PDA

View Full Version : oleg will the 109 get a proper FM then be left alone



XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:18 AM
Oleg the 109,s flight management in FB seems to be changing an awful lot just like in il2 but the the bad thing is its getting worse again why is this?

In FB most if not all the 109's underclimb, overheats to quickly, underturns, are underpowered and damage model is a joke with control cables that seem to get homed in on by the smallest caliber rounds yet vvs planes especialy la7 and yak3 excel in all of these aspects with ridiculous turn rates of 15 secs and the ability to absorb several 30mm hits.

People will read and no doubt flame this thread with things like learn to fly and stuff but all we want is the 109 to have its proper flight management and fly it competetively using proper tactics but against planes that have performance characteristics far exceeding their real life capabilities it becomes harder work to fly against them competetively which shouldn't be the case.

Oleg please do justice to your fans alot of them that absolutely worship you and be fair with the flight managements, their are probably as many or more fans that fly 109,s fw190's, 262's as their is yak and la drivers.

Oleg all people want is to fly their favourite ac with a FM closely representing the real life one surely your fans deserve this...

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:18 AM
Oleg the 109,s flight management in FB seems to be changing an awful lot just like in il2 but the the bad thing is its getting worse again why is this?

In FB most if not all the 109's underclimb, overheats to quickly, underturns, are underpowered and damage model is a joke with control cables that seem to get homed in on by the smallest caliber rounds yet vvs planes especialy la7 and yak3 excel in all of these aspects with ridiculous turn rates of 15 secs and the ability to absorb several 30mm hits.

People will read and no doubt flame this thread with things like learn to fly and stuff but all we want is the 109 to have its proper flight management and fly it competetively using proper tactics but against planes that have performance characteristics far exceeding their real life capabilities it becomes harder work to fly against them competetively which shouldn't be the case.

Oleg please do justice to your fans alot of them that absolutely worship you and be fair with the flight managements, their are probably as many or more fans that fly 109,s fw190's, 262's as their is yak and la drivers.

Oleg all people want is to fly their favourite ac with a FM closely representing the real life one surely your fans deserve this...

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:36 PM
Not a single Bf-109 after the patch that climbs as it should.
109F4 has an initial climb of 17m/s instead of 22m/s.
G10 20m/s instead of 24m/s
La7 turns in 15 sec, Yak3 in 16 sec, both instead of 18.5-19.5 sec.
La7 climbs with 26.5m/s instead of 24.5m/s.
Now even Yak1b climbs almost as fast as G10. How in the world can somebody think that this is correct: 19.5m/s initial climb for Yak1b.
Me-262 at 25% fuel climbs at 380km/h instead of 470km/h (at full fuel climb speed is right). It also turns at 330-340km/h instead of 480km/h.

If any of you the usual trolls are preparing to answer on this thread, do it with data from your tests. Don't come here just to throw your 2 cents, nobody is interested.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:48 PM
Hopefully, the roll rate will be siginficantly reduced.

Bf-109G-6 WITH Mk108 gunpods.

All rolls at 2,000 meters
All speeds at TAS

3 second roll @ 350 km/h
3.5 second roll @ 400 km/h
4 second roll @ 450 km/h


Also, the Bf-109s exceed their dive limit speeds by large margins with NO ill-effects. This is not correct. There should be rather sever buffetting and aileron problems beginning at around 750 km/h, with structural damage occurring not much beyond that.

Oleg, Please tone these overmodeled areas down.



And Huck, if you think ANYTHING I've said is inaccurate, then please post your credible proof along with your retort.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 09/07/0305:49PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:36 PM
Skychimp if the roll rate can be significantly reduced in exchange for the other characteristics it should have eg: proper climb rate, turn rate, top speed, overheat realisticaly, not get homed in on by cable seeking rounds then fine i think well all be happy. Oh and i forgot and for the VVS planes to be brought into line too.

Is this too much to ask?

Does the 109 roll rate realy bother you skychimp does it make up for the ridiculous turn rates and unrealistic ability to take 30mm rounds that the la's and yaks can? No way.

If u dont like 109 then dont fly it but don't **** other people for saying its wrong when it is..

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:55 PM
Note the lack of specificity in the Noob's accusation and Wish List.

-- Does the 109 roll rate realy bother you skychimp

Chimp specified the heavy G6 wing cannon gun pods. He may, or may not, have a point there.

Lack of specificity invites hungry Trolls.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:13 PM
SkyChimp, read the posts above yours:

"come up whit evidence"

What evidence do U have of 109s diving too well? 750kmph is not a limit for 109-series. E.g. there is clear evidence that 109G2 and G6 series in Finnish Front could well exceed even the current FM in il2FB. Read here:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/juuti/juuti2.htm

So 109s could even go beyond 1000kmph W/O ANE DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE.

It is also very well documented that 109 had very good diving capabilies far beyond Russian manufactured planes. BRING SOME EVIDENCE IF U DISAGREE, WILL U?

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:26 PM
lol you guys make me laugh.

Get a life..

