PDA

View Full Version : 109 Quirks



LG1.Farber
Mar-24-2013, 08:47
I just wonder if some of the 109 quirks were implemented in the game, I know in my experience the port wing usually drops first and this one of the quirks, so if this is modeled what about some of the others?

The seating position in the 109 was much more laid back with the legs stretched out in front. Apparently this helped resist G forces a little better.

Fuel injection gives power faster and makes acceleration more responsive than carb fed engines. Also in the same vein, the high wing loading makes the 109 accelerate faster in a dive. With these two things combined this aided many escapes by 109 drivers.

So are these things modeled? Partially cos I wonder how detailed the sim engine is and partially because I am curious as to how accurate this is going to get.

Gromit
Mar-24-2013, 10:11
unless we are all prepared to accept this is a game not reality the FM guys are going to be forever fiddling with flight models and your never going to please everyone, people want thier mount to have every little advantage this is what ruined the il2 mods like ultrapack!

for every "quirk" in your favour theres one against you, gotta calll it quits somewhere!

for instance Carbs give better throttle response than fuel injection as they are both pressure and density sensitive, fuel injection especially the old mechanical injection systems used back then were compromised by the inability to provide an accurate 3d fuel map , it took modern electronics and many years of development to perfect fuel injection, ww2 era is very crude!

the laid back seating position helped with G's but restricted the pilots ability to apply force to the stick!

the 109 dive away was facilitated by early merlins not having a neg g carb at the time which cause the merlin a power loss in a bunt, but then also bear in mind the critical mach no for the 109 is lower than the spit so in a prolonged dive the spit achieves a higher speed, so the 109 has an INITIAL dive advantage the spit in a long chase.

far better to concentrate on teamwork and tactics, I fly Hurricanes so all the arguments about the last nth of a mile an hour or climb rate are moot points when I get most of my kills because the 109 driver makes a mistake!

Uwe
Mar-24-2013, 11:01
Are 109's diving into the ground from inability to recover from high-speed dives?

theedge8
Mar-24-2013, 11:51
:)

ATAG_Colander
Mar-24-2013, 11:57
Hello, people they ended up with the yield of 109, the plane had leveled flight of 400 km or + +, or now reaches 350 kms with a maximum pitch p ... while Spit IIa Max Speed ​​at Sea Level: 300 kkkk mph, most people not to fly the 109, will always find a way to ### the 109 for the spits are better ...

unfortunate

Theedge8,

I'm exclusively a 109 pilot and I can assure you that it reaches more than 350kph in level flight.
I suggest you get in Teamspeak and ask any one in ATAG for assistance on the proper way of flying a 109. We will gladly give you a hand.

LG1.Farber
Mar-24-2013, 12:03
Gromit, I am not pushing hard for these changes. Like I said, I want to know more about the nuts and bolts of this sim. Still now I realise things about and how complex it really is. As for UP ect, I think they had a harder challenge, yea they had the tools but look how many aircraft there was! In a way I suppose its part of the success of TF's mod that there is less aircraft, didnt UP have 300?

I agree with you there is limits, like when someone calls for worse ground handling of narrow track geared fighters. Its not such an important aspect. So like you said, "gotta calll it quits somewhere!" but where is that in terms of what the game can do?

As regards to the engines I would not be so quick to condemn the technology of the 1940's. It always amazes me the high level of technology they had. Like the vampire half tracks that would "paint" a big pink spot on enemy tanks and then panthers would shoot at them using night vision to see the target. Thats pretty high tech for 1945 I think! However I dont really know in enough detail about the carb / fuel injection system, maybe your right.

I understand the -G effect on merlins has been adjusted, at least when I flew one the other day... I think everyone would agree this is a big enough feature to warrant putting in. Its interesting what you say about initial advantage. I never thought of it like that. With the new temp effects running away is a different game now I can tell you!

Ironically it was a red pilot who expressed concern about the black out to me, I was just wondering about the fuel injection and response.



Ewe,

I dont think they are. Is it possible to model? Thats kinda the whole point of my thread, just to ask about the limits of the sim engine.

