Integrals

I would say as long as it matches reality as best as possible it isn't over the line :). Now, where is my autopilot for the 51?

The flip side of this is that more HP never hurts. We would just have to pay even more attention to our temp gauge and I suspect the cries would go from give us 72" to give us a Merlin that can take 72" lol

DarkRaiderss, I believe Solty was agreeing with your post. Your example is indeed true if you allow for all of the muscle groups to be used similarly in both situations. I believe the argument is that the 109'd cockpit's ergonomics are such that movement of the pilot is severely restricted thus the force they could apply isn't their maximum. Try the same experiment using only your forearm first then try again with your entire arm... the results will be different I bet. The problem with simple physics is that it tends to ignore external factors that relate the problem to the real world: https://xkcd.com/669/

I'm not sure... Want to argue about if we can use them or not? :lol: I don't believe they have. I'm not 100% sure though because I picked up the 190 this past weekend (40% off sales get me every time) so I've been splitting my time between that and the 51

I half agree, half disagree. While getting the ergonomics dead on is quite impossible I do think it is very possible, and actually adds to the realism, if certain aspects are considered. For example, trim or throttle adjustment (or any other action for that matter) should cut the max force available to the stick by roughly half as a real world pilot would have to move a hand from the stick. Making us virtual pilots take that into consideration adds another layer of realism. As far as visibility, I'm ok with it the way it is TrackIR comes with its on set of challenges, but once set up properly is obviously a huge advantage to anyone using it (regardless of craft). Making aircraft harder to see an environment where it is already exceedingly difficult doesn't keep people coming back to fly more. Now, as far as controversy... If I've learned one thing from online gaming in the almost 20 years I've been participating it is that we (yes all of us) can and will complain about literally everything. As long as the overall approach is consistent across all aircraft (ie control input vs output, visibility, and a looong list of other topics that I dare not mention here) we really shouldn't bitch too much, but we will.

I have seen this video before but based on some of the discussion that has happened here and having spent a little time learning the 109 I'm noticing little things that I completely missed before. I'll just go in order that they happen in the video: #1. Immediately after takeoff the first thing the pilot does is use the flaps or trim (which is it?). Then raises gear. I know a lot of people use hotas controls or other key bindings that allow for simultaneous manipulation of the throttle, flaps, trim, and gear. Is there any plan to prevent this from being done (on all aircraft) because its physically impossible to do this with only 2 hands (assuming one doesn't release the stick) #2. From about 6 minutes onward he has both hands on the stick fairly often indicating that the controls are moderately heavy. At 7:45, immediately prior to the roll, it appears that he has to re-position his upper body to perform the maneuver and then really has to exert a lot of force for the stick. #3. Again at 8 minutes it looks like he is fighting with the aircraft to get it to do what he wants to do. I do not get the impression that I am doing any work to control the 109 in DCS compared to what that pilot appears to be doing. The controls "feel" light and incredibly responsive up to the point where your control input begins to get severely clipped I do not envy the job of ED trying to capture that characteristic and convey that feeling to us.

Can you confirm that this limit is the same (or is planned to become the standard) across all aircraft? I'm also assuming this is only for forces applied to the stick as I could see max rudder input being much much higher if necessary... care to share that number (if there is one?) as well? Thanks for sharing! Personally I think it has to take into account both... If the goal is to simulate the behavior or the aircraft as realistically as possible ignoring the amount of force a human could actually apply to the controls is ignoring a huge part of the equation. Without some physical limits on control inputs we would be able to do impossible things (potentially). The key (to me) is that the approach to the problem is consistent across all aircraft. While on the topic: I recently watched a video of a IJN pilot discussing how they attacked B-29s. In a nutshell they went into a nearly vertical dive and my impression was they tried to hit the cockpit to disable the aircraft. He said that pulling out of the dive was completely exhausting and my impression was that they were only able to physically perform this attack once. Well, I will just let you watch it for yourself (all 3 parts are worth the watch) slightly off topic, but he talks a little about performance and tactics in part 1:

That is correct. What I'm interested in is how much, if any, did the maximum control limit change.