<p align="center">http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/images/419x100phantomfighters01.gif (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/default.asp)

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/)

http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net (http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net/)</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:31 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hopefully, the roll rate will be siginficantly
- reduced.
-
- Bf-109G-6 WITH Mk108 gunpods.
-
- All rolls at 2,000 meters
- All speeds at TAS
-
- 3 second roll @ 350 km/h
- 3.5 second roll @ 400 km/h
- 4 second roll @ 450 km/h
-
-
- Also, the Bf-109s exceed their dive limit speeds by
- large margins with NO ill-effects. This is not
- correct. There should be rather sever buffetting
- and aileron problems beginning at around 750 km/h,
- with structural damage occurring not much beyond
- that.
-
- Oleg, Please tone these overmodeled areas down.


Currently all the planes behave on roll like Fw-190 on steroids. How come that you didn't notice that P47D10 roll has a 120deg/sec roll with rockets and external tank attached (at 400km/h IAS, 300m above the ground)? Shouldn't you be more concerned about how overmodelled are P-47 or P-39 in roll? Open another thread and post your rant there.

750km/h is the dive limit specified in 109 manual. It should dive with no problems up to 800kmh. The mechanical stress on wings at 7G is bigger than aerodynamic stress at 800kmh IAS so what's with it?. Two problems appear at this speed though: one, the controls are very heavy (and if above 0.8 Mach they are also ineffective) and recovery should be made with a gradual acceleration because the cumulative effect of Gs and drag can indeed tear off the wings (one factor alone is not enough to break them). There is nothing overmodelled in this area in Bf-109 case.
But it is for P-47, there were countless of accidents in combat (don't bring that stupid P-47B argument Skychmp) because controls locked at this speed or the engine was lost in pull out from high speed dives. Controls also locked in uncoordinated maneuvers and the stability was so poor at 300kmh that any rudder input could sent P-47 in spirals. Those should appear in FB to make a more believable P-47 experience.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:33 PM
Porta_ wrote:
- SkyChimp, read the posts above yours:
-
- "come up whit evidence"
-
- What evidence do U have of 109s diving too well?
- 750kmph is not a limit for 109-series. E.g. there is
- clear evidence that 109G2 and G6 series in Finnish
- Front could well exceed even the current FM in
- il2FB. Read here:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/juuti/juuti2.h
- tm"
- target=_blank>http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/juuti/
- juuti2.htm</a>
-
-
- So 109s could even go beyond 1000kmph W/O ANE DAMAGE
- TO THE STRUCTURE.
-
- It is also very well documented that 109 had very
- good diving capabilies far beyond Russian
- manufactured planes. BRING SOME EVIDENCE IF U
- DISAGREE, WILL U?


When was last time when Skychimp brought an evidence? Don't ask to much, he only has AHT to rely on.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:40 PM
Huck, Chimp, will you 2 simply stick to your own dam planes?

Chimp does everything he can to **** and try to bring down the 109, Huck does the same to anything US.

You are both wrong and merely hatin' on each other and those planes.

If you merely stick to planes everyone knows you like and ignore each other something constructive might actually be achieved. Imagine that...... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 07:22 PM
@BlitzPig DDT:
SO TRUE! I couldn't have said it better man... what these 2 guys do is like a bullfight - one flames the other and that's the way it goes 24-7 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109e.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 07:27 PM
Huck,

I just want to get this straight for the future. According to your first post. If the FM's were dead on. The La7 will out climb a G-10?

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

Dark_Knight_667
09-07-2003, 07:43 PM
I'm going to say this one more time for the morons that have missed it elsewhere..UBISOFT UPLOADED THE WRONG VERSION OF THE PATCH!!! Now take your troll comments, your attitudes, and your whining and crawl back under your rocks

DK

http://members.cox.net/cptdarkknight/bkbanner.jpg


The Knights have arrived. AMD 2700 XP, Radeon 9800 Pro, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, 30 gig hdd, Gigabyte GA-7VT600-L, 52x cd rom, microsoft intellimouse explorer, Saitek x45 HOTAS

<center><a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/" target="mash"><img src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg" width="205" height="95" border="0"

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 07:56 PM
The 109's are undermodeled in the first patch released for FB not just the latest abortion which was uploaded by mistake.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:10 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- I just want to get this straight for the future.
- According to your first post. If the FM's were dead
- on. The La7 will out climb a G-10?


According to some tests La-7 is credited with 24.5m/s initial climb (not all russian tests agree though). G-10 has an initial climb of 24m/s, so there is a small difference of 100ft per minute up to 2000m, then G-10 takes the lead, above 3000m the difference is comfortable.

So no real difference in climb between the two even at sea level. Acceleration was also the aprox the same down low. La7 has only one second advantage in a 360 degrees sustained turn, right now it has 6 seconds!!

1.1b had much more accurate models for Bf-109, despite the complains here on forum.
Fact is that there is only one FM improvement in 1.1 final: planes can't loose speed below the sustained turn speed unless they try until they spin. This was a very important error, german planes turned sustained even with 100km/h below their real sustained turn speed: K4 for example should turn at 350kmh, before the speed droped very easily at 240kmh, and there was no way of getting it back unless you exit the turn (yes fighters could accelerate even in turns).




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/07/0302:14PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:38 PM
Huck,

I bring this up, because alot of guys think the 109 should pull away from an La7 at all altitudes. 1000-3000m is pretty much where all DG happens on HL. Everybody needs to know that the La7 is not overmodeled if it stays with the 109 in the climb.