Kwiatek
Mar-24-2013, 12:35
After flying some time with 109 E in ATAG i think all fighter are wery well model in Mod with their "+" and "-". For me 109 now is decent boom and zoomer and when i got initial adventage Spit could ony make defensice turns. Yes Spit turn like the hell and 109 have no chance with it but with proper energy tactic it is very sucesfull fighter.

I think still there is need some tunings with these planes handling in the air - i think SPit is little too stallproof now casue has too less sensivity elevator and with 109 there is opposite. So now 109 is still too nerfy in stall for me and Spit is too easy. Of course Spit had lower stall speed so still 109 would stall before it in slow speed turn. But if elevator sensivity would be corrected there will be possible to be more effective in 109 during knigh fights at slow speeds expecially in scissors manouvers. I hope we will see it in fututer mod realase.

The main my problem is with aiming and shoting from 109 beacuse of too much for me headshake. Yes there is stupid function with loosen belts when you close to gunshight and there is much less head shake during manouvers ( i wonder who had such great idea lol) but i hate to use it. Pilot with more tighten belts should be more stable but in CLOD there is opposite sick situation.

theedge8
Mar-24-2013, 13:28
Theedge8,

I'm exclusively a 109 pilot and I can assure you that it reaches more than 350kph in level flight.
I suggest you get in Teamspeak and ask any one in ATAG for assistance on the proper way of flying a 109. We will gladly give you a hand.

:thumbsup:

Uwe
Mar-24-2013, 16:30
Ewe,

I dont think they are. Is it possible to model? Thats kinda the whole point of my thread, just to ask about the limits of the sim engine.

Who knows, but with what they have done Im sure anything they want to do can be done!
In fact I remember somewhere reading that high speed maneuverability will be addressed later.

As to the limits of the sim engine, I'm wondering if there really are many?
More and more I think to myself that Luthier and Co. knew what was coming, and made a game that they knew they would not finish, but set it up to be completed by the community. I mean how long did it take for the first mods for IL2, years? and here we are months after the final patch with a HUGE community rewrite/fix.

Well, Id like it to be that way anyway :thumbsup:

Gromit
Mar-24-2013, 16:52
Gromit, I am not pushing hard for these changes. Like I said, I want to know more about the nuts and bolts of this sim. Still now I realise things about and how complex it really is. As for UP ect, I think they had a harder challenge, yea they had the tools but look how many aircraft there was! In a way I suppose its part of the success of TF's mod that there is less aircraft, didnt UP have 300?

I agree with you there is limits, like when someone calls for worse ground handling of narrow track geared fighters. Its not such an important aspect. So like you said, "gotta calll it quits somewhere!" but where is that in terms of what the game can do?

As regards to the engines I would not be so quick to condemn the technology of the 1940's. It always amazes me the high level of technology they had. Like the vampire half tracks that would "paint" a big pink spot on enemy tanks and then panthers would shoot at them using night vision to see the target. Thats pretty high tech for 1945 I think! However I dont really know in enough detail about the carb / fuel injection system, maybe your right.

I understand the -G effect on merlins has been adjusted, at least when I flew one the other day... I think everyone would agree this is a big enough feature to warrant putting in. Its interesting what you say about initial advantage. I never thought of it like that. With the new temp effects running away is a different game now I can tell you!

Ironically it was a red pilot who expressed concern about the black out to me, I was just wondering about the fuel injection and response.



I appreciate that mate, we all have our questions over the flight models as we all have out own interpretations of the information we have read!
I think it's important to remember every question you have, someone on the opposite side will have one too, and having seen the rediculous "arms race" on the 1C Forum where frankly people just want thier favourite plane tweeked to make it superior so they get an advantage, I believe we should appreciate what the TF guys have done and just fly what we have!

the Fuel injection by the way was reasonably hi tech for 1940, but it was still a crude instrument, i'm not claiming carbs were better or vice versa, it's just both had pro's and con's, the allies kept with carbs to the end of the war not because they were superior or could'nt make injecton, they kept them simply because the advantages didnt outweigh the disadvantages to warrant the disruption in production!

