New Patch and 109`s [Archive] - The Air Tactical Assault Group - Team Fusion

Little_D

Jul-05-2012, 06:22

Hi gents,

i hope i am not the only one who notice that, because i only can read about acceleration is to slow (what is right, it is to slow), stalls to easy (not for me), loos to mutch speed when you use ruder (what is right, loos to mutch speed) and ruder is to sensitive (not for me).

The 109`s are trimmed now for 300Km/H (BAll is centert at 300 Km/H). In RL/before patch it was trimmed for 400 Km/H.
This false trimm make the 109`s hard to trimm in level flight when you cruse with 400 Km/H at ATA 1.15 to hold your engin cool. In fight the 109`s bouncing around the nose when you have to set a new leed to shoot ( Stick a little bit to neutral and than back for leed) because of the false trimm.

The Ruder is fine now, you can be gentle to aim or hard to go fast out of the line of fire. Stalling is easy to recove now again and the 109`s dont do it to often or to fast if you are gentle on the stick and know what you are doing.

sorry for my bad english

regards

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-05-2012, 09:27

Thanks for your input on the current beta-patched 109's, Little _D. There has been some concern mentioned over at 1C (link below) about aileron and elevator response being too sensitive, making precise aiming difficult. Have you experienced this problem?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=441130&postcount=1

Little_D

Jul-05-2012, 09:54

Hi Snapper,

no i dont have this problems. But i think this problems come too from the false trimm and maby wrong control settings.

regards

Blackdog_kt

Jul-05-2012, 15:52

You could be on to something here. If the ground-adjustable rudder trim is preset for 300km/h instead of 400km/h, then of course we'll be getting more sideslip than before at higher speeds.

Maybe the FM is not so radically changed after all, but the need to increase our rudder inputs to compensate for the new trim is what is causing discomfort for many pilots. Good find :thumbsup:

P.S. It would be good if we sometime got an option to select our hands-off trim speed. It wouldn't only help with the 109's rudder, but also the rolling tendency on RAF aircraft like the Spitfire and the Blenheim at certain speeds.

ATAG_Colander

Jul-05-2012, 16:01

I think the 109 is trimmed for 300kph because that would be the cruise speed. We tend to fly full throttle all the time which I don't think was what they did back then.
We should have to throttle down to save gas, keep the engine cool and reduce wear.
This means that the majority of the time, we should be flying 300 instead of 400, hence the trim.

My two cents. I could be wrong (I normally am) .

Little_D

Jul-05-2012, 16:19

Hi Colander,

this time you are wrong. The 109 was trimmed for 400 Km/h. 400 km/h was crousing speed at 1.0 to 1.2 ATA depents on alt.
Maby most blue fly like this but not my squad :geek:. we fly like it tells the german flightbook/handbook for the 109 E-4:

cruse ATA 1.2
climp ATA 1.3 for 30 minutes
combat power 1.35 ATA for 5 minutes
economic cruse was 0.9 to 1.0 ATA depents on alt

regards

ATAG_Colander

Jul-05-2012, 16:22

I said "I normally am" :salute:

ATAG_Septic

Jul-05-2012, 16:51

I said "I normally am" :salute:

Not in my experience you're not Colander old chap!

I cannot argue with Little D's evidence (nor would I) but I still think there's some truth in people taxing their engines much more than was done.

Even if I'm wrong, I've enjoyed getting to grips with the 100oct Spit. The simulation has encouraged me to be much more careful about the engine. I've started using coarser prop-pitch and am only daring to use 3000rpm, with or without boost, for 30 seconds. The engine can easily blow at less than two minutes. Perversely perhaps, it's fun.

Cheers,

Septic.

Blackdog_kt

Jul-05-2012, 22:44

Perversely perhaps, it's fun.

