Open beta flight dynamics...

[Pman]

OK, I don't have flight measurments of the 109G/K, but I have years of reading and FMs in other flight sims that maybe weren't detailed enough but were very close to those descriptions that have researched over years. Bf109 was my favourite plane of old days, when I still was a kid.

 

 

 

To answer the question though. Yes I do believe it fits very well into BETA status, thus it is not complete. But somebody that I have quoted above said that it should not be BETA because "reasons". Nobody doubts you ability in coding. You are probably the only person working on the FM right? I have a friend who made FMs for WT, and I heard how hard it is to code that stuff, probably even harder in DCS. I just want what I was waiting for and what we pay for. A Bf109K4 not something that doesn't feel like Bf109K4. You understand right? I'd rather say that now when still in BETA, then wait for full release and still be disapointed. As we all know, then you won't make any alterations as you will be completely busy working on other projects (Spit MkIX maybe?)

 

I liked the last patch 109 improved greately, especially the sound of buffeting is awesome. It realy adds to immersion. Just please be more clear with your responses.

 

It feels that I am unwelcome here:(

 

As far as I know in this text he is refering to Bf-109G10

 

"...That many Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference

for it. Hans Dittes has completed a fantastic

restoration and should be complimented

on returning "Black 2" to the air."

 

Black 2 is the 109G10.

 

That's a mashed up article and not how it appeared in the publication.

 

See my previous link

 

Pman

[Pman]

It's also worth asking ourselves how much we can learn from reading subjective articles without actually being able to speak to a pilot who has handled these aircraft

 

There is know so much you can learn from an article on the net without actually have climbed in the cockpit of one of these aircraft.

 

Pman

[Solty]

That's a mashed up article and not how it appeared in the publication.

 

See my previous link

 

Pman

OK thx. It just took me so long to write my own (I was making pierogi for the holiday :P) that I wasn't able to read before posting. Thx. I have not seen the full publication ever.

[Pman]

OK thx. It just took me so long to write my own (I was making pierogi for the holiday ) that I wasn't able to read before posting. Thx. I have not seen the full publication ever.

No problem, it's a great read :)

 

Pman

[Thumper1606688436]

74nsR6zjXPY

 

Happy Holidays!

[Yo-Yo]

:thumbup:

 

That is the only way to do a good simulation. I am sure you probably have these reports but just in case I have provided an investigation into the influences of rudder position on longitudinal stability for the Bf-109 and FW-190.

 

Thank you very much! I have the same graphs, but I think that my copy is not of so good quality and possibly it's a little bit different report.

 

By the way, you can see that 109 is less prone to trim issues at high M like nose tucking. Resembles Spitfire vs Mustang, etc.

 

Of course. higher M would lead to nose tucking even for 109.

[TXSailor]

I just bought the Bf-109K module, as it's one of my favorite aircraft of all time. I see there was an ED response to the trim issue, but what about the control authority at high speeds? The 109 is certainly known to lose control authority at speed. Is something going to be done about that?

[DB 605]

Is something going to be done about that?

 

Yes.

[TXSailor]

Yes.

 

Yay! I'm VERY excited about that. I've got paintings and lithographs of Bf-109s hanging all over my office, lol.

[DB 605]

Yay! I'm VERY excited about that. I've got paintings and lithographs of Bf-109s hanging all over my office, lol.

 

Another 109 nut :thumbup: :D

 

Sorry about short answer, i actually tried to find YO-YO's post about that but can't remember where it was. Anyway, i understand that controls stiffening will be looked into.

[Solty]

Another 109 nut :thumbup: :D

 

Sorry about short answer, i actually tried to find YO-YO's post about that but can't remember where it was. Anyway, i understand that controls stiffening will be looked into.

 

I wish I could see that answer realy. Or maybe YoYo himself could say it again here?

 

It is one of the definitive things about Bf109 that feels realy off now. I have just enough of the "it's so good it can't be better" attitude, where we have no real conclusions on how to improve the FMs and the game as a whole. :book:

[DB 605]

I wish I could see that answer realy. Or maybe YoYo himself could say it again here?

