Solty

What about the G force influence on how the body is capable of pulling such heavy weight. And are we sure 30kg allows for precise control even without G forces? I mean, we are talking about pulling on a stick in a confined space of the 109 cockpit which doesn't allow for full arm travel. I am not saying its impossible to pull that much, but I am saying that its quite hard to believe you can pull precisely up to 30kg, especially that G forces start to work against you. PS. What do you mean by 30kg. Kilograms of force kgf or kp?

I agree. I think imposter models should get a more pronounced contrast so that they are not easily lost over the ground. And the fact that airplanes just vanish when looked at from some angles is the main issue.

Cannons? What cannons?:noexpression:

Just to be clear. 109 is still going to loose control at high speeds but instead of scaling the stick travel, now the travel is going to be the same all the time but will not go over certain max deflection points?

:dunno: I presume they want to bring 2.5 before Spitfire into DCS. We have seen a lot of Spitfire over Normandy, so that might also be the reason. Maybe they want them both out at the same time?:cry:

Find "slow zoom in" and "slow zoom out" or something like that, and assign keys. Voila.:pilotfly:

A little stall fight that just happened in not the best circumstances.:pilotfly:

Make a video and it will probably clear things up if we see it.

I have concluded my tests with my friend who flew the 109 for me. It seems the 109 is still suffering high speed stifness as it was before. It becomes stiffer at 500kph and and nearly unberable over 600kph which is exactly what I wrote above. The elevator seems to behave at those speeds as it did before the patch. The new FM seems to be way easier to stall especially in vertical and the 109 has a tendency to lose speed faster in turns. Whether or not this behaviour is intended we will see if ED says something about the slat behaviour when. We still do not know if it is just graphical or full FM problem, although the latter seems to be the case.

No read the rest of the post to understand what I mean. Look for reports on the internet. I said that i flew it in other sims because somebody above thinks that I just a mustang fanboy that wants to make his 109 worse. He is wrong. Also in no sim the behaviour was perfect but I had DCS 109 up to the point when 109 still didn't have rudder stiffness applied. At that point the aileron and elevator authority seemed to be very close to the airplane behavior described by test pilots. I've changed this part to be more clear so comments like yours do not pop up more.

It is not a matter of opinion. If you want to know, I flew bf 109 for years in other sims and I've read a lot about the airplane to describe its behavior, based on test pilot's reports and 109G elevator forces chart. The aircraft controls IRL are pleasant in range of 200-400kph. After take off, to keep it straight you have to use a lot of right rudder, that diminishes with higher speeds, but is still present. The plane at those slower speeds has very good rudder authority and is capable of very good sideslipping angles, quite often used on head on attacks by German pilots. At 400-500 the airplane becomes more stable and controls stiffen up requiring more strength. At 550 up to the official safety limit of 750kph the airplane becomes progressively stiffer and at that range you have to use both hands on the stick to even move it. All control surfaces suffer but ailerons especially due to very small cramped cockpit of the 109 which hinders movement of the pilot. Nearing the official limit the airplane is so stiff that aileron control is gone and only really strong men can pull on the elevator but with little effect. That is why you need horizontal stabilizer trim to get out of dives. The airplane should be a bit unstable at low speeds but sensitive on controls. It is much easier to control pitch than spitfire (because spit is oversensitive) and is nearly equal to elliptical wing spitfire at all speed ranges in roll rate. Rudder authority is fair at all speed ranges due to fletner tab in the K4 model.

Improvment doesn't equal realism. Also it doesn't explain the "improved roll rate" which should not happen. The aircraft according to Schnare is capable of rolling with the P-51D at high speeds, and thats impossible due to how the airplane is made. The control surfaces would stiffen up and stick movment in the cockpit would be impaired by the claustrophobic design which doesn't allow for freedom of movment and pilot had to use both hands to even maneuver, not to mention do combat at high speeds. Unless magic happened. :sorcerer: Secondly the airplane is said to be less stable and slats do not work, so that must not be right.

From what Schnare said in the other thread I think it goes above and beyond just that. To me it seems like airplane FM got reverted to something early in Beta. The roll rate increase, more elevator authority. It reminds me of this:

Why was the password added, and where can we get it?

I think it is just this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamping_(graphics) "In computer graphics, clamping is the process of limiting a position to an area. Unlike warping, clamping merely moves the point to the nearest available value." If the FM changed realy, it would be kinda wierd that it did after beeing "released" two weeks ago. Unless they found some new info. Anyway, I would presume it depends on the speed of the airplane. At high speed the 109 is stiffer so it becomes more stable, but some pilots said it behaves like a glider at lower speeds, so that might mean a bit more unstable. It would be nice to see a vid, so we can at least see how looks like? I presume its on the beta update? Because I have not noticed any new patches for stable 1.5

Is this bouncing occurring at all speed ranges, or is it just at low speed?

