Bf109k4 adjustded drag - 1.5.3

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Guy's

 

I'm curious if this listed fix has been noticeable in your flights.

 

I do not have DCS installed so, I can't try it, but I am curious, just as I am to find out what might have caused the frames to drop ( although I believe there is already a miracle script by Mustang ? to overcome those problems ... ).

 

Does this adjustment to the drag have impact in the way the K-$ now performs?

 

What about the MW50 tank - can it now become empty when in the mission menu we ask for that ?

[Sporg]

For the drag I don't know.

I haven't tested the 109 much lately.

 

For the lower fps, Mustang has posted a fix in this thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158302&page=7

 

Besides Kuky has described that the loss of fps is caused by graphics improvements in 1.5.3 as part of the work to merge it with 2.0.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2685242&postcount=22

 

I guess in the long run we will have to set 1.5.x settings same as we have to in 2.0 already.

 

I on the other hand am curious why you so often uninstall DCS?

I just have it on my PC the whole time?

(sorry for OT question. :) )

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Thx for your answer Sporg! Excellent links!

 

DCS out because I need to concentrate on RW stuff for a while, and it was a permanent temptation :-)

 

Well, I decided to wait for the final merge of 1.5 with 2.0, and then maybe I'll give it a new try, although I would rather prefer to concentrate on a Civil flight simulation platform, and, DTG's announcement brought me some hopes - I just hope I will not get as disappointed as I felt with MS FLIGHT's fate...

 

Combat, any sort and particularly Air Combat, is not really what I like to do - I feel uneasy with playing it, although I admit I spent lot's of hours playing DCS... I'd rather be using a civil flight simulator with full World coverage, real world and / or dynamic weather covering as much features as possible, and the quality / detail of flight dynamics like those I get in DCS World ...

[Kurfürst]

Re: 109K drag fix, its nice to see it implemented, probably a fix for the too high drag and too Low speed of 109K (had 109G drag and as result was ca. 30 km/h slower than should).

[javelina1]

I took her out for a quick speed run.

 

100% fuel, put the rads on auto, and engaged the MW and full throttle/ATA.

 

I kept her right over the water, at less than 30 feet.

 

Managed to hit speeds of 585-588kph. On two separate passes. There was a point I thought I hit 590kph.

 

Will try again later, (was trying to keep the "ball" centered as best as possible).

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

That's good news!

 

Thx guys!

[rel4y]

Full fuel and rads on auto I also get around 587 kph at MSL. The charts had it at 595 kph, so I think 587 is very reasonable. Good fix from Yo-Yo, thank you! You can hit even 590 kph once some fuel/MW has been spent and the plane is a bit lighter.

 

Edit: MW tank weight has not been integrated in ME yet.

Edited February 21, 2016 by rel4y

[DarkRaiderss]

Haven't tested it but it does feel faster. Not just top speed but accelation too.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I tested it :-)

 

Feels great, even better :-)

[Hummingbird]

Very odd it wasn't simply made to hit 595 km/h.

[Schmidtfire]

Come on, It's an 8 km/h difference. What can you do with 595km/h that you can't do with 587km/h? Besides, small adjustments for gameplay balance will always be a factor (within reason). You may not like the truth, but that is the way it is.

[Hummingbird]

Come on, It's an 8 km/h difference. What can you do with 595km/h that you can't do with 587km/h? Besides, small adjustments for gameplay balance will always be a factor (within reason). You may not like the truth, but that is the way it is.

 

Small adjustments for balance in a sim? Well then its not really a sim anymore.

 

I just don't understand the reasoning behind cutting the speed short of actual hard values available, perhaps because no reason was given, but honestly thats a common theme by now.

 

8 km/h isn't a huge deal, but it becomes a nuisance once you add in all the other stuff thats wrong. But I digress, I've said my piece on these things multiple times by now.

 

I just hope the same doesn't happen with the Spitfire.

[NeilWillis]

You make the assumption that setting the max speed is just a matter of punching in a few numbers. Unfortunately the modelling is a lot more complicated than that, so you may find that this as close as they can get without a huge amount of number crunching.

 

I also suggest 8 kmh falls well within the margin of difference between identical airframes out of identical jigs at the same factory. The quoted figures won't represent all 109 K4s, just the one tested. Ours is a different one, so just accept it and move on.

 

Jeez, what do you want here? Miracles?

[Kurfürst]

Don't forget its a "living" model which calculates every aspect based on programmed parameters, so if you change one (like drag) it will change (and sometimes, completely ruin) the other performance aspects. Its not like just "enter correct sea level" speed (old Il-2 engine I believe worked this way, but it was much simpler).