 

It is one of the definitive things about Bf109 that feels realy off now. I have just enough of the "it's so good it can't be better" attitude, where we have no real conclusions on how to improve the FMs and the game as a whole. :book:

 

He may or may not, but what makes you think they would not do it to 109? It's already modelled to both P-51 and FW 190.

 

I have no doubts about final FM, it will be as close to real thing as possible.

[TXSailor]

Another 109 nut :thumbup: :D

 

Sorry about short answer, i actually tried to find YO-YO's post about that but can't remember where it was. Anyway, i understand that controls stiffening will be looked into.

 

No problem! Simple was good enough for me!

[Crumpp]

By the way, you can see that 109 is less prone to trim issues at high M like nose tucking

 

I was rather surprised at the measurements compared to the anecdotes. I will write more later...waiting on Christmas Dinner and company to arrive!

 

Merry Christmas!!!

[Crumpp]

It's already modelled to both P-51 and FW 190.

 

The FW-190 is phenomenal. The stick movements after the flair I make on landing are very much the same as I make on landing real aircraft.

[SlipBall]

The FW-190 is phenomenal. The stick movements after the flair I make on landing are very much the same as I make on landing real aircraft.

 

 

yes they did a great job on this aircraft and it is still being refined

[DB 605]

The FW-190 is phenomenal. The stick movements after the flair I make on landing are very much the same as I make on landing real aircraft.

 

Yes, while flying in DCS generally is great i think landings are where FM really shines. I don't have pilot licence myself but i have sit enough hours in seat next of pilot (and sometimes yoke/stick my hands:)) to know it feels very close to real thing. :)

[Solty]

I agree that FMs are realy advanced, but I just think that we should not indulge into that "OMG SO AWESOME" type of conversation it seems like nothing was wrong with the model.

 

Nobody is perfect and I want to look at it realisticly. I understand that people like to be told that they did something well, but I think that this is content speaks for it self, and nobody should judge the product while still in BETA, both positively and negatively.

 

We realy need to clarify stuff, and not just jump into conclusions. Each time I speak I feel I am seen as the enemy of the society, but I want this game to shine sooooooooooooo much. I want it to be as good as it is possible.

 

But by overhyping each of the modules we create false expectations. Nothing can be perfect and lets don't pretend DCS can be. It is a very good sim, no doubt about that, but it is lacking a lot of features that are simply important for the gameplay. Not realy an issue with FM, so I won't say more within this topic.

 

I just want to say that we should keep an eye on the development and provide useful questions and answers, instead of just saying "IS SO AWESOME, 10/10, 100/100, bes gaim, bes gaim".

 

We know that DCS is a good sim, it doesn't have to prove anything, now just make stuff right, so it feels right. Nothing is perfect in BETA state, that is why it is harmful to the project, to say it is. Because people buying it are confused.

 

Many would ask "if it is so perfect, why are my wings falling off at 6.0G?" A valid question. That is why I think that people should hold their horses with giving marks to the unfinished product. Both good and bad.

 

Focus on the bugs and flight dynamics that feel wrong, so that they can be fixed. That is what BETA is for.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Solty

[DB 605]

I agree that FMs are realy advanced, but I just think that we should not indulge into that "OMG SO AWESOME" type of conversation it seems like nothing was wrong with the model.

 

Nobody is perfect and I want to look at it realisticly. I understand that people like to be told that they did something well, but I think that this is content speaks for it self, and nobody should judge the product while still in BETA, both positively and negatively.

 

We realy need to clarify stuff, and not just jump into conclusions. Each time I speak I feel I am seen as the enemy of the society, but I want this game to shine sooooooooooooo much. I want it to be as good as it is possible.

 

But by overhyping each of the modules we create false expectations. Nothing can be perfect and lets don't pretend DCS can be. It is a very good sim, no doubt about that, but it is lacking a lot of features that are simply important for the gameplay. Not realy an issue with FM, so I won't say more within this topic.

