iFoxRomeo

No, the 109 hasn't always been like that. Since a few months this changed on many WWII Warbirds, as ED silently introduced new DM features. Fox

You're right Frederf. Fox

At the title says: Beside IAS and TS, which is actually GS and should be renamed to GS, the TAS should also be displayed. Fox

In MP tracers from B-17G, A-20, Ju-88 are not synced with clients. For a client it looks like the Bombers are shooting in the direction their guns are facing when they idle and are not shooting, when in fact they are shooting at the client. Short video with one immortal Bf-109 and 3*B-17. I placed only B-17 here, but the problem is the same with A-20 and Ju88. Track replays side by side. One from the server(dedicated server), one from the client. Also there seems to be a problem with skin sync. Fox Bomber_Tracer_client-20200904-180730.trk Bomber_Tracer_server-20200904-180753.trk

Well, there is nothing more to say from my side. Fox

Please, read it all! It might sound displeasing. But the first part is my impression of you, that can, of course, completely differ from reality. ________________________________________________________________ I don't know you. I can only assess your character by the words you write. This is tricky. As you call yourself "amazingme", you set the standard for yourself very high with that alone(not including, what you said during this and other conversations). And I am truly amazed. I rechecked the word "amazing", in case I got the translation wrong. "Astound" would also fit as an exchange for "amazing". I am astound how someone, who sets the standard so high by his words, gets so much so wrong. You can not admit that you made a mistake, or got something wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, I have absolutely no problem being corrected, but then the correction has to be correct. Just one example: 1.42ATA. I showed you that 1.42 is the correct value, but your answer was _______________________________________________________________ Now to the other part: A testflight contains the airframe number, engine number etc. And in the test you now refer to, the engine was replaced because of a faulty supercharger, then tested and it was found okay then. They continued with the test. If the engine was still not sufficient, the engine would have to be repaired/exchanged again. The resulting speeds this particular A8 achieved are similar to other tests, so it was fine. Your videos: What is the atmospheric condition in your tests? Standard atmosphere to compare it to the original graphs is necessary, unless you want to convert the values by yourself to standard atmosphere (I'm unable to do that). First video: Did you trim the aircraft? Or did you push/pull the stick to fly level? In your speedtest you had no TAS indication. Use 2x LCtr+Y, or LCtr+Z to open the info bar and have TAS shown in the cockpitview(or use tacview). The testcharts use TAS (corrected for compessibility). Your cooling flaps were fully open in the speed run. That costs you precious km/h. I'm not sure, but I think it is around -20ish km/h from fully closed to fully open at SL. Second video, again without atmospheric conditions stated. Your video shows: ~1.8km altitude ~1,31 - 1,32 ATA ~2700rpm Now look at the real-life test chart. Altitude: 1.8km Ladedruck Startleistung Horizontalflug ~1.34ATA at 2700rpm ATA delta DCS to real-life testchart average-graph ~0.03. I think that is really really good. And consider, that you didn't reach the resulting speed of this powersetting at this point. The increased dynamic pressure at higher speeds could increase the ATA additionally. If you can maintain (in std. atmosphere) levelflight at 1.8km altitude at takeoff power, you should reach ~560km/h (+~12km/h if ETC501 is removed) TAS. Hmmm... "Normal", as shown above... But I don't think it is necessary to uninstall DCS. Better enjoy the high level of detail and accuracy in DCS. Fox

Was it your evil twin who wrote the posts in this thread?