No need for "perhaps" if you ask me. We're flight simmers, masochism is how we roll around here :D

III./ZG76_Keller

Jul-06-2012, 01:09

I've noticed that with the new patch I'm constantly adjusting the elevator trim; just when I think I have her trimmed out for my current speed the nose seems to pitch up or down causing me to have to trim it some more.

Little_D

Jul-06-2012, 12:12

Hi gents,

yes its truth, that the acarde gamer of this sim fly the most time 100% power and 20% - 30% fuell. In the momnet i try to finde the right settings for me and my squad, to be prepared to the day the temps are importen and collers working right as it has to be. my settings in the moment as an simer and not a gamer :) :

1.25 ATA for climb, to hold the oiltemp by 70 degres with 3/4 open oilcooler and full open watercooler for 90 degrees water.
1.10 ATA for cruse, to hold the oiltemp at 65 degrees with 1/4 open oilcooler and 1/4 open watercooler for 90 degrees water.
1.30 ATA for combat and fast climb, to hold the oiltemp arround 75 degrees with full open oilcooler and 1/2 open watercooler for 90 to 100 degrees water. (30 min.)
1.35 ATA for climbout or get distance, to hold temp at 80 degrees with full open oilcooler and 3/4 open watercooler for 100 degrees.
1.45 ATA for climbatack or run for my life, to hold oiltemp at 80 degrees with full open oilcooler and 3/4 - full open watercooler for 100 degress water (5 min.)

what i noticed too is if you run longer on 1.30 (more than 30 min.) or 1.35 ATA (mor than 5 min.) is that oil temp goes to 85 - 90 degrees and water to 110 degrees. This is ok, because you will kill your engin when you run it longer on this settings. But even at crusesettings and in dive the water temp dont go down to lets say 70 to 80 degrees, its stays at 90 degrees or more. So maby something wrong with waterheat or watercooler settings in the game.

All ATA settings depents on alt, if you go over 4800 meters the ATA will drop down.

Some other think from the handbook is: over 5000 meters you have to fly normaly with ATA 1.35 at 2400 rpm.

@Keller i have sometimes this problem too, but when i trimm my 109 a little bit nosedown and hold her with the stick in levelflight it works.

regards

Robo.

Jul-07-2012, 09:11

Some other think from the handbook is: over 5000 meters you have to fly normaly with ATA 1.35 at 2400 rpm.

FTH of the DB601 was 4000 or 4500 meters depending on the version (A-1 or Aa). That seems to be correct.

Very good observations on the trim at 300km/h, that explains a lot. I also noticed strange instability but I got used to it. Similar 'jumpy' controls are present on all airplanes for me. I always thought it was some FF glitch or my own HW issue. The 109 was very responsive and smooth in last steam version, then they changed the rudder in the 1st beta which I didn't like one bit. Many 109 were spinning, I never had this problem myself, but it was odd. And now they 'fixed' the rudder although it's strange that by applying it your whole plane yaws strangely, see here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33062

I now have same smoothness issues with the 109 that I always had with a Hurricane - pulling smoothly resulted in very temperamental response resulting in very difficult aiming. There is im fact quite a few threads on 1c regarding rudder and other controls issues in the latest beta versions.

That they introduced some semi-realistic radiator drag and temperature management is appreciated. Should make flying bit more challenging.

Little_D

Jul-09-2012, 06:27

Hi gents,

i put this fals trimm to IL2 bugtracker, i hope this will help.

regards

=AN=Felipe

Jul-09-2012, 15:16

Hey guys! new patch and 109s

http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i478/anfelipesousa/Screenshot173838.jpg

haha cya guys!!

Little_D

Jul-10-2012, 08:51

Hi Felipe,

what you whant to tell us with this?

Red planes are not right moddelt and blue are ore what?

regards

=AN=Felipe

Jul-10-2012, 11:05

Dont be mad little D! I like you and i like to joke with you!