 

I just want to say that we should keep an eye on the development and provide useful questions and answers, instead of just saying "IS SO AWESOME, 10/10, 100/100, bes gaim, bes gaim".

 

We know that DCS is a good sim, it doesn't have to prove anything, now just make stuff right, so it feels right. Nothing is perfect in BETA state, that is why it is harmful to the project, to say it is. Because people buying it are confused.

 

Many would ask "if it is so perfect, why are my wings falling off at 6.0G?" A valid question. That is why I think that people should hold their horses with giving marks to the unfinished product. Both good and bad.

 

Focus on the bugs and flight dynamics that feel wrong, so that they can be fixed. That is what BETA is for.

 

 

Sorry but i think you are exaggerating things quite bit now.

 

I've not really seen any of those "OMG SO AWESOME" stuff you mentioned. Sure people have praised the good bits of FM, as it is already great, but i think at least most of us know it's not ready and there is things left that need corrections. And these are already reported many times. Go and look "bugs & problems" section, there is full four pages of topics about those (some by me).

Like i said, it's already confirmed that cotrol authority/stiffening at high speeds will be looked, no reason to keep mentioning that on every topic then in my opinion.

Mustang and FW are good examples, as FM's of those planes are great i really can't see why 109's FM would not be as good once finished.

[NeilWillis]

I am sure they will continue to be tweaked until the developers are satisfied with them, and frankly I don't see why such a cynical outlook is either helpful, necessary, or very welcome.

 

Why shouldn't we be enthusiastic about what is clearly a model based on sound principals, that is evolving rapidly into something way way ahead of anything from any other simulation?

 

We all have our own opinions, and I for one wouldn't want to stifle debate, but try to keep it in perspective.

 

Praise won't result in halting development, but it might just give motivation to the guys working so hard to bring this stuff to the marketplace. Do you really have an issue with that Solty?

[Solty]

I am sure they will continue to be tweaked until the developers are satisfied with them, and frankly I don't see why such a cynical outlook is either helpful, necessary, or very welcome.

 

Why shouldn't we be enthusiastic about what is clearly a model based on sound principals, that is evolving rapidly into something way way ahead of anything from any other simulation?

 

We all have our own opinions, and I for one wouldn't want to stifle debate, but try to keep it in perspective.

 

Praise won't result in halting development, but it might just give motivation to the guys working so hard to bring this stuff to the marketplace. Do you really have an issue with that Solty?

Their motivation should come from happy customers who recieve a finished product. Not half in the way of the product.

 

If you made a sandwitch that is suppose to be with cheese and tomatos but you managed to only slice the bread and put butter on it, but your mom would say "IT LOOKS AMAZING SON" would that be a motivation to you? NO! I would be offended and say "are you making fun of me? Realy mom?"

 

If you think that lack of stiffening is not a big oversight then I see you have nothing to say about flight dynamics. It is very important part of the FM.

 

Let them finish the product to have conclusive evaluation. Not comments like this:

 

 

My first impressions with the new flight model are very positive indeed. Excellent work Wags.

 

Why is the Bf-109 still in Beta I ask myself?

This is dangerous to the project, as it gives flase feedback.

 

I have lots of hours on sims and I can tell you that people were even more hyped for Cliffs of Dover and we were dissapointed, because devs though they don't have to do anything more to realy improve the game so that they gave us a product that was unplayable. Because everyone was so happy with screenshots, and saying that it looks perfect. Those were the same people that were involved in Kickstarted of DCS WW2 BTW. You know that right?

 

War Thunder devs were saying that their sim is so accurate they even measure the shape and weight of first aid kit in the cockpit and it also has influence on the FM. Bulls**t. Their FMs are similar to flying toys.

 

I'd rather refrain myself from overly positive comments before I see the product finished. I want to see the finished project and tell ED either:

 

"It lived to my expectations, impressive work that you can be proud of"

or

"This is not the product I was hoping to recieve"

 

Also because of attitude like yours this community and this forum is almost dead, because people are afraid to speak their mind. I am almost sure that this comment will give me negative marks just because I show my concerns. Which is borderline of evil.

Freedom of speach anyone?