I'm not really concerned how planes turn. I gave up turn fighting a long time ago. I am concerned with climb rates though.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:12 PM
Yes, Huck may wish to try his experiments at high altitude. I did FMB experiment with AI K4 and La7 (both friendly) next to each other and starting from sea level La7 outlcimbed K4 until about 4km and the K4 *still* beat La to 9km.

Problem is these type of experiments can only be done with FMB. So they don't get done by the Noobs. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

$$ bet_Bet_BET:: When P~51 comes out, even the oldtimers will try to dogfight at low level everytime cos the high altitude landscape will pork their screenshots. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:26 PM
Porta_ wrote:

- So 109s could even go beyond 1000kmph W/O ANE DAMAGE
- TO THE STRUCTURE.


That's bunk.

Lukas Schmid, test pilot, specifically stated that NO ONE could then claim a dive speed of 1,000 km/h after he conclusivley proved the TERMINAL speed of the Bf-109F was just 906 km/h, or mach .805. So let's knock off this nonsense about the Bf-109 diving faster. A German test pilot proved it wasn't possible. And long before, severe aieleron overbalance was encountered and it was all he could do to pull out of the dive.

Guys like Huck can't accept anecdotal evidence about American planes, yet its gospel when about German planes.

NO Bf-109 could dive to 1,000 km/h. If you contend they could, please post a DIVE TEST REPORT, as we did on the P-47 and Spitfire.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:28 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- Hopefully, the roll rate will be siginficantly
-- reduced.

- Currently all the planes behave on roll like Fw-190
- on steroids. How come that you didn't notice that
- P47D10 roll has a 120deg/sec roll with rockets and
- external tank attached (at 400km/h IAS, 300m above
- the ground)? Shouldn't you be more concerned about
- how overmodelled are P-47 or P-39 in roll? Open
- another thread and post your rant there.


Hey, YOU said bring our test data. THAT'S WHAT I DID. Did you really mean: ONLY BRING TEST DATA THAT SHOWS THE BF-109 IS UNDERMODELLED, KEEP QUITE ABOUT IT BEING OVERMODELLED.

And as for the P-47, it may be overmodelled at slow speed, but it's highly undermodelled at high speed. And the D-27 is wrong at all speeds. UNLIKE the Bf-109 which rolls too fast at all speeds.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 09/08/0312:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- When was last time when Skychimp brought an
- evidence? Don't ask to much, he only has AHT to rely
- on.


This from you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/109groll.jpg


The Bf-109 rolls too fast. Way too fast. Now, if you disagree, present YOUR evidence.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

Message Edited on 09/08/0312:38AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hopefully, the roll rate will be siginficantly
- reduced.

And that the climb rates are corrected?

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:04 PM
johno__UK wrote:
- happy. Oh and i forgot and for the VVS planes to be
- brought into line too.

I agree. I fly VVS, but I'd like to see all the planes
modelled as accurately as possible.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:09 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- And that the climb rates are corrected?


Yes, correct all that is wrong with it. If it climbs too slow, speed it up. If it rolls too fast, slow it down.

But just don't correct whats undermodelled and ignore what is overmodelled.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:22 PM
Skychimp huck or anyone else hasn't disagreed that the 109 rolls too fast, think the other issues are far more important.
If it rolls too fast then it should be corrected same as everything else, anyone would think u dont like 109's skychimp finding the only thing that aint undermodelled and demanding it be toned down, at least huck is bringing some constructive conversation to this thread the roll rate thing is gettin a bit boring...

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:37 PM
Just expect FM and other aspects to get worse from now on until we get an entirely new sim.

In next patch the la7 will prolly turn 10 secs to fast, climb 50% too well, but break apart the second it exceeds 600kmh.

The 109k4 will still have no rudder, roll too fast, dive too fast, climb too slow, and overheat if you try to start the engine.

The fw190 will pull 20g turns, roll at 360 a sec at 800kmh, and have gunsight mounted below the armored glass so you cant even aim with it period, but it will absorb 30 hits from a yak9k.

P51 will probably just suck in every aspect realistic or not. I don't expect a decent represention of that plane when it is flyable. In fact, I bet with the FM we get with the p51, with equal pilots skills, the p39 will kick it's butt (even though that is clearly wrong).

This complex FM engine obviously isn't that complex. Apparently is still simple enough that if Oleg corrects errors in one aspect of a planes FM, the errors spill out into some other area of it's FM.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:42 PM
"Not a single Bf-109 after the patch that climbs as
it should."

This is total b.s. I tested the 109G2. I climbed to 3000 meters starting at 270kph indicated and tried to keep that speed. I easily beat the time in the object viewer.

This board should have some sort of luftwhining filter...

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:41 PM
Michael_2 wrote:
- "Not a single Bf-109 after the patch that climbs as
- it should."
-
- This is total b.s. I tested the 109G2. I climbed to
- 3000 meters starting at 270kph indicated and tried
- to keep that speed. I easily beat the time in the
- object viewer.
-
- This board should have some sort of luftwhining
- filter...

Should have a red-whining and Oleg worshipping filter as well.

