109 elevator trim

Robo. · #1 04-15-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

DB 601A-1 with old type supercharger - this had a rated altitude of just 4000m.
DB 601A-1 with improved type supercharger - this had a rated altitude increased to 4500m.

Interesting, I always thought that FTH was the main obvious difference between A-1 and Aa versions.

I am not too sure about the develompemt of German superchargers but from what I remember the A-0 (not used in the sim or during the BoB in the 109s) has had FTH of 4000m, then improved supercharger of A-1 made it to 4500m. 601 Aa was at 4000m again with better low alt performance instead. I am bit confused here with what you're saying.

Still, early Merlins had higher FTH than any of the above engines, hence my assumption the RAF had slight advantage at high alt.

DB 601Aa - this had increased boost pressures, which meant it developed about 10% more power than the 601A-1 below rated altitude, operating at 1.35/1.45ata instead of 1.30/1.40 ata, but similiar altitude performance. I believe this is the variant we have modelled.

The DB 601A we've got in game is appartently modelled at 1020PS so I suppose it's the A-1 version with FHT at 4500m.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

DB 601N

We haven't got this one modelled (perhaps better to compare with Merlin XX at slightly later stage of the conflict), there are no E-4/N (or E-7/N) or Hurricane Mk.II in the sim.

justme262 · #2 04-15-2012, 12:16 PM

I still don't understand... let me get this straight

Ok I'm in a BF109 diving at high speed on a hurricane with neutral trim and forward pressure on the stick to hold the nose down, he sees me and breaks right. I roll right and pull back on the stick gradually accelerating the turn and increasing the angle of attack till eventually one wing or the other stalls and I spin. Does trimming the whole horizontal stabilizer delay the high speed stall? Can my plane achieved greater angle of attack with the stabilizer trimmed by wheel compared to the elevator raised by stick?
If either way I reach same maximum angle of attack and stall in same place then what's the difference?

In real life the elevator forces go up at high speed so I can see an advantage to a pilot trimming the nose up at high speed but in this "sim" none of the fighters have heavy controls at high speed so why not just pull back on the stick.

irR4tiOn4L · #3 04-15-2012, 01:27 PM

Robo and Osprey, I am saying that when making changes that are in the right direction (realism), we should nonetheless time and implement changes in a manner that respects overall realism - ie, the matchup between aircraft and relative performance, as well as the overall hierarchy of problems in order of importance.

Why are we focussing on the 109 trim here? I have seen no good argument in this thread for why the 109, an aircraft with a huge trim wheel and similar trim times to other planes in the game, should be singled out for changes, and why these should be above fixes to its and other aircraft's performance. Given that all the aircraft in the game trim quite quickly, if the 109 is wrong, its likely they are all wrong (some even more so). This discussion should go beyond just the 109 and the fix should go beyond just the 109, otherwise we are punishing an aircraft with slower trim adjustment that was actually QUICKER to adjust trim in in real life!

Similarly with control heaviness. True, the 109 was worse than contemporaries here. But we can't just fix the 109 to historical performance and leave it at that. It's likely that other aircraft are also pulling too easily/experience too little control heaviness, and to change this on only one aircraft is sacrificing macro realism for micro realism. We'll have one great, realistic plane to fly, but that'll be all.

And that's not even taking into account the undermodelling (apparently, based on discussions here) of all these aircraft, including the 109 (possible exception being Spit IIa). Why should trim be fixed before the performance and speed of the 109?

Look at the Spitfire IIa - because it is probably the most accurate in terms of performance among a crop of inaccurately modelled underperformers, many online servers don't even allow it because it has no equal. Fat lot of good lopsided modelling made there. While I support every effort toward realism, I don't support the implementation of these changes on a timetable that is designed to respond to complaints from multiplayer which focus on only the overmodelled aspects of a favoured opponent's aircraft - a slippery slope. This kind of thing should be done transparently across all aircraft in a manner that focusses on the most major to the minor departures from reality. Trim is somewhere down that order, and having to research the proper values on all aircraft (especially if the trim became heavier, ie slower, with the heaviness of the controls) could take time. I am not sure I support the 109 being changed in the interim on poorly researched values, or only on the 109 and not other aircraft, for the sake of some players' competitiveness online.

Still, and to be clear, I do support fixing trim on the 109 and other aircraft. But maybe not on the timescale and order of importance that some others might. Yes, I hear the complaints about the 109 turning too easily in a dogfight online through the use of trim. But I also hear that the performance of most planes is off, blackout and other effects are not modelled correctly and all planes might be too light on the controls and too easy to trim. I think general performance should be fixed first, then trim heaviness/ease should be changed to historically accurate levels. On all aircraft.

I mean let's not forget, 109 pilots might be abusing trim at the moment, but Hurricane, spit and 109 pilots are flying aircraft that are too slow and spit and hurri pilots are abusing the now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages, which also affects the ability of 109 pilots to use negative g to get away or even have the spit/hurri pilot accidently swamp their engine. We need to be careful about how we go about fixing these issues (or even winding back realism, like was done with carburetors and mechanical guages) in response to player complaints from multiplayer. I think some might not like to hear it, but they should accept that it could take a while to fix something like trim if other issues are being addressed.

Robo. · #4 04-15-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

(...)

Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.

Osprey · #5 04-15-2012, 03:30 PM

I would agree with that Robo, especially the inability to restart the engine should it cut out, leaving you deadsticking it home.

This thread started as a personal investigation and I am not aware of a process by 1C to treat threads as bug reports.

irR4tiOn4L · #6 04-15-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo.

Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.

To be honest I'm not an expert on the realities and FM's of this sim, I repeat what I have read here and experienced myself ingame.

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

So often, people complain about online balance based on inadequacies in server setup or particular incidents they are angry about - and their views take on a veneer of objectivity with more and more discussion. Which is not to say their views lack all objectivity, but it does point toward the danger of using their views to set the patch agenda.

I mean hell, the beta patch out now looks to be the last for Clod, and i'd say there's a hell of a lot of things that i'd like to see changed above trim.

EDIT: Fair point Osprey, but many here talk with a view that seems to want far more than just personal investigation. But even if trim is not accurate as is, its probably about 1/2 the real time anyway and in my view isnt nearly as important as control heaviness, black out resistance modelling, etc, let alone the actual FM's which continue to display much more fundamental problems.

This discussion is interesting, but I wouldn't expect (or want really) it to lead to many changes until greater issues were remedied and adequate data on all planes was collated.

WTE_Galway · #7 04-17-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

Unfortunately the more obsessive online types are also the most likely to appear on the forums and push their point of view doggedly. This seriously skews perceptions of how the community actually views the game and what it wants from it.