I agree, we have some bugs too, spitfire are undermodelate, just a blind and dumb guy dont see that, take look on tests and compare to real thing, we are under the expected... so they will correct with time, including 109s issues ok?

regards! Little D, see you in sky in my gun sight, like other times :salute:

Robo.

Jul-11-2012, 01:26

Hi gents,

i put this fals trimm to IL2 bugtracker, i hope this will help.

regards

voted! I suggest you attach some 'evidence' that Emil was trimmed for 400km/h cruise. I would also suggest to mention that this is a recent change and it used to be correct (in last 2 versions afik). Good job dude!

Felipe hola - I agree it is always possible to do some damage regardless of FM. Let's hope this sim will be fixed one day. :thumbsup: In fact these guys (I./JG26) are joy to fight against, they know what they're doing. S! chaps

Little_D

Jul-11-2012, 06:49

Hi Robo,

THX for voting and the nice words, i can give this compliment back to you guys. Was nice fight up there with you 3 :)
I will search for this and hope i can find it again.

regards

Doggles

Jul-14-2012, 01:47

and maby wrong control settings.regards

Could you share your control settings? Specifically, the sensitivity settings for your elevator and rudder axes?

Little_D

Jul-14-2012, 07:32

Hi Doggles,

for my x52 Flightstick the elevator sensitivity setting is 0.15, for my ailerons its 0.0
for my CH-Rudder the sensitivity setting is 1.0

regards

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-14-2012, 10:04

Hi gents,

i put this fals trimm to IL2 bugtracker, i hope this will help.

regards

Voted.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/387

Little_D

Jul-15-2012, 08:53

Hi Snapper,

thx for voting !!!:salute:

regards

Little_D

Jul-17-2012, 09:51

Hi gents,

i am not registert on the banana forum and i dont whant to.

So can sombody please post this problem with the false elevator and rudder trim ( false = 300 Km/H, right = 400 Km/H ) at the banana forum? So the guys there can vote for it.

Both the elevator and the rudder where on the ground trimmed with little slats to 400 Km/H, so you can fly here easy at 400 Km/H without rudder or elevator input, exept of wind, trottle and propitsch correktion.

Still searching for the book i read this it is somwhere in my bookstore :)

regards

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-17-2012, 11:28

Done! :D

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=445841&postcount=1

Little_D

Jul-17-2012, 15:44

Robo.

Jul-18-2012, 02:19

Yeah he's done it. These Harley riders are sooo fast. I also mentioned that to several other ppl to have it tested and voted for. I wonder if someone can get a quote from the Pilot's Notes or similar document as hard data to support this issue. I am sure I've got it somewhere but unfortunately I have got no time to look for that...

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-18-2012, 07:13

Hi Snapper,

thanks :)

maby you can write some input too at your post like:

Both the elevator and the rudder where on the ground trimmed with little slats to 400 Km/H, so you can fly the 109 easy at 400 Km/H without rudder or elevator input, exept of wind, trottle and propitsch correktion.

regards

Actually, Blackdog did the honours on our behalf. Since I have approx 0.1 flying hours total on the 109 (and very little of that with the new beta -- well, none....actually) I didn't want to push my luck over there and start talking about something I know very little about. Unlike here. ;)

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-20-2012, 10:12

Disappointing, to say the least.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=446866&postcount=8

Seems the vultures are too busy picking the Spitfire's bones over there to pay any attention to their own mounts. :doh:

Robo.

Jul-20-2012, 12:06

I am not sure why is that. It seems folks are underestimating the power of the mighty bugtracker, there are other major issues that are suprisingly undervoted. I guess people are frustrated with the amount of silly small bugs and / or too busy bashing each other on Banana forum about the longitudal stability of unstable stabilisators.

Well we did what we could. :geek:

ATAG_Septic

Jul-20-2012, 12:45

.... about the longitudal stability of unstable stabilisators.

Well we did what we could. :geek:

I did a lol.