It has been stated since the early of IL2 that the object viewer doesn't have correct values in it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:41 PM
CrackFerret wrote:
- Just expect FM and other aspects to get worse from
- now on until we get an entirely new sim.
-
- In next patch the la7 will prolly turn 10 secs to
- fast, climb 50% too well, but break apart the second
- it exceeds 600kmh.
-
- The 109k4 will still have no rudder, roll too fast,
- dive too fast, climb too slow, and overheat if you
- try to start the engine.
-
- The fw190 will pull 20g turns, roll at 360 a sec at
- 800kmh, and have gunsight mounted below the armored
- glass so you cant even aim with it period, but it
- will absorb 30 hits from a yak9k.
-
- P51 will probably just suck in every aspect
- realistic or not. I don't expect a decent
- represention of that plane when it is flyable. In
- fact, I bet with the FM we get with the p51, with
- equal pilots skills, the p39 will kick it's butt
- (even though that is clearly wrong).
-
- This complex FM engine obviously isn't that complex.
- Apparently is still simple enough that if Oleg
- corrects errors in one aspect of a planes FM, the
- errors spill out into some other area of it's FM.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:05 AM
Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
- I'm going to say this one more time for the morons
- that have missed it elsewhere..UBISOFT UPLOADED THE
- WRONG VERSION OF THE PATCH!!! Now take your troll
- comments, your attitudes, and your whining and crawl
- back under your rocks
-
- DK
-

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!

It's exactly how I feel just so many posts in...

WHY CRITIQUE A MISTAKEN RELEASE?

And then, in true character, fight over it!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:10 AM
"It has been stated since the early of IL2 that the object viewer doesn't have correct values in it."

I beat the object viewer by a wide margin. I'm sorry, but the statement that none of the 109s climb as they should has no basis.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:46 AM
Michael_2 wrote:
- I beat the object viewer by a wide margin. I'm
- sorry, but the statement that none of the 109s climb
- as they should has no basis.

You're statement's not strictly true - it's relatively easy to test the 109s in the game at the moment and match them with good data (i.e. not the object viewer). Carrying out such tests will show that many of the 109s don't match the performance figures from reliable sources. In fact, some later more powerful 109s are outclimbed by earlier 109 models. The closest 109 to some of the best data available (Finnish) is the G-2. All 109s are also not helped by the way the automated engine systems are currently modelled, with very slow repsonse times to RPM input, especially in earlier 109s.

WRT roll rates, even with weapons slung on the wings, the problem is not just with the 109. A P-47 with bombs and rockets rolls the same as one with just the default load.

The original gist of this thread is true - but it also applies to all aircraft in FB. All need tweaking, some more than others. But we may also be fretting too much about all of this when the 'final' patch we have now isn't really the final patch. We may have to wait and see.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:59 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- According to some tests La-7 is credited with
- 24.5m/s initial climb (not all russian tests agree
- though). G-10 has an initial climb of 24m/s, so
- there is a small difference of 100ft per minute up
- to 2000m, then G-10 takes the lead, above 3000m the
- difference is comfortable
are you sure? do you know what are you talk about ?please test it again before post something again.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 01:12 AM
HQ1 wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- According to some tests La-7 is credited with
-- 24.5m/s initial climb (not all russian tests agree
-- though). G-10 has an initial climb of 24m/s, so
-- there is a small difference of 100ft per minute up
-- to 2000m, then G-10 takes the lead, above 3000m the
-- difference is comfortable
- are you sure? do you know what are you talk about
- ?please test it again before post something again.



What I wrote above is how it should be, not what we have right now in FB.
G-10 has an initial climb in 1.1final of 20m/s, 4m/s less than it should.

Message Edited on 09/07/0307:15PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:03 AM
Huck, just curious what you have to say about this.

Just got out of the A-Cat server and Red was using Emils. I couldn't figure out why when the F-4 was available. Then I tried to fight one. He was strafing the base and I was at 2K. Only knew he was there from the flak. I dove on him and had a definite E advantage, and, being in an F-4 should have been faster, and I thought more maneuverable and even climb better. I could not get position on him and he was turning and I was trying to "use the verticle". Eventually he got position on me and I couldn't shake him. And, I noticed he was using heavy flaps.

Is the Emil seriously overdone here, or, is the F-4 getting shafted, or maybe a little of both?

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:15 AM
johno__UK wrote:
- Oleg the 109,s flight management in FB seems to be
- changing an awful lot just like in il2 but the the
- bad thing is its getting worse again why is this?
-
- In FB most if not all the 109's underclimb,
- overheats to quickly, underturns, are underpowered
- and damage model is a joke with control cables that
- seem to get homed in on by the smallest caliber
- rounds yet vvs planes especialy la7 and yak3 excel
- in all of these aspects with ridiculous turn rates
- of 15 secs and the ability to absorb several 30mm
- hits.
-
-
- People will read and no doubt flame this thread
- with things like learn to fly and stuff but all we
- want is the 109 to have its proper flight management
- and fly it competetively using proper tactics but
- against planes that have performance characteristics
- far exceeding their real life capabilities it
- becomes harder work to fly against them
- competetively which shouldn't be the case.
-

God bless u Brave whiner
they want luftwaffe down so they can be happy flying LA

- Oleg please do justice to your fans alot of them
- that absolutely worship you and be fair with the
- flight managements, their are probably as many or
- more fans that fly 109,s fw190's, 262's as their is
- yak and la drivers.
-
-
- Oleg all people want is to fly their favourite ac
- with a FM closely representing the real life one
- surely your fans deserve this...
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:19 AM
It's hard to say without an actual footage of what happened, DDT. While I would generally trust a veteran member of the game like you to have pretty much acuurate recollection of the situation, with no disrespect, there is still a possibility you might have misjudged the conditions.

