PDA

View Full Version : 4.03 -> 4.04 short take...



GR142-Pipper
02-24-2006, 02:00 AM
Downloaded the patch and flew the P-51, P-38, Yak-3, 109G-10...all on-line.

P-51D - Nose wobbles have disappeared. MUCH better gun platform. This plane feels like the flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.

P-38J - Very stable but the roll rate seems to have been lessened. Seems a little low. This plane too seems like it did in older patch releases. It was at it's best in 4.02/4.03.

Yak-3 - Not much seems to have changed in this plane since 4.03.

Bf-109G-10 - Very smooth. Excellent gun platform. Plane doesn't seem to have any vices. I don't fly this aircraft often so I don't have an opinion as to whether or not there's been a difference between the 4.03 and 4.04 releases of this plane.

...just my initial short takes on these planes.

GR142-Pipper

Hristo_
02-24-2006, 03:39 AM
Tried the Fw 190A-8, La-7 and Me 109G-14.

Fw 190A-8 - roll rate at 400+ kph seems slightly lower than before.

La-7 - roll rate seems faster than Fw 190A-8 at 500+ kph.

A thorough test would be very interesting.


Me 109G-14 - as a Fw virtual pilot, I find the Messerschmitt next to useless in classic Fw BnZ style. Its stiff elevator, followed by stiff ailerons, limits high speed passes. I find the plane good on the defensive, as well as specialized tactics like spiral climbs etc.

SeaFireLIV
02-24-2006, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Lucius_Esox
02-24-2006, 04:00 AM
I seem to be a better shot all of a sudden ??

FlatSpinMan
02-24-2006, 04:01 AM
Since patching up, the game won't start! Hopefully this is not a longterm thing.

hotspace
02-24-2006, 04:15 AM
Not that I'm moaning here, but the game went mental (wouldn't load, crashed etc...), so being a good girl that I am I reformatted and had a quick go last night and everything seems fine this time around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

OldMan____
02-24-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Tried the Fw 190A-8, La-7 and Me 109G-14.

Fw 190A-8 - roll rate at 400+ kph seems slightly lower than before.

La-7 - roll rate seems faster than Fw 190A-8 at 500+ kph.

A thorough test would be very interesting.


Me 109G-14 - as a Fw virtual pilot, I find the Messerschmitt next to useless in classic Fw BnZ style. Its stiff elevator, followed by stiff ailerons, limits high speed passes. I find the plane good on the defensive, as well as specialized tactics like spiral climbs etc.

make this, test roll rate at 390 IAS and at 410 IAS. Huge difference. IT seems the curve get steeper at 400 kph (or we now roll better at 390..). But may be only our imagination. We must make some true testing and measurements.

ImpStarDuece
02-24-2006, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been flying 3.04 recently, in an attempt to sort out my control issues. I've come to the conclusion that they were about 40% my joystick and 60% the mysterious 'wobble', which has plauged me since 4.02.

After flying both versions for about 2 hours each tonight 4.04 is a big step foward over 3.04. 3.04 has that familiar 'on rails' feel. Everything is smoothed out. The rudder stays centered no matter what direction you push the nose. Aiming is easy and all planes are remarkable stable. There is very little 'bounce' of the nose in any direction and tiny adjustments are very easy to make.

4.04, while not as twitchy or prone to oscillations as 4.01/2/3, has solved ALL of my wibble issues. And I mean ALL of them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif . While the 'on rails' sensation has been reintroduced a little, there is still a much better feeling of weight and momentum in all my manouvers over 3.04. Torque has been toned down (which is a problem for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif ) but the massive and lasting yaw and bouncing nose problems that made 4.02/3 so unplayable have disappeared. I can now use the rudder to track targets. The excessive vibration and significant nose 'kick' from firing have been reduced by about 85%.

Adverse yaw, P-factor, gyroscopic effect and other flight and aerodyanmic issues are still present, and vastly more noticable than in 3.04. The return of some stability to the flight model has meant that I can now play with the new planes and new maps, which is only a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Is it more realistic? I can't say. But my feeling was that many of the effects previously were overdone. Planes felt like they were swivel mounted, not flying through the air at speed. It almost felt like there was no consideration for the dampening effect of high speed airflow over an airframe. When Spitfire pilots talk about flying at 350mph and still being able to accurately fire one cannon when the other had jammed, its not a force to be underestimated.