TX-EcoDragon
Apr-04-2013, 01:40
The main my problem is with aiming and shoting from 109 beacuse of too much for me headshake. Yes there is stupid function with loosen belts when you close to gunshight and there is much less head shake during manouvers ( i wonder who had such great idea lol) but i hate to use it. Pilot with more tighten belts should be more stable but in CLOD there is opposite sick situation.

Yes, the headshake is on the short list of things that bother me. I'm an aerobatic pilot in the real life, and what we have in game is what a passenger would experience in the airplane, NOT what the pilot would experience. The pilot will anticipate and compensate for the accelerations of the airplane, while the passenger will be at the mercy of the accelerations.

Many of the aircraft that I fly have roll rates exceeding 420 degrees per second, they have minimal roll inertia so they are able to stop rolling or go from rolling one way to the other extremely fast....much, much, faster than anything we have in CloD...and yet, with experience I can keep my head where I want it in real life. If I take a passenger, even if they are a fellow aerobatic pilot, I must avoid max rate roll transitions as these would likely cause the passenger to slam against the canopy/cockpit sides because they can't anticipate the accelerations. Of course our in game headshake should simulate the pilot experience, and in planes with far slower roll rates.

What we have in Clod is the pilot's head rolling right when the plane rolls left.

Watch this video and compare what the pilot in the rear seat does to what the passenger in front does...you will see that our virtual 109 pilot has "The Passenger Experience."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oqATH83pepY#t=78s

I'm all for maximal realism, but the headshake stays off on my machine...only trouble is, it's on in the servers I'd like to fly...

It could be modified to be more realistic, but the current implementation isn't there at all.

I would be happy to provide helmet camera footage if that would be useful for any of this (but understand that what your head does still amplifies what your eyes actually see, they are pretty good image stabilizers).

Ivank
Apr-04-2013, 02:09
I agree with you 100% Eco. This was brought up countless times in CLOD development but was never addressed. Lets see what can be done.

TX-EcoDragon
Apr-06-2013, 19:21
Here's a quick comparison of the headshake we have in the 109 in the current mod version, to what my helmet camera sees in a Pitts S-2C.


Note that I wasn't actively trying to hold my head still with respect to a fixed point, as I would be if I were aiming at a target. Also be mindful of the fact that the pilot's eyes further stabilize the image vs what the helmet camera conveys.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAO4eG4ifI&list=UUavbBvM7tjKENOn8j48tuHA&index=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUs9g0S2Kxg&feature=youtu.be

Here's one more...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jqYHjJLMno&feature=youtu.be

You can see that the 3 cabane struts which just happen to line up with the line of sight of the camera move laterally with respect to each other only slightly - I was not trying to keep these 3 narrow struts lined up (like lining up a bead and ring sight) but despite that, they stay more or less in plane with each other. Worth mentioning too is that the motion that these types of wing rocks have a moment where you are somewhat uncoordinated and will feel yourself leaning towards the ground somewhat - a perfectly coordinated turn will be smoother with even less lateral displacement of the pilot torso. Oh and there's mention of shoulder belts...we always wear them loose - shoulder belts are only to keep the pilot from hitting the instrument panel in a crash. The lap and crotch belts are tight, the shoulder harness is kept fairly loose - otherwise you will hurt your back during negative G, chafe your neck something awful with all had turning, and not be able to move to check six, get full forward stick deflection, reach the radios/fuel selector etc.

Kwiatek
Apr-07-2013, 04:16
Nice videos Tx-Ecodragon but in vertical turn ( stall turn) i saw a few degress deviation from vertical :P

Is it Pits Special?

Backing to topic could just someone turn off head shake in ATAG server until more realisitc solution with head sheak will be implemement. Actually is really crap.

The same i think losen belts function should be disabled in game beacause how it works is not realistic at all - you could do in in second and there is less head shake with losen belts.

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-07-2013, 13:52
I use the lean to gun sight view often Kwiatek. You say its not realistic, I disagree. So you're saying we shouldn't be allowed to use this?

Gromit
Apr-07-2013, 15:17
perhaps I'm not seeing the issue discussed here, but the "head shake" if that's what it is, is a result of the track IR?