The sources are each different in what they have to say, but generally the 109F was considered to be the thoroughbred of the series - with increased speed and climb, and yet, turning capabilities almost matching the E series. Now I recall some data sets claiming the F-4 had a marginally better turn rate overall, but personally, I believe the pure turn radius of the E series to be much tighter than what the F might offer.

If the Emil pilot was indeed a good one, the use of flaps you've noticed, indicates he is pulling a tighter radius to draw you in to a lag pursuit which puts your plane over the Emil's 3-9 line, which holds potential dangers of being lured into an overshooting scissors.

Thus, in my speculation, to deal with the dangers you might have dumped some serious speed, which would take away your initial advantage and put two planes in near equal terms, at very low altitudes.

Somehow if the Emil, in that situaton, gets hold of your tail, you won't be left with sufficient E to use the 'vertical' to your own terms. The only way out would be to level accelerate with full throttle and radiators closed, extending away with slight jinking, and hope a stray round will not catch you - as often in a tight maneuvering, people have a tendency to chop throttle to avoid overshoot. An unexpected and bold full acceleration can leave the enemy in the dust.

It'd really help if we can hear more detailed info, or get a track footage on what happened.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:37 AM
Unfortunatly I wasn't recording. Probably should record every time I go online. lol But lack of proper track editing makes it almost useless.

Anyway, let's see if I can provide more - He was around 500-1000m strafing the base, as I said. I was up at 2Km, turned when I saw the AAA going off, and dove down through a cloud till I saw him. I was at about 650kph at that point. Letting the plane take part in the flying, to keep Gs down and E up, I went into a gentle zoom climb after the first pass. This was on an Emil that was turning for another strafe pass at the time. Arcing over the top (as typically worked to well for me in the past, a little slowe, but more alt and better opportunity to re-acquire and re-position) I found him and went for the second pass. He broke hard and I did a high yo-yo to follow.

This repeated abou 3 or 4 times then I found him behind me and I was unable to shake.

I always keep throttle at 100%, and rads on auto. I'm a disciple of zoom. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (well, I was, seems to have left me since I went to the Jug, which has no zoom in FB)


Best I can remember. As I said, in the gunsight view I saw heavy flaps. TO at least, possibly landing. IMEx, flap use in combat ends with me dead because it sucks all my speed for nothing in return. Which compounds this and confuses me more. lol

But you are right though, could be an ace pilot + my time away from the 109 as well as the game. Just didn't seem to be in that case is all. Which is why I asked. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 06:58 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
-- I'm going to say this one more time for the morons
-- that have missed it elsewhere..UBISOFT UPLOADED THE
-- WRONG VERSION OF THE PATCH!!! Now take your troll
-- comments, your attitudes, and your whining and crawl
-- back under your rocks
--
-- DK

Short question without any whining...
When UBISOFT uploaded the WRONG version of the patch..where's the correct one ?
Does it take so many days to upload the correct one ?

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:06 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
-- I'm going to say this one more time for the morons
-- that have missed it elsewhere..UBISOFT UPLOADED THE
-- WRONG VERSION OF THE PATCH!!! Now take your troll
-- comments, your attitudes, and your whining and crawl
-- back under your rocks
--
-- DK
--
-
- THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!
-
- It's exactly how I feel just so many posts in...
-
- WHY CRITIQUE A MISTAKEN RELEASE?
-
- And then, in true character, fight over it!
-
-
- Neal


Not really, this "final" variant of the patch was sent to Ubi in order to test it for bugs, meaning that 1C considered FM solved, which is obviously not.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:12 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Huck, just curious what you have to say about this.
-
- Just got out of the A-Cat server and Red was using
- Emils. I couldn't figure out why when the F-4 was
- available. Then I tried to fight one. He was
- strafing the base and I was at 2K. Only knew he was
- there from the flak. I dove on him and had a
- definite E advantage, and, being in an F-4 should
- have been faster, and I thought more maneuverable
- and even climb better. I could not get position on
- him and he was turning and I was trying to "use the
- verticle". Eventually he got position on me and I
- couldn't shake him. And, I noticed he was using
- heavy flaps.
-
- Is the Emil seriously overdone here, or, is the F-4
- getting shafted, or maybe a little of both?


I don't know, E loss on german planes was always curious. What I know from tests on 1.1final is that E4 has an initial climb of 18m/s, which is correct, and F4 has 17m/s which is way below the 22m/s, the correct value. G2 initial climb is 22m/s which may be a tad faster than it should, around 21m/s. F4 was the best climber of the series until MW50 109s came.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:30 AM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- I bring this up, because alot of guys think the 109
- should pull away from an La7 at all altitudes.
- 1000-3000m is pretty much where all DG happens on
- HL. Everybody needs to know that the La7 is not
- overmodeled if it stays with the 109 in the climb.


Indeed La-7 was equal in climb in acceleration with MW50 109s up to aprox 2000m. One important thing is that La7 does not have any advantage in turn above 3000m compared to late 109s.