@Kurfurst That kind of amour is not a problem for .50cal from 500m P-51D has nearly 16mm of armour plate behind the pilot. The document you have presented shows penetration of API ammo at 100m it can pen 17mm at 90deg angle. While .50cal can penetrate 25mm at that distance. From what I saw P-51D has 16mm of steel as armour, so unless you are 100 (or closer)and at perfect angle you cannot penetrate the P-51's armour. And of course that is with the API ammo you have shown. But much of the belt is made of HEI and HEIT ammo isn't it? .50cal M2 AP and M8 API can easily penetrate the 8mm and 10mm armour of the 109.

Not realy. It just requires a different aproach. With HE, you have to hit in deflection and the shot has to go into the cockpit and then fragmentation and explosion can wound/kill the pilot. With API it is easier to hit the pilot because you can come from behind and penetrate the steel plate. HE shell will blow up on a hard surface and AP will penetrate it (or not if it doesn't have enough energy, but thats usually not an issue at those distances.) http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

The change is not aimed to disrupt the game flow, but rather make the current gameplay more fair. The problem is that people that win are not beeing rewarded for their actions. Adding time to respawn doesn't help at all to mitigate that. I see the reason behind your idea, but DCS has already small player base, artificial waiting time would only bring frustration, especially to those that have little time to play. But would also limit potential encounters for the enemy team. 15 min is a lot of time and sounds over the top.

Currently the system is full of holes, especially exploitable by the WW2 planes. It looks like this: If the aircraft looses engine and crashlands in the middle of nowhere, without killing the pilot. He can respawn and he is treated as "not dead" and can respawn without any penalty. At the same time the guy that damaged his engine and effectively shot him down, is not awarded with a "kill". This makes points impossible to be counted right and a team that actually shoots down more airplanes, can actually not be wining, because most of those shot downs do not end in pilot killed situation. Moreover, it is unhealthy as people tend to stay in combat even with heavy damage, because they know that they can always crashland and not get a death and at the same time deny the kill to the enemy. ----------------- My proposal: If the aircraft lands anywhere outside a friendly airbase. The "kill" will be awarded to the player that did the most damage to him. At the same time, to reward the player that tried to safely land, he will not be noted as "dead". If you land/crash land at your or friendly base, you will not get a "death" and your adversary will not get a kill. That way we will promote shooting down of aircraft, but not pilot killing. Both sides will feel they were rewarded for their actions and points will be awarded to the victor, so his award will help his team win. Secondly, I propose standarisation of points per target and to promote geting back alive, you can only get x2 points modifier when you land on a friendly airbase. That way mutual suport is required so that scoring ground attackers could bring more points to the team and fighters will have a real reason to escort and protect them. :pilotfly:

First of all, stop beeing rude. You asked a question, I came out with an aswer. Secondly read what other reply, I just wrote that the MG151/20 Motorkanone has 200 rounds. Thirdly, have you ever thought that the Friedrich might not be the original name of the airplane, but just as Karl a name changed afterwards? Some sources refer to it as Friedrich, some as Fritz and some as both, Friedrich/Fritz. Not to mention other names given after the war to vehicles of WW2 such as M10 "Wolverine" or Jagdpanzer 38t "Hetzer"

Kurfurst was in III Reich, Karl is from 1905. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchstabiertafel One thing doesnt seem right. MG151/20 in every 109 had 200 rounds, only the MK-108 had 65. And as it was pointed out earlier, only one K4 with MG151 was ever noted.

I did not bring any other US aircraft into the equasion. You did.

Can you even read what you have attached? Only 2 units were not converted into P-51 before 1945. Only 1 was never converted into P-51's and in 45 that group was using the P-47M which is the elite 56th FG known as the Hub Zemke's Wolfpack. 7 of those units were using P-51 since or before June. EDIT: The talk here is not about other aircraft. It is about the P-51D alone, not other US aircraft. So stop making it a recap of the war. We are discussing the P-51D alone.

@Kurfurst: What are you talking about? When did I say that P-51 was the only USAAF fighter worthy of note? Everyone knows that the most produced and used fighter of the war in Europe was the P-47, but when 8th AAF (note not whole USAAF) started to bomb targets deep inside Germany and even in occupied Poland (eg. Gdynia), the 8th AAF under General Doolittle was using mostly (not exclusively) P-51's. Do I have to spell it out in big letters that, what I am talking here is comparison between P-51B/C/D and typical German Aircraft of 1944. And, how many times I have to tell you, your K4 and D9 are NOT COMMON, by any standard (except for yours, maybe) in 1944. @karl Again, thats because there is a big difference between Bf109G6 and Bf109K4. Those are two different planes. Different engine and different airframe even weapons (although G6/U4 had the same Mk108 cannon) You do not need high AoA to do combat effectively. You have to learn how to do energy managment properly and you have to remember that DM is unfinished which makes .50cals weak in compratisson to what the 109K uses. When Spitfire comes, it will probably suit your much more than the P-51D. American warbirds require precision and pacience coupled with consciousness of what your airplane is capable of doing and what it is not.