birdstrike

with a tempest i might agree...with the me262 not. which extra value? people are already complaining about the K4. i see the 262 already banned from servers once it finally arrives in a couple of years. a g6 or even better a F4 would add more value than a 262 imo. im no dev, but i think it wouldnt be too much work to build a g6 given we have already a k4...dont forget, according to the devs, a lot of p51 is in our k4. they built it upon it. so at least i assume that lots of work is already done for an earlier 109 model with the k4 we have. of course, if its just about experiencing a new completely different aircraft offline, the 262 might be interesting...but i cannot see its worth at least for online play. same goes for a b17 unfortunately. considering the performance drops when having a handfull of AI b17s in a mission. not to mention the development time for this thing. it already takes years to build single engines in dcs obviously. twin engine bombers like a b25 would probably be more feasable.

couldnt say it any better. thx for this post :thumbup:

why wouldnt it make sense to make early models? i cant comprehend that statement at all.

no, everybody's input is appreciated, but telling me to not use the 109 as a reference in the 109 forum confuses me. :) in general, what i believe what happened now with the new groundphysics, is that they just adjusted the friction of the wheels of the different aircraft, rather than adjusting the friction of the ground itself...(at least i saw that they reduced the friction of the 109s wheels by far in the FMOptions.lua file)... and i think thats exactly the problem...imo groundhandling on concrete was fine before with the 109, and resembled very closely the real life videos we have on youtube of 109s... whereas grasslandings where off. grass was too sticky. at least if we can expect what we see in the sim...rather short grass and not cornfields with 2meter tall crops, or a wet swamp, which would be a totally different outcome. what we see are meadows. and if its sunny wheather, we should expect it to be a dry meadow with relatively solid underground. i think rather than adjusting the friction values of the wheels of the aircraft, they should have have adjusted the friction values of the different grounds themselves...because the difference between the different ground types was/is off imo. and if they now just change the values of the wheels, they can never get both to work correctly.

battle of britain would be awesome indeed...but i would even prefer the later days of 41 and 42 around that area. spitV, 190As and especially 109F version, thats what i dream about.

:huh: we are in the 109 section of the forum...i opened this thread on purpose here

nice vid...shows not much or hardly any drifting, but the fighting against it for good reasons...u see the tendency of the wings lifting if not acting correctly.

i can also tell from my own experience...not to the extent like in dcs. (again im talking about 109. i didnt test the other aircraft so far)

short cut grass can be slippery...thats what i was talking about in the op....that they should revisit off-field landings. because imo the meadows were too sticky....but concrete certainly not. now meadows behave more or less ok-ish(still too slippery) in my opinion, but the concrete and dirt fields are slippery that they resemble a wet runway at best. but thats not the point. at least the 109 already drifts at taxi speeds all over the place if u want it to.and even if u try to avoid it, u notice a slight drift all the time even at slow speeds...thats impossible in real life. besides p51 has a very wide landing gear in vertical position...a similar video exists about a yak i believe. (btw thx for the p51 video, dont remember that i have seen it before) whereas a 109 as a very narrow but more importantly v shaped gear, which makes thing even more worse. show me a video of a 109 doing that thing without tilting. i remember a couple of videos where restored 109s have only very little yaw and already lift one gear almost tilting a wing on the ground....its a different beast than a stable p51. i agree with that

are u really comparing airliners with a 109? show me a video of a real 109 with this behaviour, resembling what MAD_MM did with the 109 in dcs..then we are talking.

did u even watch the various videos posted here, of 109s and spits drifting all over the place?...thats what we are talking about. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3592768&postcount=13

my first day in VR and dcs was like..."waoh, f..k yeah!" the 3d vision and the true to life scale of the aircraft are really something u cant ever even closely reach with a 2d setup, no matter how big your monitor is. i very quickly became used to this "waoh" effect though, and now when i jump into dcs, it just feels normal...this waoh factor is gone for me personally.... the only thing, which i really hope the next vr generation will bring, is a huge increase in FOV...right now the rift really does narrow down your view and thats really the only dissappointing thing for me personally. i can cope with the lower resolution but the FOV is something i hope will improve soon and drastically. anyway, even with the small FOV, just 3days ago i fired up dcs with my trackir because i wanted to record something, and like most people here i was really shocked at how bad that actually feels after going vr...i just keep my trackir for recording purposes. thats really the only reason. there is just no going back after doing vr.

