9.JG27 DavidRed

if this is true Sith, then i think it would be a good idea to edit the backer rewards. i am the last person who wants to fly on normandy while my friends sit in teamspeak and cannot join because they didnt pledge high enough or at all, but right now the rewards are misleading i think, as there is clearly the distinction between normandy access, and normandy alpha acess for higher pledges. i think this just leads to confusion.

^^this test reminded me of a related test i wanted to do with a friend of mine a while ago...ill see whether we can manage to make it today...

the thing is, you cant fly the exact same manouves in the other aircraft. try pushing the nose of the 109 down...eventually it will respond, but it takes ages, and is far off from what nirvi posted,...what in the spit seems like a gentle push on the stick, cannot be reached with the 109 even janking the stick fully forward... but, in my view currently, the blackouts-redouts are hard to cope with in all ww2 aircraft. im not questioning the Gs being pulled or pushed(cause i havent measured them), but the fact that we are flying a simulation and cannot feel the forces which act upon our pilot can make it really hard to fly close to the limits. its those "instant-blackouts" im speaking about, where the screen hardly shows any indication of a beginning of a blackout, and then all of a sudden, the screen goes completely black instantly, without any warning. i see quite experienced dcs pilot still blacking out and crashing every day. maybe, its very realistic what we currently have in dcs, but its hard to cope with in a simulation...maybe, they should slightly adjust, and let the blackouts fade in more pronounced, even if its fast...but right now, very often it goes from 0 to 100 instantly. hard to react, when you cant feel and see whats going on.

really? well if really nobody's doing it, i could probably help.

I agree.thats what i would expect in real life. But in dcs the distance has a big influence on the effects

in dcs, there is definitely a big difference whether you hit at 50, 100 or 200 or higher distance. you must be a good shot with the 108 to hit anything above 200, but even if you hit, its then lacking the effect you get at closer distance. the farther the target is, the less severe the effects of our 108 will be.

yeah indeed a strange idea :) but i tend to map my controls as close as possible to the real counterparts...meaning, in that case, that i dont want the brakes mapped to my toebrakes on my rudder pedals, cause the spit is working different. so, as i only have a ffb2 with little buttons, and no fancy lever on the grip, i mapped a button on my ch-throttle. that wasnt working good though. so i ended up mapping it to the mini-stick on the throttle. works like a charm. putting a stick into the spokes works probably as good as the button i was using ;)

i just rewatched Brunotte's interview...really love that you guys made this interview available to the public...being austrian and german my mothertongue, i dont need the translations luckily... and what i always have scratching my head in regards of the 109...Brunotte is especially talking about the 109 when he talks about the Kalifornischen Riesenslip. he clearly states, that on short field landings they didn't only slip, but needed a big slip, what they called then the californian sideslip...im aware, that his gesture isn't anything accurate neither scientific, but the way he waves his hand showing what he means with the slip, is something, other planes are easily capable of doing...a proper slip...but in our dcs 109 we really are far away from a proper slip. i said already, that what he says is nothing measurable, but the way he talks about it indicates, that the 109 was capable of proper slips. he really pronounces that in his speech and even supports it with his gesture. and the word itself, californischer riesenslip, really means, a big a** slip. the best what we can achieve in our 109 more resembles a student pilot who doesnt know what to do with the rudder once in the air..flying a little uncoordinated, loosing a couple of kph. far off a proper slip, let alone a Kalifornischer Riesenslip. the interview, and what we have in dcs just doesnt fit together. ps: Brunotte claims that with the Dora a sideslip wasnt necessary at all, as it bleeded the speed on the ground quicker, and therefore possible on short fields without it...the californian slip is something at least in that video specific to the 109.

looks like Emil...and no, not ridiculous.i never said i expect our K4 to behave like that.not at all.

short answer...NO

if you want one, dont tell them Krupi ;)

yes i noticed that too...the tailwheel tends to act strange sometimes...would be worth to have a look at the 109 as well, as it behaves similar.

well,...the spit is very early beta, and as krupi pointed out, the 109 had a similar issue.so its definitely possible that there is an issue.i myself only managed to brake a wing once in the spit, and there it was because i really over-reacted.(jumping between 109 and spit online is quite a challenge in regards of correct inputs) one thing we have to keep in mind are the very very low stick forces on the elevator. in the spit you are able to pull way quicker and way harder on the stick compared to all other ww2 modules. so the same deflection on your home joystick doesnt resemble the same deflection in-cockpit between the modules.and the spit is a special case where it is probably multible times the deflection of the 109 for example. so while its impossible for our 109 pilot to pull enough on the stick to get a certain amount of Gs, its easy for our spit pilot... so while i myself didnt have the same problem i had back then with the 109, i already observed a couple of spits online, where it indeed loocked a bit overdone.where they pulled relatively gentle and lost a wing. might be that they pulled hard earlier already, so that there was already some damage done to the wing, but still i wouldnt be surprised if there is indeed a problem.

and it indeed does if you keep the tailwheel unlocked, which is necessary if you want a "fair" comparison. keep in mind, that the tailwheel locking mechanism was only added at a later point to the 109, after many poor soles lost their lifes already.