:)

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-20-2012, 12:56

Heh, something like that. :)

I admit that I was very skeptical of how much influence the Bugtracker would have in effecting improvements in upcoming patches. My skepticism was reinforced with the progressive nerfing of the RAF fighters, including the borked rendering of the hard-fought and long-awaited 100-octane models.

That said, it's better than anything else we've got going. Some folks have gone to a lot of hard work getting the Bugtracker up and running, so it seems only right that the rest of us at least give it the benefit of the doubt and register our votes on issues we personally deem important.

What I find odd is that the RAF fighters are all grossly undermodelled, more so than the 109's, yet no one is starting any threads to slag the 109's off to bring them down to this sim's RAF FM level. I can't tell you how many times I've lost a kill over a 109 by this much as the 109 was pulling yet another hammerhead for another dive on me. Give me true 100-octane performance in a Ia, IIa, and even Rotol... and another self-satisfied 109 pilot would be eating 9 yards of .303's. Instead, the pitifully anaemic Merlins have no punch and down we falter. One exception was flying the current 1.5 Steam retail patch when the pre-nerfed IIa's did have the punch. Unfortunately, due to a lot of screaming, there were at most only five IIa's available at a seaside airfield, so most of my IIa's lost their ailerons ten seconds after spawning! LOL

I see the current "let's hobble the Spits even more" threads over at 1C as a desperation move by a few well-known individuals. The "ьber-Sissyfire IIa" was a harbinger of things to come if both RAF and LW fighters were all given truly historical Flight Models. And I hasten to add that MOST 109 fliers would adapt very quickly to accurate flight models and remain deadly as always, albeit with adjusted tactics. But I also believe strongly that those who are actively moving to have Bugtracker Reports generated to render the Spits "unstable, twitchy to aim, hard to fly well, and breaking up at 6 g's" are those 109 pilots that are not up to the virtual challenge that the real LW faced when up against a truly dangerous adversary.

Robo.

Jul-20-2012, 15:53

Snapper me old pal you know that I agree 100%, very often I read your posts and I think to myself ''this is how I'd put it if I spoke proper English'' you know :D

I fly all the fighter planes in the sim, had no chance to try the new G.50 properly yet, but:

In a 109 I am like :PP

In a Spitfire I am like :guilty:

In a Hurricane I am like :stunned:

I know that because it's me and I fly them all. Now that makes any discussion with people who

A. ...don't fly either of them because they don't own the game. They don't care about Cliffs of Dover or its developement, they just like to post scans and copies of old scans and copies...
B. ...only fly one aircraft (usually the 109, but there are some RAF pilots, too) and they like to discuss the 'other ones', the ones they have got no clue about, because they never fly them...

extremely difficult. But banana forum is still fun, not as fun as Cliffs of Dover, but the adrenaline is often similar.

ATAG_Colander

Jul-20-2012, 16:50

Robo.

Jul-20-2012, 17:11

My biggest issue with the old IIa was the apparent lack of E loss. Those things could do 3 full turns and then climb like if they where just coming out of a dive (at least they looked like that from the other side).

I think without this one thing, I would probably not have any issue against the old FM. It certainly made me re-think 10 times any maneuver against it in a dogfight.

Oh yes but that was old patch where Hurricane outclimbed and outrun the Spitfire.. :P The Mk.II used to be a total overkill within the game, you could toy with 3 109s and get away with that. Now you can still toy with 3 of them but you need a 109 and they need to be Spitfires :D

My list of major game-spoiling and playabliity-affecting issues now (1.07) with the FMs and DMs is as follows:

Bf 109:

FM: Erhoehte Notleistung exploit, trim too responsive (same for all planes), canopy jettisoned = no drag, no control heavines on high speeds, (esp. elevator)

DM: wings too fragile (compared to others), coolant leak (same for all planes), exploding fueltanks (should be the end), controls lost perhaps too easily

Spitfire:

