9.JG27 DavidRed

i confess i havent flown a p51, fw190, 109 or spitfire, but im happy i am not an armchair pilot only....anyway, please, have a look at the FMoptions.lua file and ask yourself, whether all the entries are based on scientific facts and sources, or whether some of them are guesses themselves...infact this file was adjusted by ED after someone on this forum,did guesswork and adjusted this file to get a more "believable" groundhandling.(based on nothing but feeling).. i am convinced that many things in dcs are just that, estimated guesses, especially when its about groundhandling... but im also convinced that things like P-factor and the like are also good approximations at best, and there will always be room for improvement. crosswind-landings are a nice example where you really feel limitations of dcs.yes feel, no hard evidence, but once you have to give rudder into the wind, you know if you have flown in real life, that something isnt quite spot on. besides, nobody in this thread was complaining or accusing ED of being wrong so far, it was a discussion only with rather questions than claims. so why screaming for evidence immediately? im sure, Yo-Yo does know himself, that his exceptional flight model will never be 100% spot on, and that there will always be something to fiddle around with, add, adjust.

there are enough wartime videos as well, which show the exact same behaviour. sure in war some took off with more than 30% fuel and fully equipped.. also, rewatch the video of erich brunotte yourself...lots of stuff which should make you doubt a couple of things in dcs, as for example the californian sideslip. meaningless opinion?thats your opinion... if you think dcs is 100% spot on to reality then fine for you,..there are people though who really like what dcs is doing, but are convinced that it could do even more realistic than it already does, and also think that we have the devs capable of improving the sim further.

:lol::thumbup: yeah, californian sideslip...we already call it the lichtenstein slip

possible. look at how little right rudder the 109 actually needs there to stay straight on take off.

then i guess we have a bug here.

i know that was asked a couple of times already, but i cant remember it being answered at all..so, except for take-offs, wasnt the 109 known to need much left rudder? there was even the saying that 109 pilots needed a longer left foot..and i guess that didnt come out of nowhere...in dcs its the opposite.

dont know at what speeds exactly the 109 should pull up its tail...what i do notice though, is that all ww2 modules so far somehow dont want to pull their tails really up...watching videos on youtube of 109s, P-51s taking off, it seems they indeed get their butts sooner up, and then keep rolling on their main wheels for quite a while until they rotate.and it seems that the aircraft do that by themselves and no pushing of the stick is necessary...which goes hand in hand with many pilot comments where they say that pushing the stick was a bad idea, and the planes want to pull up their tails by themselves. yes, in dcs, the tail comes up as well...but thats followed pretty much immediately with rotating off the aircraft...i think there's something slightly off in dcs. cant say what it is though, just my impression.

ich würde eventuell mal auch ins BIOS gehen, und nach den USB optionen sehen, mal alle durchtesten falls du das noch nicht gemacht hast.einen versuch is es wert....wie MAD schon gesagt hat, ich würde keinen meiner 3FFB2 mehr verkaufen...überlege schon mir ein 4tes backup zu kaufen da es ja anscheinend in zukunft keine ffb sticks mehr geben wird.

sadly, the these netcode problems also seem to be the cause for other strange things like input lag of stick forces...once a server is laggy the 109 feels nothing like it feels offline. you have to keep probably twice the deflection compared to offline flying for just a moderate turn. what you can also observe, is that the netcode doesnt seem to be able to handle the fms correctly.once you are on someone's six, and he starts to do aggressive evasive manouvers, you can see small little unpredictable lag jumps, which defeat the law of physics so to speak. horrible to aim at, but more annyoing, the bullets often then just go right through the bandit without hitting....its frustrating...especially as ive seen so many patches go by where they adressed netcode issues,...but somehow, i dont see a real improvement to when i started flying dcs some 5years ago.

well, anybody who is really interested can drop me a pm...

dear devs...and in particular dear Yo-Yo... i quite like how ffb is implemented in dcs. in general, if it works(you never know) the effects are pretty good implemented...but i think, it there is still room for improvements... first of all, would it be possible, to have seperate adjustments of trimmer force and shake force for the two different axis? right now, once you set them for 1 axis, its automatically applied to the other one. i think, it could give us an even more realistic feel, if we would be able to adjust the axis seperately for each other, and for example have the trimmer force set to 100 on the elevator, and decrease it to lets assume 70 on the ailerons... i think this would be awesome. so the question to Yo-Yo...is this possible? and on an even more advanced level, it would also be awesome, if we would be able to either enable, or disable the different ffb effects, like constant force, custom force, friction, etc within the gui, and preferably, for each axis individually as well... again question to Yo-Yo..is this possible? i know, i really like ffb in dcs, and right now, i dont think i will ever want to fly without a ffb stick in future...dcs does a good job in this regard, but i think, it could do awesome with these advanced adjustment possibilities for the end user.

