birdstrike

:doh: buchon is no 109.

convincing Volker Bau to fly dcs 109 with a good hotas and rudder system for 1 day would probably reveal more.

of course it was hypothetical, but even then, you cant really think that it would be a good idea in any way. :)

flying in real life is my daily job. so nope, you wont teach me real flying. but you are funny, you said that you dont even fly anymore in real life, and now you are about to teach others to? :) would really love to have a flying session with you :) and nope, it will take a couple of more years until dcs might become like real life flying. the fact that you think it is already, says everything really. :)

"deleting" a plane from a flight sim doesnt exactly sound like a good idea to me especially when we are short on plane types in ww2 here anyway...i cant imagine you are serious. also, i wouldnt be too sure about the A8 selling worse than the D9. i myself never liked the long nosed look of the D9, and definitely had always prefered a radial Fw version.

well, your real life flying experience of a couple of hours in a cessna a couple of years ago is really impressive :lol: :megalol: YOU cant tell me anything about real life flying. and again, your reading comprehension really is lacking, either on purpose or not :doh:

you slightly slowed down over time. the slower the aircraft, the more of a pitch up tendency will be noticeable. the more it pitches up, the more right rudder is needed to center the ball, if you center the ball, it will usually even more pitch up. so forward pressure on the stick will be required. this situation you experienced in the video is really not desireable in the 109, and is usually easier to handle when keeping a slipped attitude, i.e. giving less right rudder. imho, i think its these differences to other sims, that make dcs attractive and thats why people decide to switch to dcs, otherwise they could stick with the other sims, which offer more content for WW2. and honestly, i think dcs FM should give even more attention to effects like "flying on the ball"and its advantages, and on the contrary the effects when flying not on the ball, not coordinated. i think thats what makes those prop birds stand out to fly by wire jets, and fun to master the challenge. i personally wish they increased the effects. on the other hand, if they started to decrease these effects, and therefore downgrade the FM, i would start to ask myself why not just switching to the competition. newbies have several options like "auto rudder" and take off assistance. and as of late, they even made the friction of the tires much more forgiving for the 109, so that take offs and landings are much more easy to handle, and slips on the ground will not that quickly end in fatal crashes. there are guys like me who dont like this direction, and think, that this should as well be optional. options are always good. but there should as well always be the option to have it as realistic as it gets without compromise. having said that, i never said that i am of the opinion that everything is alright with the 109.

i dont think he was trying to do a loop... i just did...believe me, force feedback doesnt help when its about stickforces. the way they implemented the stickforces feels confusing to say at least. would love to know the logic behind them, how they are exactly programmed, but no word from the devs about it... now watching your video, you are pretty much flying on the ball :thumbup:. first, you are in a very slight slip, giving slightly too little rudder. then there comes the point where you begin to slightly skid, giving just a notch too much right rudder. and this is when the 109 begins to raise its nose. yeah, i too think this effect might be overdone, while drag effects of slips and skids are undermodeled. so couple this pitch up effect with the fact, that slight to medium slips dont cause drag, and you get the unfortunate result of being more effective when flying ball not centered, and just slightly slip through the air.

i think that even if people might buy a late g version, even if they already own the k4, the differences wouldnt be game changing online. the relative strengths and weaknesses would still apply between the oponents. i might buy a late g version, but i would more likely spend my money on a early g, and instantly on an F version. now yeah, would it fit to the current map? no. but only when we consider the normandy map to be 1944...given the airfields, it doesnt represent any era correctly, historically, the way i understood it. it could just as well serve as a 1941 to 1943 map. the way i see it, its not about the map. we should not restrict ourselves to it, especially since 2 more ww2 maps are already in development, and my assumption is, that once they are out, normandy will be abandoned by most users...it already is to a certain extent. they started with a very late 109 version. so there is only 1 direction they can further develop...backwards in time. a late g will be very similar to the k. so nothing too exciting for someone who flies the k4 since its release. for this reason, i would be way more excited about an f version. not 1944, but it flew over normandy for quite some time and saw heavy action in the period it was in service in that area. it was in service over that eara and we have the contemporary buildings, thats good enough for me. well tbh, for an 109 F i dont need any other reason than it being an F, to want it. sexiest 109 ever, period. now for the allies, there is still the option to develop in both directions of time. i would welcome a Mk. XIV for example, although i dont think it will be interesting online. a Mk.V or even Mk.II and a Hurricane would be lovely. now thats me, i always prefered the early to mid war planes somehow.