For my mind, a controlable 4.04 is better than an uncontrolable 4.02/4.03, even if the flight model may be less realistic. Then again, it may be more so.

JG52Uther
02-24-2006, 04:40 AM
I agree SeaFire.I thought the FM in 403 was a little 'light',but for me now the planes dont feel as realistic.Maybe trying to fix the American planes has resulted in a 'dumbing down' of the FM.(just my personal feeling,as i never flew the American planes,and never had any wobbles)

Bearcat99
02-24-2006, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree. Although IMO 4.04 is a slight improvent on 4.03.. IMO the Mustang still accelerates a bit too slow and the 50s still lack the punch they should have.... althpugh both to me are better now than they have been, certainly better than in 4.02. I'm surprised you had no gripes about the reduced power on the Spit.

willyvic
02-24-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV I normally read your posts and nod my head in agreement. You present yourself in a mature, thoughtful manner.

That said, I have to disagree with you on this one with regards to the 51. I find it, since 4.03, improved. I stated after the 4.03 patch that acceleration felt a bit off and that the snap stall was still a bit to handle but all in all I think it has moved in the right direction. I have flown the 51D since it's inclusion and have seen the ups and downs of it. It is definetly on an up this go around.

Respectfully,
WV.

FlatSpinMan
02-24-2006, 05:32 AM
Got it working again. Went to copy the dll and relabel it but that ended up changing the file type (icon didn't have little gear picture on it is what tipped me off). Once I slotted the original back in it started up fine.
I'll see if I can do it right this time.

willyvic
02-24-2006, 05:36 AM
Glad to hear it Flat.

WV.

joeap
02-24-2006, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm you didn't read tony1960's long detailed thread that these "wobbles" or oscillations were exaggerated?? Have you ever flown a plane to know? Just asking because I don't feel they fly on rails now at all.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-24-2006, 06:04 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:

I'm surprised you had no gripes about the reduced power on the Spit.


If you take the laser-look from Superman, he's still Superman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

msalama
02-24-2006, 06:06 AM
Torque has been toned down (which is a problem for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif )

This might be plane-dependent or something... Well at least the Sturmo - which is, and will probably always be, my main ride in this sim - still needs full rudder deflection at takeoff! Just FYI...

msalama
02-24-2006, 06:07 AM
I don't feel they fly on rails now at all.

Me neither!

Breeze147
02-24-2006, 06:22 AM
What I know is this:

Last night I loaded up 4.04 and continued my El Alamein - American campaign (thanks Bird_Brain). Flying the p-40, I dove on a 4 ship JU-88 formation. Smoked an engine on one of them on first pass. Took out the left engine on another on second pass. Took out the right engine on the third pass. Still had ammo so I went back to the first one. Scored consistent hits, but did not bring it down. Sucessfully dodged 3 ME-109's that were holding a vulching party back at the strip until AAA brought down 2 of them and the other skedaddled with his tail between his legs. Landed on the taxiway because the main runway was fouled.

I honestly do not think I could have done any of this with the previous 4-series of patches. I would have been wobbling every which way on my passes because slight rudder corrections would have sent the nose oscillating uncontrollably. I would most definitely have stalled while playing cat and mouse at the strip. I would have lost control while attempting to land on the taxiway.

This is what I know.

jds1978
02-24-2006, 06:39 AM
i'll put it this way: 4.02 is now just a bad memory.

I was very impressed with 4.03. 4.04 has taken this sim over the top into a religious experience.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-24-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree. Although IMO 4.04 is a slight improvent on 4.03.. IMO the Mustang still accelerates a bit too slow and the 50s still lack the punch they should have.... althpugh both to me are better now than they have been, certainly better than in 4.02. I'm surprised you had no gripes about the reduced power on the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have no idea about the P51 as i don`t fly it much, but I wasn`t complaing about particular aircraft, but the general turbulence or `wobble`. I thought the swaying was more real as it impressed upon me the fact that there`s turbulence up there, with different layers of air and wind which your aircraft`s having to get through. That feeling is now gone for me. As to how realistic it is I have no idea...