I have amended my track IR profile to reduce sensitivity around center so I don't lose gunsight picture, but left the movement outside center so that I can scan and search quickly.

Kwiatek
Apr-07-2013, 17:51
I use the lean to gun sight view often Kwiatek. You say its not realistic, I disagree. So you're saying we shouldn't be allowed to use this?

It is unerealistic. You could lose your belts in a second and the same in a second you could tight it. Also when you lose belts and lean to gunsight there is much less headshake then with tigh belts which is also absurd beacuse IRL when you lose belts and make some manovers your body will be much more moving in cocpit then with tight belts. When flying for acrobatic manouvers i need before every flight get very tigh belts and never touch them during flight. Thats why they way it works in CLOD is absurd and not realistic at all.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-07-2013, 18:35
You can't just turn off the gun sight view in the 109. Seriously scary that a Team Fusion member would say that. :thmbdwn:

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-07-2013, 23:40
How is it 303_Kwiatek that in the Spit at 20,000ft I can open the canopy and lean out to look behind me? The belts are tight, right?

You're on the team do as you please.

Sorry to hijack your thread Farber, I'm finished. 5card/5./JG27 Lopp

Robo.
Apr-08-2013, 02:31
How is it 303_Kwiatek that in the Spit at 20,000ft I can open the canopy and lean out to look behind me? The belts are tight, right?

You're on the team do as you please.

Sorry to hijack your thread Farber, I'm finished. 5card/5./JG27 Lopp

I don't think there is any reason to be upset, even TF members have their personal opinions and no one said that the feature will be disabled.

I think we all agree that the 'head shake' feature and 'leaning to the gunsight' feature could both do with some improvement to be more realistic.

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-08-2013, 06:44
No one is upset, just stating my opinion.:) I've personally have never had a dogfight in a real 109, so I'll leave it to you two to figure out.:beaten:

OBT~Psycho
Apr-08-2013, 09:43
Kwiatek, I partially agree with you. The awfull amount of time it take to swap between normal position and sight position is not, in my humble opinion, totally realistic. And the reduce freedom of movement in sight position is more than a game killer to me, especially when you fly the 109 and than you definitely need this sight position.

When I disagree with you is when you talk about the untighten seatbelts. Yes the fact that the headshakes are reduced is weird, but what if we look at it as a way to simulate the fact that the pilot focus on the sight and try to keep his head the more steady he can? then it is not so bad though...

okay, I see you coming, my argument could be taken also for the "reduced freedom of movements", but just as the antropomorphic option, it is more annoying than anything else...

once again, just my two cents...

E-69 Siegfried
Apr-08-2013, 10:26
You have the option when you center the trackir, lean to the left. This way you fly with the sight centered. Only take 1 second to do that every time you fly the 109.

If you don't use trackir, you can change the pilot's position with mouse button.

Gromit
Apr-08-2013, 11:03
that's pretty much what I do Siegfried, I get myself comfortable and look slightly down in the Hurricane then press f12 to center, this way I get good visibility up and over my shoulders which is so important!

Robo.
Apr-08-2013, 12:10
No one is upset, just stating my opinion.:) I've personally have never had a dogfight in a real 109, so I'll leave it to you two to figure out.:beaten:

Sorry Lopp but I have nothing to do with this, I am just saying that Kwiatek is expressing his personal opinion on the matter, and you should not perceive it as a definite TF statement. I hope that's clear now :thumbsup:

OBT~Psycho
Apr-08-2013, 12:12
Alternative to "Loose shoulder straps/Unfast straps/Lean to gunsight...":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p10GhgsPtzE

Sokol1

there is somenthing that might be interesting

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-08-2013, 12:53
I don't fly the 109 but I believe that, within the limitations of a flight sim, every attempt to reproduce the ease or difficulty for a virtual pilot vs Real Pilot to do in-cockpit functions should be reproduced. IOW, if the real life 109 pilot could easily peer through his Revi gunsight during maneuvres (which I believe he could), then that function should be emulated in Cliffs of Dover. I'm sure we're all agreed on that. The question is how (for those with and without TrackIR) to best do that and is it possible to achieve this through Team Fusion.