ok...but at 100kph youre not flying but are either still on the ground, or stalling, or if going unloaded vertically up, just about to stall. and yeah, its the most unstable plane when its about inputs. thats due to the cg which is pretty far back especially with a full fuel tank, and the aformentioned stick and rudder forces. which give it a rubberbanding feeling during the whole flight regime. feels like input lag, and sometimes feels very unnatural. unfortunately the stick forces already kick in at take off speeds. also the rudder effects on the 109 are strange, and mainly cause rolling without really yawing. in a vertical climb for example, when trying to avoid a left yaw with right rudder input, sometimes it will still yaw to the left, but start rolling to the right, which makes the situation even more uncontrollable.

i guess what you are experiencing is the stick and rudder forces which kick in at really low speeds in the 109. btw, i guess you didnt really mean 100kph?

well, i am mainly an online player, but as the one and only populated server is offline for ww2 currently, and there is just nothing to do online for us ww2 guys, i gave some self made dogfight missions a try again, and see whether i can get some fun out of it.... well... its frustrating to say at least. not because the AI uses a different FM, and not because they always follow the same stupid dogfight logics...but because 1) they are insane sharpshooters even when setting their skill level to minimum. its a bad joke really. and 2)they usually prefer to follow the human player, totally ignoring enemy AI fighters. so with a mission with lets say 20 vs 20 fighters in the air, you have good chances, that like half of the enemy fighters stay on your six, ignoring the other threads around. looks absolutely ludicrous dont get me wrong, there are many more issues with the AI, but really, if they could finally fix those two items, i could imagine to enjoy offline flying from time to time.

they didnt have smart scaling, but just those awful sprites what they called model enlargment. they were that overdone, that when i first tried dcs with this feature on, i confused a p51 with a cloud, until i noticed that the cloud was moving, and quite fast too. :lol::doh: (no joke, im serious) for some reason, ED's comments about smart scaling were something along the lines of "smart scaling is an old technique and we will come up with something much superiour". as if an old technique must be automatically bad. and after those comments they came up with those model enlargement sprites. which rather looked embarrassing, and rather than being superiour actually have been the worst spotting helper i have ever encountered in any flight sim so far. fortunately, they took them out again...on the other hand, unfortunately they didnt come up with any other solution. and now, they introduced different style of labels, as if labels were the answer to a realistic spotting system...it feels like they have given up on actually trying to improve spotting. dont know...thats my impression. all i do know is, that the vast majority of people i have spoken to over the past several years are of the opinion that something has to be done about spotting, and that this is a huge show stopper when its about ww2. and here on this very thread, we have people, who want the labels much more pronounced, some want it even coloured, then there are people who want them less pronounced, and then there are people who dont want any labels at all.... i am convinced, that if ED would improve spotting, that 99% of the people would fall into the last category, and hardly anybody would want labels anymore, not on a "full real server" at least. i really think thats the only answer to our dilemma.

identification is part of it. if they had focused more on proper contrast, reflections and very important, LOD models, identification would be a lot better even for us VR users. couple this with an adjustable zoom level for VR, which would be easy to accomplish for ED, and i doubt identification would be an outstanding problem anymore. the real answer for the spotting problems would be a good implemented smart scaling coupled with the above mentioned issues .key would be to make it subtle and dont overdo, like they did with the sprites which they called model enlargment. the past showed a couple of examples in flight sim history, were it was implemented very well.

the previous dots were overdone imho. they stood out just too obvious and had hardly anything to do with real life spotting anymore... i think, that eekz will just not be able to please everyone here, regardless of what he is doing... the turn must be on ED finally, to make spotting for ww2 planes usable and realistic. right now its none of the 2. i fear we can argue here with and against each other for decades without finding a solution. instead we should somehow convince ED that spotting at least for ww2 should have top priority.