^^lol..here i give you rep so you might gain one square back

i would love to have a bf110 on dcs level...or maybe a bf410. ju88 would be great too...the difference for me personally though...while i would buy a ju88 to support, i wouldnt really fly it, whereas i would definitely jump into a 110...

rel4y,...didnt you say, that the masses were close but slightly off in dcs, in your other thread? what i still would like to get an answer on though is, why our 109 has the mk108 pointing downwards? that would only be possible if the spinner had a cone shaped opening, and the whole engine placed in a hanging attitude...but i dont see that in any drawings... in E:\DCS World\CoreMods\WWII Units\Bf-109K-4 we have the Bf-109K-4.lua, were in line 296 it says: elevation_initial = -0.069, so the barrel is pointing downwards it seems. is that a bug?

i admit, im cheating my own thread, as in that vid my very first spitfire kill is not included..still i hope its something worth to spend 2minutes on..enjoy

no K4 but waoh, that was some quick tail rise...maybe 5seconds to lift the tail.

as others here, i also think, that before visiting other theaters, dcs should focus on the current timeframe and front. im not talking about sticking to 1944 only, but mid to late war western front. (although, i would sell a kidney for a 109-F4). i would rather have one scenario which can be considered as at least partially complete with lots of content and aircraft, than a couple of scenarios which dont blend together at all..speaking of pacific for example. i think, that after the current announced planeset by ED, best would be to develop 1 twin engine attack aircraft for each side. that would give us lots of opportunities offline and especially online. cause i fear, that as long as bombers remain AI, people will not really care and "waste" ammunition on them, even if the mission builders create something immersive. i have seen that in other sims, where people just dont care because the bombers are AI. but on the same server, the very same mission, when the same people all of a sudden saw a bomber formation flown by players, that was when all the fun began. people all of a sudden like to give escorts, and the opposing side actually begins to attack the bombers. i think, even the most detailed AI models will not be able to give us that...so my 2c, remain on the western front, keep improving that, and hopefully we will see twin engines arise as well.

yes, of course, i dont think anybody is complaining about the rudder when the aircraft is still in a 3point attitude with slow speeds.this is a very good write up from him, but not directly related to this topic,...neither is the effectiveness of the rudder. im still searching for a certain video on youtube where you see a squadron of 109s taking off...unfortunately i cant find it, but will continue the search. and sith is of course right as well,the cg will shift with different loadout. no doubt about that.you can easily feel it even during flight,...still i think, what we have in dcs, mind for all ww2 aircraft not just the 109, and what can be observed on different videos(also wartime ones), is very close, but not yet totally perfect. my2c...search for that certain vid continues.

i dont think this will ever be really fixed until they completely rework that feature from scratch.

well...i really dont have much practice with the spit. i do have enough practice with the other ww2 birds though, so people who still struggle don't take my post as snobbish, but just as an advice...up until today, i also had some trouble with the spit, first i thought its me being used to using conventional differential brakes...while that is probably partially true, the thing that really changed things immediately for me, was to put the brakes-lever on an axis..before, i had it mapped to a button, but setting it onto an axis solved really all problems. i actually think, the spit is quite a lot easier than the 109 without locked tail-wheel. thats particular true for field landings. its really forgiving and doesnt have such a jumpy tailwheel like the 109. also it withstands quite some slip, whereas the 109 usually tilts the wings(109 without locked tailwheel). even two pointers are quite easy, as the rudder is way more effective than that of the 109...have a look at my quite dirty two pointer in the fields. really not the best landing, but the trusty spit brought my pilot back in one piece...again, whats really important, is to map the brakes to an axis. mapping it to a button has the issue, that if you release the button, the release of the brake is delayed, and its still braking even if you think you dont. with an axis, that issue is not existent.

armchair amateur, foolish...what else you want to call me?:doh:

if you are correct, then nice find... what i would also want to know from the devs is, why the Mk108 is pointing downwards...i was always thinking that the cannon was pointing straight through the engine block and the spinner, but in dcs its hanging downwards according to the .lua file.