As others have noted, a one-button/joystick keypress in IL2 1946 centers the Revi gunsight and holds it steady (no head shake). An option to have it as Press/Release or Toggle would be good. The ability to have the Revi gunsight centered at all FOV should also be incorporated, plus a zoom in/out option, too, if possible. This may seem like overkill to some, but the human eye is extremely adaptable to changing visual inputs, but our computers/monitors are not. The skilled Real Life 109 pilot had a Situational Awareness of almost 180 degrees peripheral vision while looking through his Revi sight; the best Clod can offer is 90 degrees. Yes, you can zoom out, but then the Revi gun sight gets impossibly & unrealistically tiny, as do external LOD contacts. Ideally, with minimal practice, the 109 pilot should be able to instantly sight through his centered/unmoving Revi sight at any FOV that Clod offers (ie 30, 70, 90) without conscious thought and still be able, at say 90 FOV to maintain decent Situational Awareness.

I already have this flying with the Spitfire's and Hurricane's centered gun sight and using TrackIR's Requiem 6DOF profile (thanks, Keller! :thumbsup:). Before, when using Charvel's profile, I felt I was chasing the ever-moving gunsight while trying to line up a shot on a dodging target. I actually had a set of sequenced keypresses on my Warthog to center the gunsight, pause (freeze) TrackIR, and zoom in through the gunsight (or not zoom). Effective, but awkward. The Requiem profile has a small centered deadzone that eliminates the need for all these keypresses and minimizes the head shake effect even when violently twisting after an evading 109.

I know.....blah, blah, blah. Bottom line: Real 109 pilots found the Revi sight easy to use, Clod virtual 109 pilots should, too.

1lokos
Apr-08-2013, 12:54
If you don't use trackir, you can change the pilot's position with mouse button.

Or use NewView (http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3752697/Re_Newview_and_COD#Post3752697) and do this similarly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p10GhgsPtzE) to one that use TrackIR. :thumbsup:

Sokol1

Flyingblind
Apr-08-2013, 13:44
There were lengthy discussions on the German gunsights on the Banana forums some time back. It was suggested that the design of revi sights meant that a pilot would see the sight crosshairs floating in his line of sight whilst looking forward to the target. Binocular vision of the eyes along with the sight optics made this possible for both offset and centered sights and German pilots did not need to lean or close one eye or any of that malakey any more than a British pilot had to as the actual crosshairs appeared floating free of the sight screen. This could be simulated in game by simply having the crosshairs floating free and not cropped by the sight screen. As this effect can only be seen in real life and cannot be shown using a mono lensed camera I cannot say if this would be correct or not never having looked through a sight myself.

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-08-2013, 22:20
Very clear.:thumbsup: Robo, I'm not upset or trying to be hostile. I was just pointing out other situations about the belts that are unrealistic. I could go on and on about stuff in this game that is totally unrealistic.
I use this view often as I said before, but if it is removed or whatever by whomever makes such calls its fine with me. I will make do. :dthumb:

Osprey
Apr-09-2013, 04:30
What I can't stand about the sights, and this goes for all types, is the scale of it does not remain consistent with the glass scale on the gunsight reflector when you lean in and out. It should remain the same since it is being projected from a lamp below and the pilot will use the scaling set on the gunsight vs the target to gauge range.
Also, it just doesn't look very realistic anyway in comparison with a real gunsight. The real ones glow brightly and with sharp edges, these are a crappy opaque cream bar. This was modded in some types in 1946 to look much more realistic (although the scaling of it still wasn't).

Is the old bugtracker being used for TF? Or is there somewhere else to raise issues? I am seeing lots of discussion but nowhere formal that I am aware of.

thanks.

ATAG_Septic
Apr-09-2013, 06:36
Hi Osprey,

There's a bug-traking thread; http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=101

Cheers,

Septic.

Osprey
Apr-09-2013, 10:08
OK thanks, will take a look :)

Kwiatek
Apr-09-2013, 14:08
You can't just turn off the gun sight view in the 109. Seriously scary that a Team Fusion member would say that. :thmbdwn:

Actually in CLOD gunshight view with loosen belts is really not realistic thing. I think it would be better to have such gunshight view like in old IL2, less headshake effect and smooth ZOOM IN and OUT function.