make a poll, then u have ur answer there are plenty reasons, why so many people abandoned dcs again after a few tries,...none of them are eekz fault. its very likely that you are not completely alone...but i bet my right ball, that the majority of the ww2 crowd dont want coloured labels...actually wouldnt want any labels, if spotting wasnt so bad in the first place. completely disagree...thats no solution to the problem.labels are a poor necessary workaround to an underlying problem with the spotting in general. making them coloured just offers a different setting for the more causal players. yeah he is partially in control of how the labels appear...they are broken by every second patch it seems, and he is not able to make them dissappear behind solid structure, like cockpit parts etc. yeah he is under control about the colour you are right...and he spent plenty of hours, to actually achieve a pretty good spotting system with them. its all on purpose. he decided for a reason to not use coloured ones and im sure the majority appreciates that fact. u and me are sitting in the same boat. i fly with the rift too, and yeah, identifying targets is only possible at really close distances...yet, if its such a big problem for u, then either try to open your own server, try to find another server that suits your needs, go complain to your vr manufactor's site, go back to flying with your monitor instead of vr, or try to open a new thread in another subforum here, and convince the devs here, that something has to be done with the spotting/identifying targets...i bet you would get more support by other members here. dont forget, we vr users are a minority, and forcing settings on the majority that pretty much nobody likes, only because we have a hard time, isnt doing anybody a favour, not even yourself.

not at all...im saying that its not eekz who is responsible for the problematic situation, and that he actually did the best possible to make spotting less worse. so imo u are complaining in the wrong thread, and rather should point out your critizism towards ed and not eekz. asking for coloured labels is no solution to anybody. first because the ultimate goal should be to provide realistic spotting without labels done vy ed, and secondly, i am convinced that u are an absolute minority who wants coloured labels on the server

2587 vs 2606 airkills on burning skies. looks horribly unbalanced to me :) taking away the top10 pilots of each side and the allies lead by a few hundred kills, and this on a typical "furball" mission, with airfields quite close together, and usually low altitude dogfights.

the black smudge how you call it, is actually closer to rl spotting than what dcs currently offers without labels. making the dots red and blue, well, thats a different level of arcade style tbh. im quite sure, eekz would want to avoid labels at all, if spotting wasnt so terrible in the first place. and i can absoultely understand why he doesnt want to colour the labels tbh,...and yeah im a rift user as well...yes identifying targets is only possible at really close distances, but thats the current vr headset's low resolution, and also the LOD models dcs has + the little zoom we have with vr headsets, that are responsible for it.

how is target identification connected to what eekz is doing on the burning skies server? ED is responsible for making spotting and identifying targets realistic.

ok...look at the videos NineLine shown above! if you start to lower your flaps before blacking out, the virtual pilot will continue to turn the wheel even when blacked out...so for example you had the flaps at lets say 10° at the moment when the blackout starts, and when you become conscious again, the flaps are fully down. same is true for the prop pitch, if you manipulate the prop pitch in the moment the pilot is blacking out, he will continue to increase or decrease the prop pitch while blacked out. resulting in either over-reving the engine with possible engine failure, or ending up with ridiculously low rpm..100% reproducable every single time since the release of the module.

i was thinking the exact same thing today.

watch at 6:30... i always had the impression that the prop pitch moves a tad slowly in our dcs bf109. in the video shown above it takes about 4seconds for "1hour" on the clock, and thats what i remember from having read on several sites. in dcs it takes quite longer for one revolution...something between 6 and 7 seconds. if my brainclock was accurate... is it possible that this is slightly too slow in dcs? im asking, as there are quite a few situations, i.e. in a steeper dive, where the prop pitch cant catch up with the revolutions, and tends to overev. and the opposite in a steep climb, where it cant keep up the rpm and they drop...

i kind of agree as i dont like labels...on the other hand dcs spotting is really bad....wish they would finally make it good.

but it says that they are developing 2 ww2 maps, and a free one...so for me that sounds that the free map will be an additional map.