PDA

View Full Version : Increased maneuverability for 109s???



Allied_Killer
02-10-2006, 12:47 PM
According to readme for 4.03, the maneuverability of the 109s supposed to be increased, I'm not a dedicated 109 flyer so I couldn't really tell. Anybody notice anything different about the performance and maneuverability of the 109s?

The readme was pretty vague about it, so I did a couple of quick QMBs in K4 and G6s and seemed to behave like before with heavy elevators and ailerons with just a little bit of speed. So 109 expertens out there, please chime in.

carguy_
02-10-2006, 12:50 PM
Better maneuverability under 370kph.Over 390kph elevator is stiffer than before.

fordfan25
02-10-2006, 01:25 PM
yea thay seem to just float now. i dont even have to use power after take off. i just turn off the motor and hover. german antigravity be sure

Chadburn
02-10-2006, 02:09 PM
And people think Oleg doesn't have a sense of humour.

Chuck_Older
02-10-2006, 02:58 PM
How long has the patch been out?

Two days?

yesterday everyone was all gross and lovey-dovey, ooo Oleg, I wuv youuu, and now everything's porked, wtf does Oleg think he's doing


There's medication for these disorders folks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-10-2006, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
And people think Oleg doesn't have a sense of humour.

Or maybe people desperately want to hang on to the false notion that the 109 couldn't turn.

Anyway, doesn't seem like much change to me. Carguy was right about the elevators at speed, and at lower speeds it's *still* no Spitfire (won't stop people from kvetching about it being ueber though).

Texan...
02-10-2006, 03:39 PM
That's because the 109 WAS no Spitfire. It has been said that in a 1 v 1 Spit on Biff the outcome is decided by the pilot. So, if you are trying a simple-minded right hand turn thinking you are flying against a P47 or Pos51...well you know the eventuality. Now that SOME MODELS of the Spitfire don't wobble, deliveries of hispano shells into LW noggins is up 50%.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-10-2006, 04:01 PM
The psyche of the blinded red-whiner is boggling. The ability to read what isn't there is second to none.

However, they were much closer that you will ever be willing to accept. Fact.

vocatx
02-10-2006, 04:09 PM
Chuck_Older

How long has the patch been out?

Two days?

yesterday everyone was all gross and lovey-dovey, ooo Oleg, I wuv youuu, and now everything's porked, wtf does Oleg think he's doing


There's medication for these disorders folks!
=================================================

Chuck, I have to agree. Less than 36 hours and look at the feeding frenzy start. Like I said in another thread, there is really no way any of us could say absolutely anything is "porked". How many of us have flown a 109, Spit, etc. in combat?

You can read all you want to about what the pilots said a paricular aircraft could or couldn't do against another, but it still comes back to the same question...is it the plane or the pilot. And, exactly how good was this particular pilot. How well was his particular aircraft maintained. How many times had it taken damage in combat, been landed too hard, overstressed, etc. No two aircraft of the same model will be exactly alike, even today, fresh fromt he factory, much less after months in hard combat.

Sure, if there is grossly wrong with the flight model it should be fixed. But this **** about "X aircraft had a top speed of Y mph (kph, whatever) and in PF it's three mph too slow" is getting old. Under what conditions were the original tests done? What was the humidity, temperature, and barometric pressure when the tests were done? How accurate was the ASI? Were the conversions from IAS to TAS done correctly? Was the plane fully combat ready? Was it fully fueled and armed with ammunition? How much armor was installed in the test aircraft?

Point is, there are wayyyy too many variables to be taken into consideration. Oleg and his crew have given us a wonderful sim. I can't believe he reads these threads as much as he seems to, and gives support to a sim that is obviously in it's fading days. I mean, he's already working on a successor and THAT'S where he's going to get the money to eat and keep a roof over his head. He sure isn't going to make it by giving us FREE PATCHES AND AIRCRAFT!!!!

Real life was real life in WWII. This isn't real life. If your favorite ride isn't as good as you think it is (and that is usually very debateable), either live with it, find another favorite ride, or find another tactic that DOES work.

Okay, I'm done. Standing by with my fire extinguisher...

Chadburn
02-10-2006, 04:11 PM
Can anyone explain why the speed at which the 109's elevator stiffness occurs is tied to TAS as opposed to IAS?

Edited by a gentler, kinder Chadburn

lrrp22
02-10-2006, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The psyche of the blinded red-whiner is boggling. The ability to read what isn't there is second to none.


Wow. You're really running with this 'red-whiner' thing, aren't you?



However, they were much closer that you will ever be willing to accept. Fact.

Fact? Talk about the ability to read what isn't there... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Allied_Killer
02-10-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Better maneuverability under 370kph.Over 390kph elevator is stiffer than before.

Thanks for the reply Carguy. So anybody else notice any difference in handling of the 109s after the patch. I just wanted to know if any changes have been made per the readme 4.03 or Oleg just yanking our chains.

lrrp22
02-10-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Can anyone explain why the speed at which the 109's elevator stiffness occurs is tied to TAS as opposed to IAS?

Edited by a gentler, kinder Chadburn


Good question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Doesn't quite make sense.

LRRP

GR142-Pipper
02-10-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Or maybe people desperately want to hang on to the false notion that the 109 couldn't turn Up to the Bf-109F, they weren't great turners but they weren't bad either. The Bf-109G series and later, however, were not regarded as good turners in real life.

GR142-Pipper

Grey_Mouser67
02-10-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Can anyone explain why the speed at which the 109's elevator stiffness occurs is tied to TAS as opposed to IAS?

Edited by a gentler, kinder Chadburn

Have no idea, nor any idea why I can run into compressibility in a Lightning at sea level either.... still opportunities abound. I only would like to know what kind of information I have to bring to the table to generate a change.

carguy_
02-10-2006, 04:40 PM
K4 is very different from other 109.

It acts like it was MUCH heavier with same engine though it still climbs very nicely.

Low speed andling characteristics have been downgraded into a FW190A8 performance.

horseback
02-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The psyche of the blinded red-whiner is boggling. The ability to read what isn't there is second to none.

However, they were much closer that you will ever be willing to accept. Fact. Many of us have no problem with the idea that at lower speeds & altitudes, and in the hands of an experienced and gifted pilot, that the 109 was very close in maneuverability to the Spitfire.

The difference was that "any idiot can fly a Spitfire", while idiots in 109s had almost universally very short flying careers. With pilots of near equal skills, at lower alts and speeds,the advantage should usually go to the guy driving a Spitfire.

Unfortunately, the 109 in-game has been un-historically easy to fly and shoot in, especially in contrast to the Spitfires modelled here.

cheers

horseback

stathem
02-10-2006, 04:50 PM
Maybe y'all should check here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4631032014)

Mind you, Mr.Carguy already knows that thread.

Xiolablu3
02-10-2006, 04:52 PM
Horsebacks comments are, in my opinion, correct.


Luftwaffe pilots were shocked at how 'Childishly simple to fly' the Spitfire was.

GR142-Pipper
02-10-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Unfortunately, the 109 in-game has been un-historically easy to fly and shoot in, especially in contrast to the Spitfires modelled here. Specific to the Bf-109G2 as modeled in this game, it's also a better turner than the Bf-109F. This is contrary to real life as well.

As an aside, many here look only at the pure performance aspects of an aircraft and fail to take into account the "total package" of additional characteristics that are important. This package includes acceleration/deceleration capabilities, visibility characteristics (the ability of the pilot to see out), viewability characteristics (the ability of the plane to be seen), engine heating traits, and controlability regarding weapon employment. These are all in addition to the standard performance measurements, etc. and are exclusive of pilot skill.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
02-10-2006, 05:04 PM
Mis-read last comment, please ignore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bodaw
02-10-2006, 05:58 PM
So only Carguy thinks the maneuverability for the 109s have been tweaked a bit for speeds under 390 kph. It's a bit odd as there must be thousands of 109 flyers and not one them noticed any, "increased maneuverability for 109s" as in the readme 4.03.

But then, why did Oleg come about and say in writing, "increased maneuverability for 109s"? I for one did not ask for any changes and could care less if it did, but this is just plain wrong.

Brain32
02-10-2006, 06:37 PM
Well I noticed that it seems it's reacting to control inputs a bit faster which is welcomed, also it seems to me that it doesent loose so much speed during manouvers. It still sucks in vertical because of heavy elevator(300mph) but we can always trim can't we?
Really I don't see so much problems with 109, pick your fights, trim, manage thrrothle, flaps, etc. and she pays you back nicely...

SeaFireLIV
02-10-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by horseback:


The difference was that "any idiot can fly a Spitfire", while idiots in 109s had almost universally very short flying careers. With pilots of near equal skills, at lower alts and speeds,the advantage should usually go to the guy driving a Spitfire.

Unfortunately, the 109 in-game has been un-historically easy to fly and shoot in, especially in contrast to the Spitfires modelled here.

cheers

horseback

Listen to this man. I get tired of hearing the same old "109 was a Spifire in disguise" rubbish. When will they give it up?

Xiolablu3
02-11-2006, 12:07 AM
I was online in a 109G2 vs La5F's last night and was having an easier time than normal, or so it seemed. Of course this is totally un scientific and just my feelings.

Some guys flying the La5F's also said the 109G2 seemed to dogfight better and be a slightly harder opponent now. This was 3000m and below with most fights turning into slow speed furballs with 6+ aircraft over the targets.

However - flying the G6 late on an earlier map vs Spitfires and P51's I found the controls very heavy at high speeds as usual. This map action was at heights between 3000-5000m and high speed combat most of the time. I didnt think the controls had got any lighter at high speeds.

To sum it up, there may have been a slight tweak at low speeds but high speed manouvres are to be avoided still. You are better taking a FW190A6 than a 109G if you are at speeds over 400kph most of the time, in my opinion.