Personaly when im flying 109 i used side centered my Track IR so i got gunsight in the center but the worst thing is too much head shake effect so not quite effective metod but other hand also using loosing belts function is not good idea casue you cant look around too much with it, loosen and tight belts work in a second and with loosen belts when you make hard manouver there is much less headshake then with tight belts - so it is not good also.



How is it 303_Kwiatek that in the Spit at 20,000ft I can open the canopy and lean out to look behind me? The belts are tight, right?

You're on the team do as you please.

Sorry to hijack your thread Farber, I'm finished. 5card/5./JG27 Lopp

Yes it is the same shit like with loosing belts it should be possible only with loosen belts but as i wrote above it should take much more time to loose and expecially tight the belts. I personaly fly with close canopy and open it only when i need to leave my plane but it is also not good that it is possible to make such things with tight belts.

And yes im from 303 SQN from long time but these dont stop me to like 109 or any other fighter plane :)


These what i wrote it is my personal opinion not TF one. I dont know what could be done in these area or even if it is planned to do something with it.

TX-EcoDragon
Mar-27-2014, 18:46
I agree with you 100% Eco. This was brought up countless times in CLOD development but was never addressed. Lets see what can be done.

How have those conversations gone IvanK? I just tried the latest update and see the same issues.

I'd be fine just running with Headshake off as a compromise, except that the servers I'd most like to fly have it enabled.

Wulf
Mar-27-2014, 19:55
unless we are all prepared to accept this is a game not reality the FM guys are going to be forever fiddling with flight models and your never going to please everyone, people want thier mount to have every little advantage this is what ruined the il2 mods like ultrapack!

for every "quirk" in your favour theres one against you, gotta calll it quits somewhere!

for instance Carbs give better throttle response than fuel injection as they are both pressure and density sensitive, fuel injection especially the old mechanical injection systems used back then were compromised by the inability to provide an accurate 3d fuel map , it took modern electronics and many years of development to perfect fuel injection, ww2 era is very crude!

the laid back seating position helped with G's but restricted the pilots ability to apply force to the stick!

the 109 dive away was facilitated by early merlins not having a neg g carb at the time which cause the merlin a power loss in a bunt, but then also bear in mind the critical mach no for the 109 is lower than the spit so in a prolonged dive the spit achieves a higher speed, so the 109 has an INITIAL dive advantage the spit in a long chase.

far better to concentrate on teamwork and tactics, I fly Hurricanes so all the arguments about the last nth of a mile an hour or climb rate are moot points when I get most of my kills because the 109 driver makes a mistake!


I agree with much of what you say BUT I don't think people are necessarily looking for an "advantage". What I suspect most people really want is realism, to the extent that's possible of course. Certainly we don't want to be placed in a position where we are being unduly 'disadvantaged'. And given that the FMs have been in a state of continuous or near continuous evolution since the game's release we can be fairly sure that at various stages people have been 'unduly disadvantaged' - both red and blue. Some if not most of those problems will have been fixed but I dare say others get inadvertently introduced from time to time so, I think we have to be remain vigilant and where necessary critical, if we are to get the game to where I suspect most of us want it to be, the most realistic CFS available. There's no doubt that things are constantly improving, however, there are also a few things that I find a little odd. As a 109 person, for example, I'm a little surprised about a couple of aspects of the Spitfire's performance (since the last patch) - notably it's energy retention in a zoom climb and it's acceleration off the top of a zoom climb. I'm not saying these are wrong and it may well be just a perception issue but having spent far too much of my time reading about these machines over time, I do wonder whether these attributes are somewhat over-egged. The shift in high altitude performance also seems to me to be a little extreme given that historically, the 109 was usually thought to have a slight edge up high but be at a slight disadvantage down low.

As regards the demise of IL-2 1946, I think the real issue wasn't so much the improvements as the failure to reach a universal consensus on what was to be the 'standard' version, coupled with the ever increasing complexity of the modding-up process.