yeah, deleting airfields from the map would be a great feature for this map indeed. :thumbup:

winter textures would be a bonus indeed. BUT what i would really like to see, is the implementation of speedtree and with this the implementation of proper hedgerows typcial for this area. now we only have trees surrounding the fields. this doesnt look correct and not good either imo...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217672 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217751 probably the same issue...

if u want a historical correct mission, the devs would need to delete a couple of airfields on the map anyway as pointed out by a couple of members here. the current plane setting we have isnt historical either when its about normandy. so...winter cant hurt imo, as its impossible anyway to create historical missions on current normandy map.

dont use the fuel pump. dont know if thats the reason why ur engine isnt starting, but it definitely works without it.

i agree with u :thumbup: there are already options like take off assistance and autorudder.....so why force these dumped down physics on people who like to keep it real? i dont understand it. :mad:

the default ground physics are lacking any friction right now. i know, i cant convince everybody, but in my opinion, the default ground physics are really really bad right now...at least for the 109.

exactly the same here...gtx1080, and neither shaders mod nor this firmware upgrade did improve my performance...but, the firmware upgrade didnt hurt either, so nothing is lost.

ok because of the new groundphysics by ED, and their opinion that they are fine now for the 109, imo to my surprise, i decided to create my own groundphysics :) which i believe are way more plausible for a taildragger, and especially for one like the 109...and to be honest, i think even they are already way way more forgiving than the real thing is i assume. here they are. i invite every 109 jockey to try these out. they are slightly more forgiving than the previous incarnation by ED, but still its no tokio drift ride. i also welcome ED to try them to get an idea about what at least 1customer thinks is acceptable in terms of challenge vs realism. with these settings, i managed 2 out of 2 field landings with unlocked tailwheel. runway landings are also not a problem, but both on the dirt runways and on the concrete runways of normandy, this suspicious sliding all over the place is gone now. i didnt test it in too much detail for now, as in the cockpit view, it looked and felt believable...but i will likely have a closer look at this again in outside views, and look more closer at the tailwheel behaviour to see whether there is something dodgy going on... the structure of this mod is already JSGME friendly for easy removal. 109GroundHandling.zip

schade das die starvr wohl nicht für den privaten konsumenten gedacht ist...das einzige was mich an meiner rift wirklich stört, ist gar nicht mal die auflösung mit der ich durchaus leben kann, sondern das gesichtsfeld(FOV). ich hoffe, das die 2te generation von rift und co. da gleich ziehen, und auch solche spezifikationen wie die starvr dann drauf haben: horizontales FOV von 210 und vertical von 130grad. das hört sich endlich mal anständig an. in dcs sind wir mit unserer rift glaube ich auf lächerliche 80grad horizontal eingeschränkt. das wäre dann doch ein enormer unterschied.

considering the timespan it takes the developers here to create 1 single aircraft, imo, its best to stay at the european front. maybe crawl backwards in time with the aircraft models, give us earlier 109 and 190models, while also creating maps closer to the end of the war(more central europe, and alps would be a blast)...that way we might get a proper ww2 flight sim one far far far away day...going pacific? if u ask me, before we might have 1pacific aircraft here in dcs, the other sim that is not to mention here will have bodenplatte and 1 or 2 pacific theaters developed...better iron out whats already begun here.

when flying offline, the blackouts are usually fine...but online they kind of lag behind and somtimes there is no fade in or tunnel vision at all before a complete blackout. its kind of from 0 to 100 in a moment. when flying in singleplayer this doesnt happen. but worse, in the online tracks its shown correctly like when flying offline...the fade in of the blackout and tunnel vision in the online tracks are visible...

jcomm...u are flying gliders correct?