Cool. As your name suggests, you are amazing!:thumbup: It is 1.42ATA as it is stated in the manual and on the calculation and test sheets. Take a closer look at them. Might help you. I never said the calculations are wrong. But you still need to take the correct values for comparison. But that goes to far now. Isn't that funny, that you are the only person on these forums, that is unable to fly with 2700 rpm and 1.42ATA? Check the prop governor is ON and check your throttle binding, press right CTR+Enter to see if your throttle command goes to 100% and/or use "Num +" to give 100% throttle command. Your problem exactly corresponds to prop governor - off It is amazing, that it took you so long to finally describe YOUR problem with the Anton. Instead you accused ED of wrong modeling and that you know it better. Fox

You don't read properly. First. The sheet I refered to is not the sheet for the bomb-test. You refer to a test I didn't put the link in my post. So no Bombracks other than the ETC501. On another sheet the speed-drop for the installed ETC is given with 12km/h at SL. So without the ETC501 installed you can add 12km/h to the 1.32ATA speed value, not to the 1.42ATA. You try to verify your claim with calculated data + you ignore the powersetting for the calculated performance. Both sheets you refer to are not from tests, but from calculations. And you don't refer to 1.32ATA (1560HP) you previously started with, but now takeoff power 1.42ATA and even the boosted setting of 1,58ATA. Of course then the topspeed values get closer to the Mustang. But this was not your starting point and actually show that you are wrong with you claim. The A8 needs significantly more HP to achieve the same top speed as the Mustang does with less power. The Fw190A8 is significantly slower at the same powersetting than the Mustang. The other performance parts like rollrate etc of course result from the dimensions and weight. And they differ from that of the Mustang. But still you claim that the A8 should perform similar to the Mustang. You mix stuff up, so that it looks that your claim is correct, but it isn't. There is no chance to show you that you are wrong because you ignore everything that doesn't fit your liking. I'll stop from here. But at least others can see this discussion and make their own amazing conclusions. Fox

I quote myself, because you really ignore stuff that contradicts your point, right? No real life testing data available? Seriously? Previously you said this: First you say, that ED can only have the data, that you have, and now you say you don't have real data? Then what data did ED use to model the aircraft, if they have only the data you have, and you have no real life data?:doh: Let me help you again here: Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org Fw190A8 Klick here for the full report ETC reduces Topspeed at SL by 12km/h So topseed at SL ~528km/h for the Anton with 1560HP Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org P-51D Klick here P-51 at 1490HP reaches ~363mph -> 584km/h Summarized real life testdata, not calculated: Anton: ~528km/h with 1560HP, Wingarea 18.3m² P-51: ~584km/h with 1490HP, Wingarea 21.66m² Seriously, do you really think they should perform the same when the P-51 has a greater wingarea, yet is significantly faster than the A8 at the same powerlevel? Fox

Show a screenshot of your controller assignments. Fox

Finally! Some Numbers. Was it really that difficult? Now we can start to work on the problem. Mass: 0.42% difference Power: 0.67% difference. Powerchange during the loop from SL to approx 3000ft is small enough for this comparison, I'd say. Wingspan: 6.91% difference; P-51, 11.28m / A8, 10.5m Wingarea: 15.5% difference; P-51, 21.66m² / A8, 18.3m² Overall length: 8.95% difference; P-51, 9.83m / A8, 8.95m Airfoil characteristics, laminar flow vs. conventional?! And how big are the differences in the cross section/resistance? So we have some similarities and some (I'd say) not neglegtable differences. With these differences alone, I would expect differences in aircraft behaviour. The question is: To what extent? Did you realize, that the P-51 reaches ~580km/h with 1490hp, while the Anton reaches only ~520km/h with 1560hp? I'm talking about the real aircraft. And this is represented in DCS. No, that is up to you to show these perfect P-51 loops and the imperfect A8 loops. You claim, you show! Right, they are no state secret anymore. But how do you know what data ED has? Did they tell you? Do you base your claim only on aircraft mass and power at SL? During a steep climb with the A8 the rpm droops by ca.50rpm. As I gave an explanation a few post before, this droop is (as I see it) because of the lagging prop-governor. Ask Chuck where he got that Info from. This applies to the D9 but not to the A8. The A8 is inferior to the Mustang in every aspect, except armament. Fox

No hollow phrases anymore. If there is a problem, show the problem, if you can. But, you convinced me that you can't. So many posts, but not a single attempt to even show the problem. Fox

