

One other note, we are talking about aileron effectivness, and that is much harder to achieve when you have no room to move your shoulders and your body. It is a movment of different muscles and in a different way.

;2914442']If i read the "attached graph" correct, it says "Konstanter knüppelausschlag"(constant stickdeflection)

of 7.5degrees at around 750kph ....

wait ... did they actually move the stick at 750kph ??? if so , then we have a serious problem....

at750kph the stick in the K4 doesnt move AT ALL... how is that supposed to be ? maybe yoyo can actually explain that ?

This graph shows achieved roll rate with various stick deflections angles., i.e. 7,6 degrees stick deflection. Maximum stick deflection was 15 degrees. So even at 750 kph half stick deflection was possible by pilot.

There are about a dozen such graph, the testing was done at the German Aero Reasearch Instutite (DVL) on an old 109F-2 in 1944, the research subject was actually measuring wing flexing effects on roll rate, but as a side result they also plotted practically everything you want to know on 109F(~G, K) roll behaviour.

YoYo has that full report already, perhaps he can enlighten us why aileron deflection is nonexisting in DCS module.

thats what i was curios about ... and if there is only 3 degree stickdeflection in reallife ... in dcs it is 0 degrees ;)

i am able to roll at high speeds"750ish" but veeeeery slow - fine with me, got used to it BUT the stick in the 109k4 doesnt show ANY deflection... afaik if there is aileron authority, it should be seen on the stick in cockpit, shouldnt it ? .... maybe just a visual thing though :joystick:

I don't there is an issue with the control surfaces ripping off at 900 TAS. The max permissiable dive speed after all was 850, so anything above that is just pushing your luck.

 

Now, the dive tests in 1943 with the 109F did indeed note very rough aileron overbalance encountered, so in the max speed dives that resulted 906 kph TAS they actually limited aileron deflection by half to prevent a possible flutter.

 

The thing is the ailerons just magically stop working at around 700 kph IAS, which at around 1500 meters would still work out as around only as cc. 770 TAS. Thing is, the aileron reversal and "0 degrees of roll" point is far, far higher than that, even on this tested F-2 (and as an educated guess, even higher on the K, since wings were reinforced already on the G), at around 1000 km/h TAS.

Well it was an F with G wings and G rudder. So in terms of control surfaces it was identical to the Gs and Ks. I think there is a problem, because the test pilot describes how he could control the roll moment of the aircraft with the old horned rudder by aileron input. Furthermore the test pilot describes with the new tall rudder aileron input was possible but not necessary, which both contradicts current DCS behavior. Both at TAS way above 800 kph.

I have always felt that the rudder is not quite right..