My advice for 109 drivers is to climb to 2000m, accelerate to 500kmh and only then engage the enemy below (the best is when the enemy is 1000m below you). If you are engaged by La7 or Yak3 zoom climb to 3000m, then try to obtain a superior energy state (alt and speed). As I said normally at 3000m the game should be easy since both La7 and Yak3 are equal in turn and slower in climb and acceleration. Unfortunately we never got realistic performance for La7 (La5FN in Il2 days) or Yak3 above 3000m.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:11 AM
I asked about the speed on the K-4 and the only answer I got was the octane of the fuel was to low. Thats why the K-4 is slow.... LMAO

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuscd

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:16 AM
SkyChimp ->

What the f**k is bunk in the facts that I posted?!?!? Do U honestly think that test results are the only source of performance data? U R suggesting that REAL WAR MISSIONS DON'T ACCOUNT AS EVIDENE? Did U ever even bother to read the link I posted to U?

I guess not. And for the record, U R talking about the F-MODEL. Do U have a reading disability or what? In my post I specifically have a reference to G-MODEL. And for the second record: Did Lukas Schmid ever push his plane to the edge IF HE LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT.

What U suggest is that your source (which talks about AN EARLIER VERSION) is better than mine. That is BS. But never mind...I have learned that this forum is full of stubborn people like U, that can't see further than your own nose. U can post what ever U want, but as far as U don't bring some evidence, no one takes U seriously.

PS: Next time when U refer to someone, pls post the reference (=source) also. Otherwise you don't have any evidence.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:45 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BuzzU wrote:
-- Huck,
--
-- I bring this up, because alot of guys think the 109
-- should pull away from an La7 at all altitudes.
-- 1000-3000m is pretty much where all DG happens on
-- HL. Everybody needs to know that the La7 is not
-- overmodeled if it stays with the 109 in the climb.
-
-
- Indeed La-7 was equal in climb in acceleration with
- MW50 109s up to aprox 2000m. One important thing is
- that La7 does not have any advantage in turn above
- 3000m compared to late 109s.
-
- My advice for 109 drivers is to climb to 2000m,
- accelerate to 500kmh and only then engage the enemy
- below (the best is when the enemy is 1000m below
- you). If you are engaged by La7 or Yak3 zoom climb
- to 3000m, then try to obtain a superior energy state
- (alt and speed). As I said normally at 3000m the
- game should be easy since both La7 and Yak3 are
- equal in turn and slower in climb and acceleration.
- Unfortunately we never got realistic performance for
- La7 (La5FN in Il2 days) or Yak3 above 3000m.

if FM in FB is right just as it should be in real life your tactics can be used.but now that is not working.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:39 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Not a single Bf-109 after the patch that climbs as
- it should.
- 109F4 has an initial climb of 17m/s instead of
- 22m/s.
- G10 20m/s instead of 24m/s
- La7 turns in 15 sec, Yak3 in 16 sec, both instead of
- 18.5-19.5 sec.
- La7 climbs with 26.5m/s instead of 24.5m/s.
- Now even Yak1b climbs almost as fast as G10. How in
- the world can somebody think that this is correct:
- 19.5m/s initial climb for Yak1b.
- Me-262 at 25% fuel climbs at 380km/h instead of
- 470km/h (at full fuel climb speed is right). It also
- turns at 330-340km/h instead of 480km/h.
-
- If any of you the usual trolls are preparing to
- answer on this thread, do it with data from your
- tests. Don't come here just to throw your 2 cents,
- nobody is interested.
-

Where is your evidence Huckie? All I see are some quotes.

Lets have some graphs posted to back-up your claims.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:18 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I don't know, E loss on german planes was always
- curious. What I know from tests on 1.1final is that
- E4 has an initial climb of 18m/s, which is correct,
- and F4 has 17m/s which is way below the 22m/s, the
- correct value. G2 initial climb is 22m/s which may
- be a tad faster than it should, around 21m/s. F4 was
- the best climber of the series until MW50 109s came.

This may explain that experience. However, I must admit that your RL data sounds suspect. By my recollection, the data I've seen always said the G2 was more powerful, and as such, had better climb than the F4 with better hitting power at the expense of some (but not much) handling.

Also, you say that a K4 can't walk away from an La7? That too is contrary to what I've seen. (Buzz said G10, but, you said MW-50 109s, which would include the K4)

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:47 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
--
-- Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
--- I'm going to say this one more time for the morons
--- that have missed it elsewhere..UBISOFT UPLOADED THE
--- WRONG VERSION OF THE PATCH!!! Now take your troll
--- comments, your attitudes, and your whining and crawl
--- back under your rocks
---
--- DK
---
--
-- THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!
--
-- It's exactly how I feel just so many posts in...
--
-- WHY CRITIQUE A MISTAKEN RELEASE?
--
-- And then, in true character, fight over it!
--
--
-- Neal
-
-
- Not really, this "final" variant of the patch was
- sent to Ubi in order to test it for bugs, meaning
- that 1C considered FM solved, which is obviously
- not.
-

And you got this information from where? You know somebody at UBI? 1C?

You do know that UBI also tests patches, not just gives them a stamp of approval and send them along? For that to happen there must be some chance of having changes made and more than one version sent to them or Why Freaking Bother?

What part of Wrong File By Mistake is so hard to understand? Or do you disbelieve things on the basis of what you want to see? That would explain so much, though.