That video alone made me get the 190 :rotflmao:

Thanks for the explanation. I follow the logic behind doing it this way. Through axis curves we have the ability to add compression back into the controls? Personally, while I'm flying it helps me to think of my stick movements as force applied to the controls not actual displacement of the controls. This due to the extremely limited travel of the stick I use compared to the real thing. I feel like using compression of the inputs matches this style more (my virtual "fly be the seat of your pants" approach:joystick:). Either way, as long as the approach is similar across all aircraft I will be happy and adjust accordingly. :beer: I just died hahahaha. Thanks Yo-Yo!

Pictures are worth a thousand words :) Above is a very simplified plot of the behavior... Just imagine that it is the same stick input and the x-axis is airspeed instead of how it is labeled. I'll admit the electrical engineer in me panicked when I read clipped :megalol: I agree that the 109 feels very twitchy in the air. Have you tried playing with axis curves at all? I think that will be my next step to try to make it a little more manageable. Also, for as much complaining as I've done the last few weeks I want to echo the sentiment in the last line in Cavemanhead's post (awesome name for an ME btw LOL!!). Thank you to everyone at ED for all of the hard work that's been done to bring us the quality product that we are lucky to be able to enjoy.

Glad to hear! So as a newbie to the 109 this will only change the characteristics of the aircraft at or near the stall speed correct? I think I flew it only 3 or 4 times before the last patch so I wasn't able to build a clear picture of how they worked.

we can talk about that over here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165068&page=1 or here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165491 or here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160794&page=1

DANG! there go my easy points at target 1 :lol: Thanks for the update eekz!

Except we aren't talking about balance, we are talking about historical accuracy. I don't think there is ANY dispute that the models available are of the absolute highest quality. We aren't asking for things to be tweaked to make it an even playing field. What we are asking for is for the aircraft to be modeled as it was flown in combat. I hesitate to post this only because I am admittedly not an expert on the history of the aircraft(s) being discussed... However I have seen ample historical evidence from others and I believe the requests that have been made are justified. Whether ED decides to implement any changes that are based on verifiable information is up to them. Being basically called a group of whiny bitches (by the group that actually has the equivalent aircraft that we are asking for) is getting extremely old. See you guys in the air, probably on my 6:pilotfly:.

Hello again all. I'll try to not start a war with the "other" sub forum in this thread, but there can be no guarantee ;). Over the past 3 or 4 days I have been putting in quite a bit of time in the TF-51 on the aerobatics server and I have only suffered a single engine failure from accidentally increasing MP in a very steep dive which over-revved the engine to failure. Now you say: ok, so what? You did kill it after all... Well, I flew through 3 30% fills of fuel doing stalls and all sorts of other really stressful and abusive things to this one poor engine prior to this failure. I also used WEP for quite a bit of flight and didn't use emergency rich. The radiators were both in auto the whole time and I never saw the oil temp over the 90C line. Water temp was near the top of the acceptable range when checked but it is possible that it exceeded the red line temporarily during stalls when I wasn't watching. Compare this behavior to the P-51D... It isn't uncommon (though it is becoming much less common) for me to lose the engine within a few minutes of engaging into a dogfight without ever having stalled out the aircraft and with my airspeed never dropping much below 200 mph. This raises a few questions in my mind: 1. Is there a difference in the modeling of the cooling systems between the P-51 and the TF-51? I can't see any reason for this being the case. 2. My typical weight at takeoff in the P-51 is around 9000 lbs (30% fuel 100% ammo). Takeoff weight in the TF-51 with 30% fuel is around 7500 lbs. I can really feel the missing 1500 lbs in the performance of the TF-51 so it stands to reason that the engine can feel it missing as well. Is the seeming better reliability/cooling of the TF-51 just due to its ability to regain airspeed via HP after losing it? 2.a. If the P-51D weighed 7500 lbs we could handle 109s all day :joystick: I said I wasn't going to start a war.damn it...:lol: 3. I know in combat you need to stay fast to stay alive in the P-51. Is 200 mph the lower limit of speed that provides sufficient cooling for the engine in a dogfight? It seems that I can clime at 170 mph as stated in the training video (even at 2700/45") with no problems, but as soon as you start doing sustained turning or climb/dive/repeat the heat really builds up and the radiators can't dissipate it quickly enough which eventually leads to a dead engine. 4. Short of loading each aircraft to the same takeoff weight and flying them equally abusively under the same conditions (multiple times) is there any other way to determine if there is a difference? 5. Has anyone else even noticed this behavior? Thanks for reading. -Int

awesome, thank you! :thumbup:

impressive as always! If you don't mind me asking, how do you control your zoom level? It seems like you have it set up very well.