thats not just the spitfire, but all planes. all these visual effects are just that, visual, and not in sync online unfortunately. its the same in the 109, where your friends often tell you to watch out as you are leaking, but looking at your own aircraft there is nothing at all...and then sometimes its the other way round where you indeed have radiator leaks, which really have an impact, but others cant see it. its not a spitfire bug, but a general damage model bug, or to be more precise a combination of damage model and synchronisation bug.

so do we need to wait for BSS Sniper to confirm the bug, or will this be reported without his approval?

but still no confirmation...nobody knows whether they are aware or not. not much going on here in the 109 bug section. i understand the spit has currently high priority given its state, but a "we do know about it" would go a long way.

so am i talking to myself here?or has this been reported/is it known? i start to ask myself if it makes any sense/difference in reporting issues or not...even a "we dont care" would feel better than this complete ignorance. btw, the issue is still here with the current build.

any chance you go full throttle for take off, and forgot to enable MW50?;) thats my guess

thats two different things...having an inbuilt trackrecording tool, which lets you watch your flights from all different angles afterwards has nothing to do with a video recording software, which you need anyway if you want to make clips...

ok...another post here in this forum reminded me of a certain reward Wags listed back then....the Normandy alpha access reward. Backers who pledged 140$ or higher are supposed to get this reward...for Backers with lower pledges Normandy is listed as a reward, but not as alpha access.... "$120-$139 Gold Backer credit in manuals, all aircraft of choice, beta access, print-ready PDF manuals and Normandy Map" "$140-$159 Gold Backer credit in manuals, all aircraft of choice, beta access, print-ready PDF manuals, Normandy Map, and Normandy Map Alpha access" so my question is, will this reward still be honoured?will those backers get access to the map earlier then the rest?

i wonder how other simultations do it though...i know we are not supposed to compare simulations, but there is another ww2 aircraft simulation out there, which has this feature perfectly implemented and working...even with a rewind function....

thats actually a good question...its listed as a reward by Wags, so it should mean that those backers get an earlier access to the map than the rest, otherwise it wouldnt be a reward right? still wondering when the "copy of any eagle dynamics product" reward will be available...oh and the fightercollection hat, calendar and poloshirt as well :)

...and i am one of them...and i am happy i pledged, as i think that we wouldnt have much except the P51 if it wasnt for that project that ultimately failed...i consider it still a success because ED is developing ww2 stuff now...it just remains to be seen whether they keep developing stuff after the "promised" modules...and they dont owe us anything either...they could very well say, "ok boys and girls, it was nice but financially not feasable, Me262 was our intention, but will not come to frution"....and there is nothing we could do against it...you could try to look after Luthier who actually "signed" some kind of contract with the backers,...carribeans, cuban cigars and coconut rum is my guess. :) no seriously, i dont think that ED is forced to develop anything,...if they dont want, they wont. that goes for the 262 as well...

me too...but dont believe it

P-47 2017? wanna bet?:)

in this case unfortunately everything is subject to change...i for myself know this statement is nothing to get excited about...yet i wouldnt even bet on seeing anything after normandy from ed in regards of ww2...i hope we will, as this the period im most interested in flight simming, but i think there is still a good chance, that after the normandy map, the p47 will get released, and at one point the me262 canceled...and from then on we would have to rely on 3rd parties...hope this will not turn out to be true, but thats one szenario i could imagine to be possible.

dont put ideas in their heads please...id rather see the normandy map today even if it meant having only a 10th of the map size textured with nine 10th only black missing textures, than waiting 1more day than really necessary... i like the fact that they seem to recreate more AI units than i would have thought, but giving this as a reason to have a delay is just in my view wrong...the lighting system yes, but not the AI units as they could drop in as they are developed in my opinion one after the other. southern england is a must in the end i think...so much potential lost if they dont do it...anyway, im pretty sure we will not see it in its initial form... remains to be seen whether this this time they can stick to their own set timeline...2016 as the goal obviously wasnt met, although i am not surprised by that...really hoping for a 1st quater release in 2017...but only believe it once there really is a set date....past has shown that estimations like "first quater of 201x" or "second half of 201x" are exactly that, estimations at best, and they have often missed them... the AI units do look really good, and the map itself could look awesome...the current lighting obviously is still very very much WIP i think...still some weird colours which looked already better in previous screenshots. but im convinced the new system will be worth it in the end.