FM: flaps turn exploit, new stall charecteristics, trim too responsive, canopy open = no drag, CEM incosnsitencies, rollrate too good at high speeds

DM: wings too strong (compared to others), almost no fueltank explosions, coolant leak, engine too fragile

Hurricane:

FM: turnrate, rollrate and rudder response at high speeds (compared to other planes), trim too responsive (same for all planes), CEM inconsistencies, engine too fragile

DM: coolant leak (same for all planes), exploding fueltanks (should be the end)

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-20-2012, 17:56

My biggest issue with the old IIa was the apparent lack of E loss. Those things could do 3 full turns and then climb like if they where just coming out of a dive (at least they looked like that from the other side).

I think without this one thing, I would probably not have any issue against the old FM. It certainly made me re-think 10 times any maneuver against it in a dogfight.

I'd certainly want that aspect (lack of e loss) tested and corrected if necessary. GRAthos and I investigated the assertion that the "ьber IIa" could do an Immelman and not lose any speed doing it. I did several Immelmans at various initial speeds and altitudes and found that the uber-IIa lost 100 mph (= one full rotation on the airspeed dial) in completing each turn. The Spit's airspeed dial is a little tricky to read at best, so it was easy to see how that mistaken perception could occur. As it was, I posted the FRAPS videos of this here so it could clearly be seen.

Actually, the "ьber-IIa" matched the performance spec of the Real Life Ia -- with no 12 lbs boost applied. The Real Life IIa was only slightly better than the Ia in most parameters, and even a bit slower than the Ia in others! My contention was that the 109's were modelled too slow and should have had its performance brought up to spec likewise. The net result would've had the 109 with a slight edge in speed & climb over the Spits, but the Spits would certainly not be the struggling "clown wagons" (thanks, Gimpy117) they are now.

Hurricanes? Ilya should've left them alone, just give 'em 12 lbs emergency boost per spec.

It would've been so easy, everyone would've been happy. Instead of trusting his main source for data, I'm convinced Ilya listened to guys who otherwise would've been proving -- on paper -- why bumblebees can't fly......to an entomology forum! :doh:

ATAG_Colander

Jul-21-2012, 00:48

I see. In that case I imagine it was the difference in comparison to the 109 that made it look like that.

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-21-2012, 03:28

Maybe. But I believe further testing would be necessary to confirm that energy is indeed lost in level turns and other maneuvres per spec.

I have to say, I went and bought/downloaded/installed FSX, then A2A's Wings of Power 3 Spitfire Mark Ia/IIa (along with its Accusim addon, plus other FSX addons to enhance the weather & environmental effects - expensive, but Dutch warned me! LOL). I did this for my own curiousity. I figure the A2A folks did their research for their product. The A2A Spitfire Ia flew almost exactly the same performance-wise as CoD's "ьber" Spitfire IIa -- per measured speed tests that I did with both. This info was not received well over at 1C.

Robo.

Jul-21-2012, 03:36

Yes indeed, the old Mk.IIa was ok as per graphs and historical specs, it was all the other planes that were significantly worse. For this reason the Mk.II felt like from another world, completely out of space in a dogfight - from both sides to be honest, not only from 109s point of view.

Still, it certailny lost E in the turns and maneuvers and it still had its bad sides like neg-G cuts (good 109 pilots could deal with it anyway), but it's performance was objectively too good in the game environment. Of course the blue folks didn't like it one bit. :D

Now as they porked the good-ish planes instead to fix the broken ones... :grrr:

Robo.

Jul-21-2012, 03:49

Dutch

Jul-21-2012, 09:41

Seems to me that the whole point of the current thread over there is to render the in-game Spits so unstable as to be unable to keep guns on target.

I kept asking what the point of the thread was, but of course 'I am not worthy' of a response.

If you ask me (and you haven't) it's difficult enough with the ridiculous sensitivity of the rudder control, including trims, in all the RAF planes except the original Spit I, which now won't even start online. :grrr: