109 elevator and aileron behaviour with 18301(bugtracker)

[David198502]

with the current patch, the 109 is really no joy to fly now anymore.
aiming and precise adjustments are no longer possible, if they have to be done quick, and its really annoying and definitely a step in the wrong direction.
from all what ive read, the 109 should be a really stable platform,...and now its the complete opposite.

if you guys have the same problems, then please vote in the bugtracker!

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/369

[Dores]

I second that. It's dam near impossible to fly straigt with that thing now.

Still fun though.

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, as much as i love to fly the 109 i have to ask a very simple question.

Is this a gut feeling that something is wrong, or is there a way to measure that it is off?

I mean, in order for it to be treated as a bug we must have a case of:

1) This is how it should be
2) Evidence
3) This is how it is in the sim
4) If 1 and 3 don't match, please fix bug


I hadn't flown it in a while but i took it up yesterday for a couple of hours on ATAG and i had no problem whatsoever. It just feels like a fast, energy fighter and yet it's controllable at speeds below 200km/h.

I'm not a hot shot by any means and i have a really hard time picking out contacts because i spend a lot of time in bombers and don't practice this skill enough. Even so, on my second sortie i had no problem staying behind a spit and filling him full of lead. Just came with some altitude advantage, kept my speed up and used maneuvers with a vertical component to turn with him.

Then i got a lag spike and crashed into him, but i think he was already bailing out by that point because i saw the canopy fly off.

Then again, i'm used to that style from all those years of flying 190As in IL2:1946, so maybe that's why its handling doesn't bother me. Heck, it's a piece of cake to fly compared to those 190s :-P

[David198502]

i never stated that this is actually a bug....and this problem is probably impossible to meassure for a player...
and probably impossible for the devs to make it historical 100% accurate...
but its definitely a problem now, whereas it was not so before..thats a fact,... every 109 pilot will notice the difference.
why to change something that was perfect and nobody complained off???
according to my squadmates on the RAF side, this problem also exists in the hurri.

btw, im not asking for a better turnrate or more performance or something...

[SlipBall]

Maybe the readme will explain why/what was done

[ATAG_Colander]

Being a blue pilot my self, I'll have to agree with Blackdog_kt.

We have no way of knowing if the plane's behavior before the alpha was wrong and the current one is right (or any future for that matter).

At the end, I think is a matter of getting used to it as opposed to "I was used to the old one". The problem is if they keep changing it, we'll never get used to it :)

[Furio]

Guys, as much as i love to fly the 109 i have to ask a very simple question.

Is this a gut feeling that something is wrong, or is there a way to measure that it is off?

I mean, in order for it to be treated as a bug we must have a case of:

1) This is how it should be
2) Evidence
3) This is how it is in the sim
4) If 1 and 3 don't match, please fix bug

:-P
This is no less simplistic than David opening post.
How can you measure stick forces in a simulator? Or breakout force for stick and rudder input? To say nothing about adverse yaw, residual roll rate, self-centering, and all the more or less subtle things that make a plane pleasant to fly.
Compared to real life light planes (I’ve flown many, from steady-as-a-truck types to really manoeuvrable ones) I always found all CoD planes overly sensitive and generally lacking in stability (both static and dynamic).
Definitely, it isn’t a bug. But it’s enough to severely detract to the fun of flying, leaving alone combat effectiveness.
As I said many, many times, in my opinion the best answer would be more options to suit all different players’ tastes.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I voted "green" even though I don't fly the 109. My thinking: "if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck.....then it's probably a duck." Hence, if enough 109 regular fliers feel the control response(s) are off, then they're probably off. Let's get it fixed.

[Steuben]

Since i found this little Programm Fedit and edited the FFB files of CLOD i can use the 109 again. FFB helps alot!

[recoilfx]

Hmm... I guess I am against the majority here. I don't find 109 unstable. Rudder movement is less adverse compared to the last patch, but overall, the gun platform is still rock solid.

If you want to try unstable, try DCS P-51 - so much more gyro effect there, granted, I think they are going to fix that though.

[ICU_DIE535]

I think the 109 is a lot better this patch 1.7 then the 1.6 patch. In the 1.6 patch I could never recover from a spin or flat spin because the rudder was useless. Now (1.7 patch) I can recover from a spin and also kick the rudder right or left to fire at Brits when they start their turns, or when they approach from head on and off to one side. Thing I notice now is the roll rate seems slower at high speeds (slower than before) and level acceleration seems to be slower.

I worry when people start complaining that the rudder is to sensitive or they think it's over done because we need this in the 109 to survive and to have a better chance of hitting a British fighter with bullets. If it's to rudder sensitive for you change it in your joystick settings.

[David198502]

you should read the post again mate..its not about the rudder at all but ELEVATOR AND AILERONS

oh and btw, i have no problem to survive against the brits, nothing to do with that, and as i already mentioned, i heard this same problem exists with the hurricane!

[Blackdog_kt]

why to change something that was perfect and nobody complained off???
according to my squadmates on the RAF side, this problem also exists in the hurri.



Well, it might be closer to the actual FM. I don't know if it is, i'm just saying that if it is, then it's expected to have these changes despite the fact that we were used to it working differently in the past.

Hmm... I guess I am against the majority here. I don't find 109 unstable. Rudder movement is less adverse compared to the last patch, but overall, the gun platform is still rock solid.



I also find it quite stable, especially at somewhat higher speeds.

I think it's just difficult to actually measure this stuff (so many variations of controllers, sensitivity settings, etc among us all) so i can't really have an opinion either way apart from how it "feels" to me, which of course is a purely subjective thing. That's why i can't classify this as a bug, which is an objective thing.

[Furio]

Hmm... I guess I am against the majority here. I don't find 109 unstable.

Comparing different feelings is moderately useful. Let’s try some meaningful measurement, assessing lateral stability. The sim is the same for all of us, but we have different sticks, different stick settings, sometimes different frame rate and different individual abilities. So, it should be interesting if everyone gives it a try, posting here the result.

I propose this simple test:

Starting point: a Bf 109 with wings level and carefully trimmed cruising speed.

Roll left to a bank of 5 degrees. Stop the roll and return the stick to neutral. Observe if the plane rolls back to level, noting how much time it takes.
Repeat to the right.

Roll left 5 degrees more, up to a bank of 10 degrees. Again stop the roll, return the stick to neutral and observe the result.
Repeat to the right.

Increasing the bank 5 degrees each time, we’ll hit an angle at which the 109 will stabilize in a steady banked attitude, having not enough stability to return the wings to level, but enough to maintain the turn.

Increasing the bank beyond that value, we’ll hit an angle at which the 109 will continue to roll, increasing the bank and gradually entering a downward spiral.

This test should be easy enough for everyone and, averaging different results, we’ll have some real, hard number to talk about.

[Ernst]

Hmm... I guess I am against the majority here. I don't find 109 unstable. Rudder movement is less adverse compared to the last patch, but overall, the gun platform is still rock solid.

If you want to try unstable, try DCS P-51 - so much more gyro effect there, granted, I think they are going to fix that though.

I agree with you Recoilfx i do not feel the 109 really unstable, maybe so much stable/sensitive in the rudder only. In ailerons and elevator i feel it good enough. I feel difficult to trim it precisely but i have no evidence how it should be too.

I only complain about the stall and spin behaviour, the evidence and why i think that is already in a bugtrack thread and no need to repeat.

In this point i agree with blackdog, when you points something wrong you have to explain why and show evidence.

The same document used to explain my thinking about stall behaviour could be used to help in 109 fms modelling. Probably the devs had already noted it. The stability behaviour of the 109 is commented there... Maybe this could help you in the answer: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/bf-109-performance-thread-16470.html#post443555 or http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[David198502]

honestly i dont see myself in a position where i have to proof something...
ernst ive read your documents, as well as the bugreport about stall behaviour.
that is still no evidence at all...there is still much room for interpretation and what the devs make out of it.

the same goes for this issue.ive read many articles, docs and some books, and pretty much everywhere its stated, that the 109 was a stable gunnery platform. i could now make quotes or paste whole pages of docs or books here, but that still wouldnt be an evidence. there were still too much freedom to interpret something out of it.its up to the devs what they make out of it.

fact is, that nobody complained before about the elevator and aileron controls.now many people do.
fact is, nobody complained about the stall behaviour either of the 109 before the previous beta patch.then they messed it up.
fact is nobody complained about the spit throttle behaviour before the previous beta patch, then they messed it up.

we all know, that with each patch, official or beta, something new got broken, which was okay before.
this and posts like this:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=414147

More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

make me assume, that there is a big possibility, that this change was maybe unintentional.
and if it was intentional, then the devs should proof whether its more realistic now than it was before, not me....they claim to have the most realistic combat flight sim not me.

if they support this change with hard facts, than i will cope with the new behaviour and adjust my flying style according to it and just have get used to it.then i would be happy, cause im all for realism for both sides, red and blue.
but i doubt, that the devs will give us facts that its more realistic now than it was before.....lets wait and see.
until this happens, i will tell my opinion, because maybe this behaviour is indeed a unintentional bug and the devs dont know about it....
and so far, it seems im not alone with this opinion...