 

Why should I not be concerned? If I have before my own eyes DCS and can tell what is right or wrong. I have my own mind.

Do you realy think that all we should do now is to thank and praise instead of demanding and asking for improvment?

 

DCS is barely playable as a combat sim, because people do not have the courage to say anything:

 

-LOD is terrible, spotting with different video settings is so bad that you can't see well past 1km and you won't see anyone at 5km from you if the flak is not shooting. BORDERLINE BROKEN

 

-User Interface of MP game is so bad you can't even filter games after players or names.

 

-Core gameplay is broken because server crash if there is too many objects on the map in one plance, and when you shoot the whole server laggs and FPS drops to 5.

 

-You can't bind your keys or calibrate your stick sensitivity during missions in MP.

 

-You can't change your convergence, set other parameters of the plane before you spawn(TRIMING the 109 or 190 maybe?).

 

-Damage model is so bad it gives almost no satisfaction when you shoot somebody down because they always die the same and it looks awful and is very inconsistant.

 

Is that the best sim you are talking about? If yes, then you are biased. It needs looooooots of work to even compete with other games. Because even though its FMs are very good, it cannot hold itself as Digital COMBAT Simulator because its combat is so painful to do on open servers.

 

:joystick:

Do you thing person with such observations would not care for it? NO! I do, and I have P-51, Bf109, Fw190 and FC3. So I am not just a guy that did not give a penny on this game. I care for it and I skipped BOS to buy DCS modules.

 

This comment is not cynical, it is realistic.

 

I will wait to give my final verdict on the Bf109K4 untill it is out of the beta. That is decency. Normal thing to do. Don't make it look as if it was bad. It isn't.

 

To clarify:

Yes I am happy about the FM of P-51 and FW190. But both of those planes need better DMs, especially the P-51.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Solty

[Flagrum]

"Hey, looking good what you're doing, looks already tasty!" and maybe "... but I would actually cut the tomatoes before putting them on the sandwich ^^"

is maybe more encouraging and assuring you're on track with your reciepe than

"I don't like tomato sandwiches. At. All. The bread is way to thick and where is the garden radish on it anyway!?" after you have finished your product and are serving it.

 

When it is finished, it is, well, finished - don't expect that anyhing major will be changed afterwards. But Beta is there to find bugs and to give feedback. Nowhere it is said, that positive feedback has to be avoided - the devs are not ingendious and can surely judge and put into context the feedback they are given.

 

And as "context" was already mentioned, we are talking about one module here, not DCS World in general. Just because the Bf109 is percieved as "good" or "not so good" does not mean that all or none of the remaining problems are solved nor ignored.

[NeilWillis]

Why do you think this forum is dead?

 

I appreciate your opinions, and I can understand where you are coming from. DCS World is a constantly evolving environment, and much of what you have said is reasonable. However...

 

I do think your cynicism is unfounded. DCS World is definitely NOT IL2 CLOD, and I am sure you agree that there is a lot more going on as regards development here, and therefore it cannot possibly be compared like for like.

 

Is there room for improvement - of course!

 

Is the current state of affairs with DCS World unacceptable - absolutely not.

 

As for you comparison with a sandwich - what utter nonsense. Can you seriously relate the two? One is a simple concoction of food items whereas the other is a highly complex amalgamation of computer code which has infinite possibilities and a growing complexity that inevitably carries all kinds of pitfalls. Get real. You obviously don't consider DCS World to be such a basket case that you're not prepared to spend a lot of money on it.

 

You don't think for a second that the guys involved with the development of the Bf-109 or any other module are that naive that they'd simply stop development because I say their efforts are such that the module needn't remain in Beta any longer, or that if it was taken out of Beta they'd just walk away and leave it there? You really do flatter me and my influence!

 

I'd suggest that you are taking life far too seriously, and far far too literally. The P-51D is still being reviewed and upgraded, and that isn't a Beta module, so how do you justify your logic?

 

My saying that the Bf-109 no longer needs to remain in Beta simply reflects that the module is doing the majority of what was intended. It doesn't mean it should be left as it is.