You claim it is wrong, you have to show what you base this claim on. Do you want ED to change the Anton's behaviour to your common sense? Common sense has no numbers diagrams or figures to base this on. And are you unable or unwilling to show the "non-energy-losing-loops" with a DCS aircraft the way you claim Anton should be able to? Fox

Hm... My wife will declare me insane, sitting at the pc with the VR-Headset looking up and down for 3 hours.. otoh it might be a good handling training:lol: Why don't you show us, how you mean it? With an aircraft of choice. Make a few loops the way you described it, then we can compare the Anton to it. Otherwise noone knows, what you mean with And do you think this is wrong behaviour and what do you base your claim on? Fox

Lol. Are you unable to open the provided link? There is the complete document! I just used two excerpts to show exemplary how Messerschmitt engineers structure their "Testflights and corresponding documents". There is no content from me at all, that you can or can not trust. And I read the documents. I do understand german. You trust the developers? Then read their documents and try harder to understand them. The "...for certain" sentence also shows that this document is about calculated performance of the K4 and K6, not measured performance. That is what the fuss is all about. Fox

You are comparing apples with oranges. These sheets are caluculations. Flight tests and the results look like these: Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-11-L-42.pdf Abt. Flugerprobung, Gruppe Leistungen // Versuchsbericht Nr. 109 11 L 42 Section: Flighttest, Group: Performance // Testreport Nr. 109 11 L 42 Testflights include the aircraft registration, serial number, engine number, date of flight, pilots name etc. None of these information are mentioned in the other sheets. No reference to a testflight. Is it really so hard to understand that? Calculation is mentioned in the preliminary note multiple times, yet it is simply ignored. Measures -> actions, arrangements, steps Fox

Well, in this case assumptions are what I call absurd. No use in further discussing with you, because you refuse to read and accept what the source states and prefer your assumptions instead. You are only interested in enforcing your position based on your assumptions. Facts are of no interest for you. I don't think you will read this. You will especially ignore the notes. But nevertheless... Everything from kurfurst.org Original in german: And translated in english: Have fun, bye bye.

Two hooks clip through parts of the pedals and, more visible, the brake-cylinders have a weird connection to the pedals. Youtube helps here: Fox

Did you read the second marking: The calculations show... These sheets on kurfurst.org are calculations. Full stop. It doesn't matter if they did flight test or not(Aspera Gmbh performed flighttest). We don't have these tests available and there is no indication, that the test values are incorporated into these calculations sheets; otherwise it needs to be stated in the sheets or the supplemented papers to these sheets, that some of the performance curves are measurements and some are calculations. But that is not the case. Assumptions don't help here. And why are flight measurements needed for a calculation of the new propeller performance? Its still a calculation, "just" with new variables for the propeller; the "calculated airframe" remains the same. Quote from kurfurst.org: Actual flight test trials with the ... Dünnblattschraube ... showing improvements in good agreement with the Messerschmitt Projektbüro report. But kurfurst.org doesn't provide the test trials. If you can show a sheet that is named "Flugversuch" then the situation changes. But "Projektbüro" is quite obviously not a evaluation center. E.g. a paper from E-Stelle Rechlin would be a official evaluation. Fox

Even if it is used today as a Helicopter base, it would be a waste of precious virtual runway concrete for mission makers. It doesn't make sense to limit the parking spots to helicopters only, because in DCS this 2.9km long runway is useable, or not? Fox

To be fair, the source itself Kurfurst.org states that these are calculations. Fox

Something like this? Is it easy? No, absolutely not. You have to be veeery gentle and careful with the elevator. It was not my first try. The loops are not perfect. Clean Anton, w/o pylon, full fluel&ammo The Anton is not a dedicated loopingmachine. So, what now? Fox edit: added tacview Anton loops.txt.acmi.zip

Fixed in DCS 2.5.6.54046 Open Beta Thanks

I tried it. It does loop. Now what? Fox