But if I go to the top of a high building, even though it`s calm on the ground, it`s windy at the top, scarily so. this simple experience tells me that flying a WWII aircraft can`t be always smooth-sailing as things get windier often the higher you go.


As for the Spit, I notice many things, but it takes me a long while of checking and testing and comparing to authentic books before I say anything. i`m no aeronautical engineer and I like to be sure before complaining on a particular, especially if I could be unconscously bias, being a Spitfire fan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

widgeon
02-24-2006, 06:52 AM
I think everything is too fast or too slow, far too stable and twitchy. Most guns are to loud, cant destory enough, and are too strong.

The flight model is perfect, yet the flight model is not quite right.

So on and so forth..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Widgeon

msalama
02-24-2006, 07:06 AM
So on and so forth..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah, we're a rowdy bunch, aren't we?

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by widgeon:
I think everything is too fast or too slow, far too stable and twitchy. Most guns are to loud, cant destory enough, and are too strong.

The flight model is perfect, yet the flight model is not quite right.

So on and so forth..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Cue Goldilocks... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Bearcat99
02-24-2006, 07:35 AM
One of the things I love most about this sim is.. regardless to whether or not you are pleased with any FM... all the planes are worth flying. If you ant a "new" sim... just pick an unfamiliar plane and BAM there it is.... The interesting thing about the 51 is... even though it doesnt feel right I have noticed that if I fly it a certain way.... long extensions... no hard turns.... slashing attacks... that I do better with it now than before.. even though it seems to be slow still....

Breeze147
02-24-2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree. Although IMO 4.04 is a slight improvent on 4.03.. IMO the Mustang still accelerates a bit too slow and the 50s still lack the punch they should have.... althpugh both to me are better now than they have been, certainly better than in 4.02. I'm surprised you had no gripes about the reduced power on the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have no idea about the P51 as i don`t fly it much, but I wasn`t complaing about particular aircraft, but the general turbulence or `wobble`. I thought the swaying was more real as it impressed upon me the fact that there`s turbulence up there, with different layers of air and wind which your aircraft`s having to get through. That feeling is now gone for me. As to how realistic it is I have no idea...

But if I go to the top of a high building, even though it`s calm on the ground, it`s windy at the top, scarily so. this simple experience tells me that flying a WWII aircraft can`t be always smooth-sailing as things get windier often the higher you go.


As for the Spit, I notice many things, but it takes me a long while of checking and testing and comparing to authentic books before I say anything. i`m no aeronautical engineer and I like to be sure before complaining on a particular, especially if I could be unconscously bias, being a Spitfire fan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turbulence, yes. Inability to control the nose after the slightest rudder adjustment and/or firing guns, no. The 4.04 way is much better.

Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it.

arjisme
02-24-2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:As to how realistic it is I have no idea... I think that is probably the most significant comment most people can make about this (or any other) patch and the FM.

For me, I definately do not think the planes feel like they are on rails. Compared to 4.02/3, you might say that, but in fact they still do have a bit of wobble, especially at low speeds. But the wobble is not as severe as before and seems to quickly dampen.

Based on the many comments I have seen in this board and over at SimHQ (particularly from actual pilots), I think 4.04 had moved toward a more realistic FM.

MLudner
02-24-2006, 08:14 AM
I have not had time yet to install the new patch and test fly in it. However, I note they did not list a fix for for the compass bug in the MC 205. Did they fix that and just forget to list it, does anyone know?