I find it reasonable to accept their explanation until better information comes along. It is about how often that UBI admits making a mistake? I'd have to know how it is the wrong file got posted before saying how easy it is to just post up another one. I'd have to know what arrangements they have to make for space and bandwidth for a major worldwide release over the net of a multi-meg patch. How come you can imagine so many things but not how come they don't have you a correct patch before you have a chance to complain and carry on badly?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:10 PM
Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it should. All 109s....

And soon I will again will fly myself online with my 109s. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:12 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- This may explain that experience. However, I must
- admit that your RL data sounds suspect. By my
- recollection, the data I've seen always said the G2
- was more powerful, and as such, had better climb
- than the F4 with better hitting power at the expense
- of some (but not much) handling.

G2 is 100+ hp more powerful than F4, but is also heavier with 400kg. The reason why it still climbs at a very close rate to F4 is because better excess thrust translates in higher climb speed. These are the factors involved in climb:

climb rate = ((thrust - drag)*climb_speed)/weight
excess thrust is thrust - drag

For the same reason G6 had the same climb rate with G2.
Also you have to remember that F4, G2, G6 all of them entered in production in '42. F4 had a slightly better climb, a better turn and almost the same max speed at sea level. G2 on the other hand had a more powerful supercharger and it was better in all respects than F4 above 3000m. This is the main reason why G2 was preffered in real life instead of F4 preffered by most players until 1.1 in FB (better suited for fighting at sea level).


- Also, you say that a K4 can't walk away from an La7?
- That too is contrary to what I've seen. (Buzz said
- G10, but, you said MW-50 109s, which would include
- the K4)

I have 3 climb tests for La7, one from '44 gives it 17m/s, but says that slats were not functioning correctly (and I believe it is true), another also from '44 giving it 23m/s, and the last one made in April '45 - 24.5m/s.
Max speeds at sea level in those tests were: 596km/h, 625km/h, 616km/h respectively.

In conclusion 24.5m/s climb and around 615km/h max speed. Compare this with 24.5m/s initial climb and 585km/h max speed obtained by K4, and it will be pretty much obvious that you won't be able to walk away from La7 at this altitude.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:15 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
- should. All 109s....
-
- And soon I will again will fly myself online with my
- 109s.


And I'll be there in my Yak1/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Oleg, how does a 17m/s initial climb for F4 sounds to you? Or 20m/s for G10? Is this better than the real thing?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/08/0310:00AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:30 PM
nt = No Text

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 03:33 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
- should. All 109s....
-
- And soon I will again will fly myself online with my
- 109s. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

oh by the way oleg if you want to say L7 climbs far more better in Fb then it should?

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:43 PM
OLEG is wrong this time!!!

original test where done with climb and combat power= 100% in our 109s

with this setting, EVERY!!! 109 we have climbs worser.

oleg is simply wrong this time.

i can give him F2,G1;G2 climbtimes,climbspeeds and power settings.

if you refly them with the origina settings, F2/G2 are to slow in climb


wastel


this balancing is getting rediciolus

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:53 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- In conclusion 24.5m/s climb and around 615km/h max
- speed. Compare this with 24.5m/s initial climb and
- 585km/h max speed obtained by K4, and it will be
- pretty much obvious that you won't be able to walk
- away from La7 at this altitude.

Well, I had meant in a climb. But, you say they have the same climb rate too.

What were the conditions of the test? I know that people like Chimp think that there drag sails or some such on the 109, but, the La7 was a radial. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Not saying it's wrong, just doesn't seem to make sense on the surface.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:56 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Not really, this "final" variant of the patch was
- sent to Ubi in order to test it for bugs, meaning
- that 1C considered FM solved, which is obviously
- not.

I don't know how you can make that assumption. It
might have been sent to Ubi to test for bugs in
the sound production, while FM work continued, for
example.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 06:35 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
- should. All 109s....
-
- And soon I will again will fly myself online with my
- 109s. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games


Well if this is true oleg must mean in a version of the patch we havent had yet, if not then it looks like we'll never get a realistic FM for the 109

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:22 PM
Does Lexx Luthor really have to call people noobs if they very politely and correctly ask for things ?
It happened to me too, he calls all people noobs whose opinion he doesnt like. Especially any LW complaints are invalid to him by default.

II/JG54_Zent

LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Note the lack of specificity in the Noob's
- accusation and Wish List.
-
--- Does the 109 roll rate realy bother you skychimp
-
- Chimp specified the heavy G6 wing cannon gun pods.
- He may, or may not, have a point there.
-
- Lack of specificity invites hungry Trolls.
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:42 PM
And regarding the climb rate of all 109s, do you perform your test with proppitch Auto ? Just asking because i get much better climbrate if i set proppitch manual to around 85 % sometimes if i hang on the prop in a Df even to 90, buts its dangerous, always have to go back to auto quickly as soon as nose goes down. I havent performed real measurements, i just judge the height i get after a certain time, starting in QMB from 1000.
The funny thing is: I almost get to the same height in the same time whether in a Emil or K4 if using prop manual, well i admit i am not very precise here, dont have the time for creating numbers right now, ah, and i was just performing those tests with patch new 1.11

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:22 PM
to get an real FM, we have to use the historic values and test settings.
the pilots didn't use the mannual l pitch.
only on VERY short fields, to habe shorter takeoff run.

all climbtest where done with climb and combatpower (=100% in game) and radiators on position 6 to 8 ( compareable with 109 real climb radiator setting)

so testing the 109 with fancy settings, like 3000+RPM, or other prop pitch will have no chance to be compared with original datas

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:01 PM
this is necessary for doing tests to have defined conditions, but isnt it true that we are looking for the best possible climb rate for combat situations. I do to manual climbs with 85% on 109s sometimes and i dont overrev or break the engine, its easy and possible to use manual. So i think we should rather ask is the automechanism modelled a bit uneffective or the climbrate of the 109s, thats an important difference.