 

Also given that we don't have all the data (probably not even manufacturer had, and even those that were obtained from trials were subject to a certain % of measurement error), there will always be some kind of tolerance on the results. Its also possible that the missing amount lays somewhere else, say in the engine or superchargers or propeller model etc, but I presume the current model gives a good compromise to get all figures within reasonable distance from the reference figures.

 

Its probably not even possible to get it "perfect", but the current model sea level speeds seems like 1.3% within to the figures in the historical reference document, nonwithstanding that for example it may also be not 100% compatible with the atmospheric model used in Germany at the time - and that production tolerance, the amount the manufacturer was guaranteeing in the actual planes was like +/- 3% in level speed. We have our model that is well within that, and in fact quite close to the reference figures, so I don't think there is reason to complain but to express are congratulations to YoYo who was listening to our input on drag and made a very, very good job (again).

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Yes,

 

Again a BIG THANK YOU to Yo-Yo, who, just like many of us, must feel really sad with the news about Eric Brown ( RiP)

[Sporg]

Thx for your answer Sporg! Excellent links!

 

DCS out because I need to concentrate on RW stuff for a while, and it was a permanent temptation :-)

 

You're welcome. :)

 

For me it is also sometimes a distraction, but I manage to keep away from the sim itself at least.

The forums, maybe not so much. :)

 

Well, I decided to wait for the final merge of 1.5 with 2.0, and then maybe I'll give it a new try, although I would rather prefer to concentrate on a Civil flight simulation platform, and, DTG's announcement brought me some hopes - I just hope I will not get as disappointed as I felt with MS FLIGHT's fate...

 

Combat, any sort and particularly Air Combat, is not really what I like to do - I feel uneasy with playing it, although I admit I spent lot's of hours playing DCS... I'd rather be using a civil flight simulator with full World coverage, real world and / or dynamic weather covering as much features as possible, and the quality / detail of flight dynamics like those I get in DCS World ...

Actually we are much the same with regards to the flying. :)

 

Often times I am content with flying around, testing take off's and landings, doing a circuit, getting to know the start-up and shut down procedures.

I like to test the aircraft and get the "feeling" of the flying. :)

 

I don't need a bigger world to fly in as such (even if it would be a nice extra), but dynamic weather, that would be super.

 

With regards to the 109, I tested it again, and it does feel a little "smoother" and perhaps with a little more acceleration.

But would need to test more, it is a long time since I tested thoroughly.

[DarkRaiderss]

While I appreciate the extra top end speed it is only good for straight flight. You can't maneuver well at that speed, especially turning left. However, reduced drag should have an effect at slower speeds as well with better acceleration and less loss of speed in turns. I would have assumed that it was modeled that way and not just adding top end speed.

[NineLine]

Small adjustments for balance in a sim? Well then its not really a sim anymore.

 

I just don't understand the reasoning behind cutting the speed short of actual hard values available, perhaps because no reason was given, but honestly thats a common theme by now.

 

8 km/h isn't a huge deal, but it becomes a nuisance once you add in all the other stuff thats wrong. But I digress, I've said my piece on these things multiple times by now.

 

I just hope the same doesn't happen with the Spitfire.

 

Is it a difference between IAS and TAS? I believe I was getting over 600 kph TAS according to tacview.

[Hummingbird]

Is it a difference between IAS and TAS? I believe I was getting over 600 kph TAS according to tacview.

 

Is it possible to get TAS to show ingame instead of IAS? I seem to remember seeing TAS figures in the past, but now its IAS on the info bar.

[NineLine]

I use Tacview to review tracks, and that can give you TAS

[saburo_cz]

Is it possible to get TAS to show ingame instead of IAS? I seem to remember seeing TAS figures in the past, but now its IAS on the info bar.

 

LCtrl + Y are that keys which switch between IAS and TAS or switch-off info bar.

[rel4y]

At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)

[NineLine]

At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)

 

High speeds can effect it as well I believe, and testing top speeds it should show some difference, I could be wrong though.

Edited February 22, 2016 by NineLine

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)

 

TAS / IAS is NOT affected by wind ...

[rel4y]

TAS / IAS is NOT affected by wind ...

 

Sry that was ground speed.. :doh: I messed up.

 

LCtrl + Y are that keys which switch between IAS and TAS or switch-off info bar.

 

OMG, I never knew that you could switch to TAS! That is so awesome! I have to retest speed at FTH now!:joystick:

 

High speeds can effect it as well I believe, and testing top speeds it should show some difference, I could be wrong though.

 

Yeah thats true, pitot instrument error, altitude, air density and temperature play a role there. I always test level speed without weather effects under normal conditions. 1013 mbar, 15 °C that should be how engineers in WW2 were testing as well. Still the pitot error would remain and I guess DCS is very much capable of modeling this! :pilotfly:So you are probably right!

Edited February 23, 2016 by rel4y