Ah, so you mean basically what the K4 is currently doing to the under performing P-51D that we have? :thumbup:

This. I've flown 2 multiplayer combat missions in the 109 and scored kills in both. The second kill I managed while my plane was on fire in a many vs 1 situation. I then chose when to break contact and flew the 20-30 miles back to base and landed... all while on fire. I dare you to try this in the P-51. Yesterday I watched 2 109s have a mid-air collision while being greedy trying to kill a P-51. One was destroyed outright, the other lost a wingtip caught fire then proceeded to continue to fight as if nothing happened. The damaged 109 managed to keep pace with my 51, which was not damaged, all the way back to my home airbase. So, I score kills in an aircraft that I don't even know the takeoff and landing speeds for (it is not that hard to get off the ground), score a kill while streaking across the sky in a fireball, then rtb, grab my beer stein and have a party. Then a few days later I find myself on the other side in the exact same situation and I can't manage to disengage in an undamaged aircraft? It must be that I lost my piloting skills when I switched from the 109 to the 51, I don't see any other possible explanation :doh:. Like I said, how did Germany lose the air war if the K-4 is as durable and beginner friendly as is modeled in DCS? I really don't think the issue is the performance gap (real or as modeled) between the K-4 and the 51 because there are ways to deal with it. The more I fly the more I realize that the issue is with the environment that we are playing in. But, that is being worked on. Until it is improved the P-51 will continue to be at a (imo large) disadvantage in every aspect of DCS combat... and I will still fly the damn thing and hate life every time I see a K-4 out of my canopy. I somewhat disagree. At least when it's many vs few you can worry less about friendly fire and shoot at anything that is moving. I have no issues flying against a numerically superior side in an inferior aircraft. What I do have an issue with is having the sim working against me with the current state of the damage model and flying against a numerically superior team in a superior aircraft in the type of fight where my aircraft holds no advantage at all. So yeah, maybe in that sense it is a bit lopsided...

Tacview is definitely the best tool at our disposal to improve our skills. It is unfortunate that the replay system is currently so unreliable that it forces the choice of a) be beginner friendly or b) make sure cheating is as limited as possible. Personally, I can live with people using data export to know where people are... As long as they aren't warping themselves to a spot where they can pretty much instantly kill me it is all the same. Fighting against people with better SA makes you really step your game up, and when you fail you always have tacview to go back and see where you went wrong. Also, how many people actually exploit data export? I know its been a topic of discussion on a few of the other servers that I fly on, particularly the WW2 servers where it can put you in a situation where you are 100% screwed.

Eekz I'm going to have to back out. Unfortunately I will have to be traveling this week. Good luck to the 51's :thumbup:

Maybe the experience of starting in the mustang has skewed my view, but I felt like I could completely control the fight in the 109. I feel like the aircraft gives you much more opportunity to be aggressive (and rewards you for doing so with the 30mm) and is actually much more forgiving of mistakes than the P-51 because it *feels* like you can turn and run whenever you need to. I have never had the same feeling in the P-51. Its get rounds on target then get the F** out as fast as possible and mistakes usually kill you. Again, this is just my experience for what it is worth. Maybe the 109 just matches my style more? I'm not sure... I have half as many kills in 2 flights in it as I've got in almost 3 months of the 51.

I'm going to set up a red v blue P-51 server one of these days so I can't bitch any more... I just flew the 109 again and honestly flying the P-51 in the current state against it seems completely pointless. I was on fire and still fighting many v 1... then managed to disengage and rtb. not soon enough.

Their simple flight model paired with their amazing gunnery skills should prepare you well for flying the P-51 on line :) Remember that The TF-51 is quite a bit lighter than the P-51D because it doesn't have the guns and armor among other things. 100% gun ammo and 40% fuel is around 9000 lbs at takeoff iirc. There is a virtual aerobatic server that has the P & TF-51 as well as the 190 and 109. You could always hop in there and "practice" flying against people.