Redgull

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:53 PM
I have a couple of questions.

what version of the game are you all talking about? 1.11?

what engine radiator etc settings should actually be used to test the accuracy (or not) of the climb rate?

I'd like to know whether climb rates are that out.

course, we'll only really know if Oleg tells us his source but he won't and he has the right to do that.

if someone could post a link that has reputable data for 109 climb rates I'd like to run some tests myself, just to see.

cheers

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:06 PM
with Oleg's ignorant attitude when clear facts are shown, we should think about not to buy pay addons for FB...

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:36 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
- should. All 109s....

Some stats would be nice...

I'm just wondering. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:41 AM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
- should. All 109s....
-
- And soon I will again will fly myself online with my
- 109s.

Oleg, with the greatest of respect, this doesn't appear to be true - for instance, the G-2 and G-6 both do not match the Finnish data for such aircraft. I thought that you used Finnish data, or at least added to the data mix? At the moment, 109s in FB can't match any of their best performance unless you revert to using manual prop-pitch control rather than use the automatic system - whereas the Finnish stuff says nothing about their test using manual controls. It's even worse for 109s above 6 or 7km altitude. Someone over at SimHQ also said that the K-4 is faster without WEP being used than with it - this must be a bug?

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:10 AM
- Oleg, with the greatest of respect, this doesn't
- appear to be true - for instance, the G-2 and G-6
- both do not match the Finnish data for such
- aircraft. I thought that you used Finnish data, or
- at least added to the data mix? At the moment, 109s
- in FB can't match any of their best performance
- unless you revert to using manual prop-pitch control
- rather than use the automatic system - whereas the
- Finnish stuff says nothing about their test using
- manual controls. It's even worse for 109s above 6 or
- 7km altitude. Someone over at SimHQ also said that
- the K-4 is faster without WEP being used than with
- it - this must be a bug?

G2 is overmodelled if it could not use 1.4ata but in balance to other overmodelled planes.
It climbs (startet from AF counted at lift of both wheels, cooler closed) to 5050m in 3:38 and to 7000m in 5:16min. Possible in real with 1.3ata was 4:12min
It is only little wrong with 1.3ata in FB
same condition:
F4-4:43 (4:30 from rechlin test but start in air 280Km/h)
K4-3:19/5050m 4:53/7000m

undermodelled are:
G10 4:23/5050m 6:37/7000m (should be nearly same like G6AS)

G14 4:04/5050m 6:45/7000m This plane was very strong until Volldruckh√¬∂he at about 6400m after that it has same performance like G6

G6Early/Late 4:47/5050m 7:04/7000m (it climbs nearly correct for 1.3ata but Late should for sure climb better because of 1.42ata allowed)

This test arent like the real because Cooler closed.German test was allways Cooler open to 3000m and then in Combat position.
Special G6 is to heavy modelled by min.200Kg in Fb= http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zurow

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:56 PM
Functio wrote:
-
- Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-- Sorry to say, 109s climbs a bit better in Fb then it
-- should. All 109s....
--
-- And soon I will again will fly myself online with my
-- 109s.
-
- Oleg, with the greatest of respect, this doesn't
- appear to be true - for instance, the G-2 and G-6
- both do not match the Finnish data for such
- aircraft. I thought that you used Finnish data, or
- at least added to the data mix? At the moment, 109s
- in FB can't match any of their best performance
- unless you revert to using manual prop-pitch control
- rather than use the automatic system - whereas the
- Finnish stuff says nothing about their test using
- manual controls. It's even worse for 109s above 6 or
- 7km altitude. Someone over at SimHQ also said that
- the K-4 is faster without WEP being used than with
- it - this must be a bug?
-
-


RGR That was (JG5_JaRa Tested it) me on SimHQ. Haven't tested it yet in the latest version though.

Finns managed 22.5 m/s at 100% power with slightly opened radiator at 1000M - this is above best climb speed too, so lower than ideal climbrate of almost 24 m/s. Even Russian TsAGI data and many western sources show better climbrates for the 109's. I know Oleg cannot show his data, but if it is "pooled" from several sources then maybe he can show us these 'average' values used?


JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:04 PM
hi guys,

youss gave me a chance to proove the 109 facts and to correct the other 109 failurs.
i'm currently working on y report for oleg.
will be posted to him in 1-2 days.

some is too good..some to bad..
and failurs allready found.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:06 AM
wastel wrote:
- hi guys,
-
- youss gave me a chance to proove the 109 facts and
- to correct the other 109 failurs.
- i'm currently working on y report for oleg.
- will be posted to him in 1-2 days.
-
- some is too good..some to bad..
- and failurs allready found.
-
- wastel
-
-



good news wastel !i think g6,g10&g14s climb should be addressed