 

My experience - Sinclair ZX81 with 1 Kb of memory in the infancy of computing with raytrace graphics to DCS World on a water cooled i7 quadcore processor and 32 Gb of memory, and pretty much everything inbetween - not that that counts for a damned thing here!

[Solty]

"Hey, looking good what you're doing, looks already tasty!" and maybe "... but I would actually cut the tomatoes before putting them on the sandwich ^^"

is maybe more encouraging and assuring you're on track with your reciepe than

"I don't like tomato sandwiches. At. All. The bread is way to thick and where is the garden radish on it anyway!?" after you have finished your product and are serving it.

 

When it is finished, it is, well, finished - don't expect that anyhing major will be changed afterwards. But Beta is there to find bugs and to give feedback. Nowhere it is said, that positive feedback has to be avoided - the devs are not ingendious and can surely judge and put into context the feedback they are given.

 

And as "context" was already mentioned, we are talking about one module here, not DCS World in general. Just because the Bf109 is percieved as "good" or "not so good" does not mean that all or none of the remaining problems are solved nor ignored.

If you read both my posts you would know that you are actually agreeing with me.

 

I would rather see constructive feedback instead of just praising the module that is still not finished.

 

I am just oposig the idea of beeing overly protective of the product that is still unfinished

[Solty]

Why do you think this forum is dead?

 

I appreciate your opinions, and I can understand where you are coming from. DCS World is a constantly evolving environment, and much of what you have said is reasonable. However...

 

I do think your cynicism is unfounded. DCS World is definitely NOT IL2 CLOD, and I am sure you agree that there is a lot more going on as regards development here, and therefore it cannot possibly be compared like for like.

 

Is there room for improvement - of course!

 

Is the current state of affairs with DCS World unacceptable - absolutely not.

 

As for you comparison with a sandwich - what utter nonsense. Can you seriously relate the two? One is a simple concoction of food items whereas the other is a highly complex amalgamation of computer code which has infinite possibilities and a growing complexity that inevitably carries all kinds of pitfalls. Get real. You obviously don't consider DCS World to be such a basket case that you're not prepared to spend a lot of money on it.

 

You don't think for a second that the guys involved with the development of the Bf-109 or any other module are that naive that they'd simply stop development because I say their efforts are such that the module needn't remain in Beta any longer, or that if it was taken out of Beta they'd just walk away and leave it there? You really do flatter me and my influence!

 

I'd suggest that you are taking life far too seriously, and far far too literally. The P-51D is still being reviewed and upgraded, and that isn't a Beta module, so how do you justify your logic?

 

My saying that the Bf-109 no longer needs to remain in Beta simply reflects that the module is doing the majority of what was intended. It doesn't mean it should be left as it is.

 

My experience - Sinclair ZX81 with 1 Kb of memory in the infancy of computing with raytrace graphics to DCS World on a water cooled i7 quadcore processor and 32 Gb of memory, and pretty much everything inbetween - not that that counts for a damned thing here!

 

Do you not know what a metaphor is? The sandwitch is a metaphor. I have not attempted a comparisson between a sandwitch and a computer programme.

 

I do believe that if we won't show that we want professional game with detail, they will loose interest in making it complex because you and many others will always be happy with the results even if the game was realy bad, and people giving feedback will always be greated with unfriendly behaviour and acused of beeing overly "cynical".

 

For you the fiddelity is awesome? I feel wrong in DCS Bf109K4, to me it lacks what defines the 109 and that is why I want to point that out, and I have the right to do so.

 

This is buisness, they are not making it for free ok? I do not owe anything to ED. They want to develop this and I want it to be developed at high level of fidelity because I have payed for it. One module of DCS is equal in price to 4 IL2 46 games where I can fly 150planes with nice FMs, that maybe half or less of the complexity but at least the game works and I can see somebody at more than 1km. So you see why I realy want my money to be worth while right?

 

You live in a wealthy UK. Not in Poland. So for you 20 pounds probably is realy cheap. For me 150 złoty for 1 plane is a little bit high.