Derbysieger

Big thank you for the stream and the impromptu Q&A session on TS afterwards!

Brakes are needed for taxiing but not for take off. The Dora has plenty of rudder authority. You don't even need half of its rudder range to keep it lined up at take off power.

yep, I've seen this as well, even in SP. Zoom in and the aircraft will appear. This is a problem with DCS. It has nothing to do with cheating. It looks like DCS World 2 will fix this. Also, if you are flying on this server make sure to use their modpack. It makes spotting significantly easier. Watch my video on the previous page as reference.

Need more practice:

I agree, the bomber mission is a lot of fun. I'm completely out of practice though: dseztpMY1ds

Das sollte eigentlich viel viel besser laufen. Solche Performance sehe ich nur mit sehr viel AI aktiv. Wie sind deine video einstellungen? Insbesondere AA, TSSAA, Schatten.

Gave it a go in the A-10C: [gspb]Derbysieger_Gunsmoke_July_2015.trk

Nedum, do we actually play the same game? Have you flown the Dora lately? I can see a lot of the characteristics he describes in the DCS Dora. First of all they didn't talk about taxiing they specifically talked about take off. And I don't need much rudder in the DCS Dora on take off and I've never touched the brakes during a take off run in that aircraft. Hell, if I use more than half right rudder the plane goes to the right even at very low speed. In the Bf 109 it can be necessary to tap the brakes in addition to full rudder to keep it straight on the take off run under certain circumstances, same as he described. Next, the tail wheel does come up on its own in the DCS D9 and I can pull up into a climb right after takeoff without a wing dropping. Oh, and have you actually tried holding full power with full brakes? I hate to burst your little bubble there but it actually works. The DCS Dora as it is now can do this. The way he described the plane falling straight out of the sky without dropping a wing on landing is pretty well modeled I feel. The only thing I would maybe give you is the speed but even then they talked about landing there, and flying at 1.2ata during a descent will easily result in speeds around 650kph All in all I got the opposite impression that you got, that DCS models the characteristics pretty much as he described. Obviously you can't simulate the physical sensations that a real aircraft will give you but apart from that I felt like his stories represented how the DCS aircraft works.

An-2 please!

Das kommt ganz auf die Mission an. In einer durchschnittlichen SP Mission habe ich je nach Airbase in der A-10C oder F-15 25-45fps auf dem Boden, auf über 10000ft habe ich locker 50-70fps, im Niedrigflug zwischen 30 und 60 fps je nachdem wo ich mich auf der Map befinde. Wenn ich im MP eine Mission mit viel KI hoste dann habe ich am Boden oft um die 20fps und in der luft selten mehr als 35fps, wenn ich aber die selbe Mission als Client spiele sind die FPS wieder normal. In den WWII Fightern und den frühen Jets (Sabre und MiG-15) habe ich am Boden meist 35-50fps und in der Luft fast ständig über 60fps. Einstellungen sind alle auf High bis auf Shadows (medium) und Civilian traffic (low), Heat Blur on, Cockpit Displays auf 512 every frame, HDR auf Warm Colours, von den Optionen unten rechts habe ich nur die Cockpit Shadows aktiviert und ich spiele im Borderless Windewed mode. In der A-10C klappe ich die Spiegel am Boden immer hoch. Bush Clutter auf 400m, Trees auf 10000m, PreloaD radius 150000m.

Ich glaube ich habe das Problem gefunden: Sowas braucht sicherlich zwei GTX980ti und einen sehr hoch getakteten Prozessor um halbwegs flüssig zu laufen. Versuchs mal mit 2xMSAA oder ohne MSAA und stell sicher, dass TSAA deaktiviert ist. Diese Einstellungen brauchen extrem viel Leistung in der jetzigen Engine.

Eins meiner Lieblingsmodule. Ich versuche unsere Jungs ständig dazu zu überzeugen mal die Guardians of the Caucasus DC in Angriff zu nehmen. Nech, Nirvi? :D

Hast du den Pilot richtig benannt? Für das CTTS Script ist das glaube ich helicargo1, helicargo2 usw. wenn du die Variablen im Script nicht änderst.

No it is not. Amazing sense of speed!

This description is pretty much what I see in DCS though. Especially if I compare it to both the other fighters. You CAN throw the Bf 109 pretty hard around at low speeds. If I fly very slow (~270-300km/h, 168-186mph) in the P-51 or Fw 190 the aircraft is much, much harder to maneuver compared to the K4. Maybe it needs to be fine tuned but overall I would say that is a good description of what I see when I fly the Bf 109. Stick length (extensions) also play a role in what you can achieve. And btw you constantly pull more on the virtual stick than I can sustain.

