Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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...

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?


Edited by Solty

[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 post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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.


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I hope that the pilot write something in this thread, which flies the BF109in reality. Maybe he can clarify the facts;)

 

edit:i can´t help doing it.:lol: :protest:evidence....protest.gifevidence....protest.gifevidence....protest.gifevidence....protest.gifevidence....protest.gifevidence....


Edited by Einauge
Link to post
Share on other sites
Or are you a real world 109 pilot with some insight that no one else has?

I'm not following this discussion, but why does Hummingbird need to be a RW 109 pilot?

 

There should be a lot of pilot reports available as reference.

 

E.g. I know a few German WWII pilots who did prefer the 109 over the 190 (although they said that the 190 was the better plane) because the 109 simply didn't violently snap out of a turn without warning, contrary to the 190.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not following this discussion, but why does Hummingbird need to be a RW 109 pilot?

 

There should be a lot of pilot reports available as reference.

 

E.g. I know a few German WWII pilots who did prefer the 109 over the 190 (although they said that the 190 was the better plane) because the 109 simply didn't violently snap out of a turn without warning, contrary to the 190.

 

This is certainly true, the testimonies of many real pilots of 109 are many and you can say your point of view on the question without being necessarily a real pilot of 109.

 

I agree with the sudden stalemate of the 190, certainly one of the most critical points of this airplane, while the 109 is say more sincere for this aspect ..

 

:thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not following this discussion, but why does Hummingbird need to be a RW 109 pilot?

 

There should be a lot of pilot reports available as reference.

 

E.g. I know a few German WWII pilots who did prefer the 109 over the 190 (although they said that the 190 was the better plane) because the 109 simply didn't violently snap out of a turn without warning, contrary to the 190.

 

Know as in know, or know as in I heard a third party quote from a guy who knows a guy?

 

The trouble with all of us so-called armchair experts is that we are just that, and nothing more. Shouldn't there be a little more to all statements about why flight models are so bad than just plucking statements out of thin air, or failing to substantiate them in any what whatsoever? Anything else is just wild opinion, and bears no scrutiny at all.

 

I'd be interested to know why the other sims are regarded to be so much better, and on what basis he suggests that the sudden stall onset is wrong.

 

Don't get me wrong, he could be absolutely correct in what he says, but unless he adds something to support it, the statement remains utterly meaningless. In a word, unless he has personally flown the same model 109 as simulated, in exactly the same conditions, all he is doing is failing to quote anyone that could have. That's mere hearsay at best, wouldn't you agree?

 

ED will simply not take a blind bit of notice of any statement that cannot be supported by more than "777 do it better". In that respect, why should anyone else?

 

Just explain a little more why you reach the conclusions you have, and we can all take them as meaningful

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply find it not in harmony according to what I read from pilot reports.

 

Don't know how to put it better than saying that, in the DCS 109, slat deplyment instead of being smooth and almost unnoticeable, causes a weird separation between roll and yaw - as if there was now roll-yaw coupling, no cross-moments of inertia, a huge lack of directional stability...

 

It simply doesn't feel right, not to mention what has always been mentioned since release, being it filled or not in the MW tank....

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.Know as in know, or know as in I heard a third party quote from a guy who knows a guy?

 

2.The trouble with all of us so-called armchair experts is that we are just that, and nothing more.

1.Know, e.g. my father.

2. +17000hrs in taildraggers, mil jets, airliners, etc. ;)

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply find it not in harmony according to what I read from pilot reports.

That's especially true when talking about the 109 take-off accidents.

 

If you read 3 different reports for exactly the same sub-type you get 4 wildy differing reports.

 

That's why I ususally only refer to test flight reports, but the average pilot opinion sometimes adds nice hints as well.

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I'll believe that when they finally make an Albatros D.Va that can stall.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm neither knowledgeable nor interested in DCS 109 enough, flying it only occasionally, but Hummingbird's comment got me curious, so I took the plane for a spin in 2.2.

 

Well, let's just say that trying to fly coordinated over Normandy, for the life of me I couldn't force the plane to do any wing drop at all, let alone jittery one, neither in level stalls, not in ham-fisted turns. Over Nevada in "free flight" mission, when not paying attention to the slip indicator, it did eventually start to slowly roll left in the deep stall "stick to the guts" turn. Different altitude and density, I guess.

 

Still, compared to Mustang, which drops the left wing just like that when I pull the stick hard, and Dora, which drops the wing even when I look at it the wrong way, 109 seems to be the most idiot-proof and mild in this aspect (yes, I double checked if I had any auto-rudder help on). Don't know and don't care how good this FM is, but differences in our conclusions are quite noteworthy :D.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 109 rely on coordinate Flying especially at low Speeds with much Rudder Input trough the heavy engine Torque the Plane start to slip sideways, the DCS Stall Characteristic of 109 as mentioned mild....

Can Stall to the Ground with Slats wide open with no significant wing Drop.

Can not see at all a Error here...

Flying Clean in DCS give you remarkable advance over your Enemy..

What you mentioned the other "great" Flight Sim not even need Pedals to Fly there Amiga Joystick is enough...


Edited by MAD-MM

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are neglibility things that could be better, like the cockpit and the skin markings in detail, but these are only graphics.Nothing special.

To know how near the FM its on bf109, you have to ask a person who flew a bf109 and tested the bf109 DCS Simulator.

Like in this video for the fw190.

Not a Spitfire or a military jet or another plane...only the plane we are talking about. I flew a ask21 gilder and an arcus paraglider a long time ago before i became a sim couch potato.:lol:

How could i say this FM is correct... never. I can say, for me it "feels" right or wrong. But it´s just subjective, It had nothing to do with the reality.:smilewink:

I think FM discussions are bullshit and ED knows what they have to do and they do a good job.:thumbup:


Edited by Ovis

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

It is simply based on every pilot account about flying the 109 I've ever read, so quite an extensive foundation I'd say :)

 

Skip Holm:

"The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G."

 

Dave Southwood:

"The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kph with display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis."

 

 

The above is absolutely nothing like the 109 we have in DCS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...