[il_corleone]

i agree whit david, the 109 its hardly to aim now, the plane now just move up and down , and its a exageratiion, a little bit yes, but its like you are inside a tornado!

[Warhound]

I have noticed some "jumping" on the 109 elevator in this patch, similar to how the hurricane handled recently (not flown it enough in this patch to compare or see if the hurri was changed).
At times, out of nowhere, the nose jumps up during small adjustments as if you made a huge input or the trim was set to max "up" in one go.
This doesn't happen on other planes, besides the 109 and possibly still the Hurricane.

Here is the Hurricane issue with video's and all.
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/197

[David198502]

+1
thats exactly what my problem is

but maybe i have just found the actual problem for this(actually it was a squad member who told me to try it),....which could be the source of the problem...

therefore we would need the devs to clarify things though, what exactly they changed in the current patch....however this is what i have tried now, and i feel a difference now...
its up to you guys whether you want to try it or not, but it would be good if some of you would do, as it could serve another bug report...maybe...

-my squad mate told me, to remove the FF folder in:
steam/steamapps/common/il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover/parts/core

i just removed it to the desktop...

-and to change the entry : FF=1 to FF=0 in the conf.ini file...

this will make you lose force feedback though, but as i have a fighterstick and no forcefeedback anyway, i tried this, and so far it seems to make a difference!aiming seems now again possible...the flight model still feels different to the last patch, but those sudden jumps as warhound described, and what i experienced(which was my actual problem!), seem to be gone!
maybe this is a bug with the forcefeedback files, which possibly affect even non ff-users!?
give it a try chaps and tell me what you experience.

EDIT: ok im not sure if this is working actually,...its too early to confirm this working.ill have to test this further.

[catito14]

Is there any chance that the problem is in the hottas/joy or in the sensitive of these instead in the FM itself??
Because i reseted my x-52 pro after applied the patch and i don´t see difference in the ailerons of the 109.

[yobnaf]

The Bf 109 feels correct and realistic now. Keep up the good work 1C

[David198502]

Is there any chance that the problem is in the hottas/joy or in the sensitive of these instead in the FM itself??
Because i reseted my x-52 pro after applied the patch and i don´t see difference in the ailerons of the 109.

well one thing is for sure, its not my joystick.
as soon as i switched back to the official steam version, the problem was gone.it was as well gone when i tried the previous beta, and it was there again as soon as i reinstalled the current beta patch.

regarding the sensitivity,....i have no sensitivity applied neither in any joystick software nor in the game itself.never have and never will...

[catito14]

well one thing is for sure, its not my joystick.
as soon as i switched back to the official steam version, the problem was gone.it was as well gone when i tried the previous beta, and it was there again as soon as i reinstalled the current beta patch.

regarding the sensitivity,....i have no sensitivity applied neither in any joystick software nor in the game itself.never have and never will...

Well, then, the 1c guys will need to prove (with historical documents) that this FM is the correct in the BF-109 instead the older one.

[SlipBall]

well one thing is for sure, its not my joystick.
as soon as i switched back to the official steam version, the problem was gone.it was as well gone when i tried the previous beta, and it was there again as soon as i reinstalled the current beta patch.

regarding the sensitivity,....i have no sensitivity applied neither in any joystick software nor in the game itself.never have and never will...



No, you are correct, but still very flyable...I'm back on the last official to Steam, because of poor quality of E3 sight...limits on-line though

[David198502]

btw, thx warhound for posting the link to the hurri bugreport!searched for it yesterday but couldnt find it somehow.

[Warhound]

No need to thank me at all, I only want it fixed just like you.
Just did some quick flights and it seems to me the problem is worse on the hurricane.
So it hasn't been fixed there and now is (intermittently?) present on the 109 too.

[5card]

Same here with the 109, I can dive at 700km and the nose is moving around so bad its really hard to get a shot off. It's like when the nose moves to the right a rudder correction to the left does not put the reticle where it should be. Snapshots are very hard now also, nose bounces above and below target.

[skouras]

if its more close to the RL FM i have no problem with that [i doubt]
personally i don't think that RL 109 flying like that at all..
however i don't have problems on flying or shoot down an enemy opponent
i'm using warthog BTW

[Redroach]

In the Il-2 1946 109 flight models, Aileron and elevator got heavier and heavier with increasing speed. And those flight models were considered sacrosanct nearly universially.

[drewpee]

The old joystick profiler from il2 1946 was a great way to iron out joystick/flight model deficiencies. ATM I also find trimming the 109 at any speed difficult. I use a Saitek x52.

[Flanker35M]

S!

