give some love to the Kurfürst model

Please ED, give the 109 model some love, while the F-15 got around 150K triangles, like the spit, and the TF-51 and 190 model got around 60K triangles, which is kind of low compared to the Spit and the other models, the 109 has only 48K triangles... So some parts which you see everytime look so not-round, it's a kinda sad...

Also what i was wondering, on TBS website it says

Each model is created with over 200,000 polygons and extremely high resolution textures.

It's just not so satisfying if i have to look at things which have edges but are supposed to be round...

I wish ED would bring those models back up to the standard of the spit...

To some degree this makes sense- the F-15 is a lot bigger than a WW2 fighter and thus to get a given level of detail it needs more triangles. The 109 is the smallest fighter in-game at the moment so it makes sense that the poly count is the lowest as well.

That said, more detail is always a good thing (until it starts slowing down your framerate), and I agree things like that antenna should look round.

Well, even if it is the smallest fighter, that doesn't mean, you can do it low-poly...

And the spitfire is a bit bigger, but still got +100K triangles more than the 109...

Sitt every second Day in the 109, after barley use the outside view and the Cockpit is one of the best of all WW2 Simulations would more like they focus on WW2 enviorment and new 109 classes at first. And 109 model was also not done by ED.

the cockpit is indeed good, but not the 109 model...

Looks quite ugly! I'm happy I bought the FW 190.

I'd rather they didn't increase the polycount to be honest.

Partly because none of us ever spend lots of time in the F2 view close in to the model, but mostly because it's the model you see when you're flying with/against it and more polys == less performance.

The only thing that actually has always bothered me is the antenna ball hexagon when looking back. That's just too low poly and reminds me of 90s quake engine 3D.

I'd rather they didn't increase the polycount to be honest.

 

Partly because none of us ever spend lots of time in the F2 view close in to the model, but mostly because it's the model you see when you're flying with/against it and more polys == less performance.

A lot of things are visible from the pit.

Spit has roughly 100K tris more than the 109 but no performance loss what so ever for me...

Probably the model could use some refresh. Could be also that there is a chance to keep the current one as one of the LOD stages.

To be fair however, the 109 model still looks nice considering that (I think) it has 3 years. Also some of the screenshots are made really close which will always reveal the mesh topography. Especially in case of the round objects.

Bf 109 has less polygons then Spit, simply because the model was done according to capabilities of main-stream hardware available during that time. If Spit would be released the same time as 109 they would have more or less the same amount of polygons (Spit maybe more as it's a bit curvier). Bottom line, Spit didn't got more "love" - its better model is just an effect of normal evolution of software, hardware and experience gained by the development team.

With more an more modules released in DCS keeping constand updates will become a major effort. How many software companies provide continues, life-time updates? Most just make a release and move forward to work on a new version or on some other project. Maybe it would be a good idea to arrange a periodical refresh updates and make them available as a DLC with a small price (Don't know from the cost perspective, I guess market price comparing to the other DLC's could be somewhere arround 10$).

A lot of things are visible from the pit.

+1

while i agree that the model indeed looks not as nice as the spit or many other modules, i think i would prefer them to focus first on the bugs the module has for months or since the initial release...and afterwards, instead of creating or improving the current K4 3d model, which doesnt look too bad imo, i would prefer them to actually give us a 2nd 109 variant, and then this time maybe with more polygons, as i agree, performance is not the issue as other modules prove.

Forgive me if I am wrong... But people working on 3D models might not be the same as those working on the bug fixing. Although I am sure they are focused on remaking AI models and making new sruff for Normandy.

Probably the model could use some refresh. Could be also that there is a chance to keep the current one as one of the LOD stages.

To be fair however, the 109 model still looks nice considering that (I think) it has 3 years. Also some of the screenshots are made really close which will always reveal the mesh topography. Especially in case of the round objects.

Bf 109 has less polygons then Spit, simply because the model was done according to capabilities of main-stream hardware available during that time. If Spit would be released the same time as 109 they would have more or less the same amount of polygons (Spit maybe more as it's a bit curvier). Bottom line, Spit didn't got more "love" - its better model is just an effect of normal evolution of software, hardware and experience gained by the development team.

With more an more modules released in DCS keeping constand updates will become a major effort. How many software companies provide continues, life-time updates? Most just make a release and move forward to work on a new version or on some other project. Maybe it would be a good idea to arrange a periodical refresh updates and make them available as a DLC with a small price (Don't know from the cost perspective, I guess market price comparing to the other DLC's could be somewhere arround 10$).

Lots of things i pointed out is visible with normal zoom from the pit

The F-15, P-51 and other models are older and have more polys so higher poly counts already existed before the 109

Forgive me if I am wrong... But people working on 3D models might not be the same as those working on the bug fixing. Although I am sure they are focused on remaking AI models and making new sruff for Normandy.

obviously you didn't read my post...try once more.:doh:

Honestly, now that we have bomber targets on the horizon, I would really like if ED would finally finish the anti bomber loadouts for the K-4, which are still not in for 2 years... meaning the 21 cm rockets (they were jettisonable btw!) and 2 cm cannon gondolas. Lets give those B-17s some love ;)

Edit: started a separate thread for that.

Its too bad this module seems to be needing some attention. With Normandy on the horizon, this would be a must purchase if it were up to par.

You already have the best performing plane and now you want it to look good too? :p

I am happy with the 109, it flies perfectly in VR. Any increase in detail will only slow things down (like the fabulous Mig-21 - looks fantastic, flies fantastic, but very low fps).

Please don't ramp up the detail and slow down the sim ;)

I am happy with the 109, it flies perfectly in VR. Any increase in detail will only slow things down (like the fabulous Mig-21 - looks fantastic, flies fantastic, but very low fps).

 

Please don't ramp up the detail and slow down the sim ;)

Spitfire and MiG-29 have much more detail and no FPS loss, so increasing detail shouldn't cause problems

We buy Normandy first of all to fly aircrafts not to drive tanks.

I 100% agree about K4 polycount. It's not so bad, but it could have been much better as for the DB sound. Definitely DCS Messerschmitt would deserve some more love.

Please provide the same quality standard.

We buy Normandy first of all to fly aircrafts not to drive tanks.

I 100% agree about K4 polycount. It's not so bad, but it could have been much better as for the DB sound. Definitely DCS Messerschmitt would deserve some more love.

 

Please provide the same quality standard.

+1...

In fact, Normandy should be first of all in airplane simulator not a tanks simulator.

And the best quality standard should be implemented first for airplanes and then for the rest.

And at 109K there are still no pods with cannons and rockets ...

:pilotfly:

I am not sure I would go that far, its an older model sure, and I believe created by someone different back then, but its hardly hard on the eyes, nor does it detract from my personal joy of flying it, all things pointed out have to be low-priority compared to new WWII objects and such. Fact is most of the pictures in the OP arent even visible while piloting the aircraft, I couldnt imagine reporting these issues right now with all they have on their plate.

As already said, lot's of things can be seen from the normal position with normal zoom... Otherwise i wouldn't be bothered by that if i can't see those things