I see the slats coming out all the time when I fly hard maneuvers in the DCS K4 and there is a bit of room for harder maneuvering once they are deployed before I get buffeting but I'm not in a position to judge how much room for harder maneuvers they should give us before the aircraft stalls. What we need are tests with real data from the sim, not just videos, to compare it to RL data if available. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to judge if it stalls at the right time or not. IMO the videos show not enough to really judge what is happening. I can ride the K4 right on the edge of a stall with minimal corrections after I find the sweet spot but I can not pull and instantly have the stick at that sweet spot. I need to find it first.

The wet runway textures look really cool.

Roadrunner, du hast doch schon ein HOTAS oder? In dem fall ist TrackIR meiner Meinung nach ein weitaus besseres Investment. Versteh mich bitte nicht falsch, ich bin sehr zufrieden mit meinem HOTAS WH (hab ihn jetzt bald seit 3 Jahren) aber wenn man sowieso schon Besitzer eines HOTAS ist dann gibt einem TrackIR viel mehr als ein HOTAS WH.

That quote implies that the bang was very dependend on the rate at which the AoA increased. Interesting.

I think I read about that 'bang' here before. IIRC those discussions didn't come to any solid conclusion but it was assumed the bang was caused by a slat that was stuck and then suddenly deployed. I could be completely wrong though. It's been a while. Regarding the stall warning I think the Bf 109 gives plenty of warning compared to the P-51 or Fw 190. Also, compared to the other fighters we currently have in DCS a stall in the Bf 109 is pretty forgiving and by no means as violent as it is in the P-51 or the Fw 190 (IMO).

Control stiffening happens fairly early in the bf 109, much earlier than in the other fighters we currently have. The effect becomes more noticeable the faster you go. I think at 50% deflection you would stall eventually in any of the fighters I haven't tested this specifically but even in slow turning fights I rarely pull the stick to full deflection and at medium or high speeds you need very little input to pull a lot of G and at medium speed you can easily pull the stick far enough to stall.

I think you don't realize why this is happening. In DCS your pilot has limited "strength" which limits his ability to pull the virtual stick past a certain point as speed increases. However, you are NOT limited by this on your physical joystick so it is very easy to pull way past that point. As the aircraft loses speed your virtual pilot will deflect the stick more and more until he is able to match the position of his virtual stick to the position of your physical joystick. If the position of your joystick is past the point where the aircraft can sustain a turn you will inevitably stall. As mentioned before this is not intuitive and yes, the P-51 and the Fw 190 are effected by this as well it ijust isn't nearly as pronounced as it is in the Bf 109.

If you pull past a certain point at speeds higher than 300km/h (I think) this effect becomes noticeable and if you then pull past that point on your joystick the virtual stick in the cockpit moves as you lose speed. Hope that makes sense. So what you really need to do is find the point where you can sustain a turn at a certain speed without moving the stick. Rudder input is also important to maintain speed and I noticed in your video that the ball was off center a lot of times even though you clearly tried to keep it centered which certainly isn't easy if you're close to a stall..

The problem with a test like this is how DCS currently simulates stick forces. The Bf 109 required a lot of forces to move the stick/control surfaces at high speeds. The way DCS simulates it right now is that it limits the range of the virtual stick the faster you go. If you fly at 500km/h and then pull on the stick you will notice a moment where the virtual stick in the cockpit stops moving even though you still have a lot of range on your joystick left. It is by no means a very intuitive way of doing it but it is WIP and maybe ED can come up with a better way of doing it. Also as jcomm mentioned rudder in the Bf 109 is currently uneffected by the effect but this is known and will be added in future. I think the Fw 190 and P-51 already have this effect for pitch, roll and yaw, it just isn't nearly as strong as it is in the Bf 109

I think the problem is how do you simulate realistic stick forces for everyone? I can totally understand why people don't like the current implementation but no stick force simulation at all is not the way to go. I personally am mostly okay with how ED decided to implement it. It's not perfect but I don't know how you could simulate this properly without compromises. I'm sure that rudder stiffening will be added as well in future patches, this is still a beta after all. Before this change I had no problems taking the Bf 109 to places a real pilot would never be able to take it, now we're limited to a much more realistic flight envelope but it comes at the cost of odd and counter intuitive behaviour. I think no stick force simulation at all is not a good idea. It would make the Bf 109 a much better fighter than it really was.