The rudder of the Bf109 feels oversensitive even with damping/smoothing added. I feel like flying an aerobatics plane, not a fighter weighing over 2 tons. I cured the ailerons with some smoothing, but before I had to use NO smoothing at all. All of these oversensitive things came with latest Beta.

[SlipBall]

109 elevator and aileron behaviour with 18301


This issue seems to be dependent on the in-stall...I did not have it with the first, but now do after re-installing 18301 for my second time....I have to hope that I can get it back on my next try, of re-installing the patch.

p.s. I hate Steam:evil:

[Redroach]

The old joystick profiler from il2 1946 was a great way to iron out joystick/flight model deficiencies. ATM I also find trimming the 109 at any speed difficult. I use a Saitek x52.

Elevator and aileron behavior was dependent on speed, not joystick input - so it was a real effect, for sure.
Trimming any plane is hard now. It now requires real attention, as almost any parameter changed will affect trimming. Even 100rpm more or less will be noticeable on the spit or on the hurri.

[David198502]

109 elevator and aileron behaviour with 18301


This issue seems to be dependent on the in-stall...I did not have it with the first, but now do after re-installing 18301 for my second time....I have to hope that I can get it back on my next try, of re-installing the patch.

p.s. I hate Steam:evil:


hey slipball...so are you saying, that with your first install, you didnt have this problem, but now after the second one, you have it??

[SlipBall]

hey slipball...so are you saying, that with your first install, you didnt have this problem, but now after the second one, you have it??


Yes thats true...now on the third install of Steam/game/patch & the "It really works" thread advice, all is fine again.

[David198502]

thats strange...cause i remember having the same problem with the previous beta,...but it seemed way better or gone completely after a second install of the beta...
but with this patch, after the third install, i still have this problem and it seems to not change....

did you uninstall steam as well?

[SlipBall]

did you uninstall steam as well?


Yes I did

[David198502]

ok i think ill give that a try....
though its really confusing, that reinstalling is messing around with files like the flight models, or whatever files they are, influencing it.....
this is a major problem, as it would mean, that different people, fly with "different" planes

[SlipBall]

Yea good luck! its all very odd, I think that Steam plays a role in it though..corrupt a file?

[David198502]

anything you did manually delete after uninstalling steam?

[SlipBall]

After the uninstall I deleted softclub folder and defragmented my hd

[David198502]

mhhh did a clean install of steam/game/patch but still the behaviour is the same...so no joy for me.

[David198502]

another thing i noticed, which is not dependent on the patch, but existing since the release, is that sometimes when you are in a turn, the plane suddenly "jumps" and turns approximately twice as hard, although one didnt increase the pressure on the stick...with the same force applied on the stick, the plane suddenly reacts as you either pulled harder on the stick, or applied trim to tighten the turn....
i never really gave any focus on it, but a few days ago, a squad mate on our RAF side mentioned this and asked me if i have this as well....he was thinking that it has something to do with his forcefeedback stick...but i have this problem as well, while i use a CH Fighterstick.

this problem isnt really reproducable every time, but it seems for me, that it happens mostly, when you are in a wide turn with high speeds...especially if you dive and pull on the stick gently, then there is a pretty good chance, that this "jump" will happen while you are already in a climb again....anybody having the same problem?

[Winger]

with the current patch, the 109 is really no joy to fly now anymore.
aiming and precise adjustments are no longer possible, if they have to be done quick, and its really annoying and definitely a step in the wrong direction.
from all what ive read, the 109 should be a really stable platform,...and now its the complete opposite.

if you guys have the same problems, then please vote in the bugtracker!

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/369

You just have to get used to it. I for my part was annyoed at first too. Now I enjoy the new rudderauthority. If youre a good gunner your able to hit much better than before.
I hope it stays like it is.

Winger

[David198502]

well, there is no joice anyway it seems.i dont think the devs will listen...but again Winger, i was not complaining about the rudder but ailerons and elevators...i regularly switch back and forth between the official steam version and the current beta patch, and regarding the rudder, i have no problem,...in fact i even think that its a bit better now(although there is still room for improvement)...but the elevator and ailerons are just not as precise...there is a sudden jump which prevents you of beeing precise.

[Redroach]

hmm about the "rougher" trimming now... I think all, or at least a lot of, control surface "output" got scaled up by a bit. Which is okay for me; I'm fine with the new values and I assume they at least slightly converge to historical circumstances which each patch iteration, so it's okay.
But, I believe, as control surface efficiency got scaled up by some factor, trimming steps ("clicks") got scaled up as well, making it quite a bit harder to trim the whole thing now. Maybe there is need to look into that again.