FlatSpinMan
02-24-2006, 08:16 AM
I like it. Don't notice much difference but then again, I rarely do (except for 3.04 to 4.01)In the great new BOB campaign, "Hurricane Season", I'm using a lot of rudder on take-off to keep more or less straight. Seems like before, maybe less shuddering whenI fire the guns.

huggy87
02-24-2006, 08:23 AM
Horseback was right about the rudder inputs in 4.03 being unmanageable. Especially if you have a twisty stick like my MSFFB2. Shooting is definetly much easier now.

msalama
02-24-2006, 09:11 AM
Yeah, well, I'm one of those *THINKING* that things're more realistic now, too... and yeah, insert all usual disclaimers as you see fit, namely: the poster is a clueless asshat, etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, but seriously. There's been some griping from actual RL pilots of FMs having too much unstability, and I tend to agree, now that I've thought of the bleeder a bit meself... But I'm nevertheless pretty certain that it isn't the FMs _per_se_, and here's why:

0) Something got tweaked, that much is certain.
1) Some say no wobbles, big bubbles.
2) Some say big wobbles, no bubbles.
3) All say they're flying v.4.04 now.

Conclusion: If all of the abovementioned is true, then the culprit HAS GOT to be something else than Oleg's much-maligned flight modelling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And if so, then what can it be? Well, the input handler and its parameters, of course...

Opinions?

blairgowrie
02-24-2006, 09:20 AM
I thought the Mossie was less inclined to stall in 4.04m but I am just guessing. Anyone else notice?

Treetop64
02-24-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it.

Key point there.

badaboom.1
02-24-2006, 09:28 AM
Call me crazy but........I think the elevator trim input is more controlable{if that makes sence} atleast in the Wildcat.

JG7_Rall
02-24-2006, 09:32 AM
Do you think there's a chance of the big man himself coming in here and telling us exactly what was changed and why? Not that I'm objecting to any of it, I just really dont feel much of a difference (which for me isn't a bad thing) and I dont like speculating about what has or hasn't been changed in the sim.

jeroen_R90S
02-24-2006, 09:46 AM
I find it more FUN than anything >3.04 and <4.03. That is what counts most for me!

Jeroen

Chuck_Older
02-24-2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Do you think there's a chance of the big man himself coming in here and telling us exactly what was changed and why?

No I don't.

msalama
02-24-2006, 10:35 AM
Do you think there's a chance of the big man himself coming in here and telling us exactly what was changed and why?

Not likely, given their policy of keeping the lid on everything at all times. But...


Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it.

...this is a distinct possibility nevertheless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

danjama
02-24-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by jds1978:
i'll put it this way: 4.02 is now just a bad memory.

I was very impressed with 4.03. 4.04 has taken this sim over the top into a religious experience.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
02-24-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it. You're right. Which begs the question, "Where's the 'beta' team?". It's clear there really isn't one. No matter. 4.04 is an improvement. 'Still waiting for the 50's punch to be improved. Overall though, not bad.

GR142-Pipper

crazyivan1970
02-24-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it. You're right. Which begs the question, "Where's the 'beta' team?". It's clear there really isn't one. No matter. 4.04 is an improvement. 'Still waiting for the 50's punch to be improved. Overall though, not bad.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it amusing when people make loud statements. Just be thankful that it was released so quickly and dont make assumptions on something you dont really know. As far as beta testers go.. you have no right to judge, understand?

WWSensei
02-24-2006, 11:09 AM
Personally, FM wise, I'm seeing little to no difference. In the F4U-1A the number, intensity and amplitude of oscilations is exactly the same as in 4.03. Ditto for the P-40E and M. So far, those are the only one tested.

Either I wasn't experiencing the same level of "wobbles" as others in 4.03, but so far I'm noticing zero difference.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails
My view is quite different, no 'on rails' at all as I see it. I was just explaining how's the feel I'm getting here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1191058514/r/3781012614#3781012614), in Kuna's thread about no more wobbles.

For the sake of simplicity (and less typing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), please allow me to to quote myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Meanwhile...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Definitely, something's changed... for the better.
At least the P-51, in my system, feels and flies better, less oscillations, but it isn't rigid either. More stable when shooting too.
And the day after...

It certainly feels good to me, and it's not 'on rails' either. If I try to correct the aim in the middle of a manoeuvre, I'll still have to struggle with the nose wanting to wander around, but that's in a way that appears to me as more 'proportionate' (for lack of a better word) than in 4.03.

With 4.03 I didn't have any uncontrollable or chaotic or erratic (as in unpredictable) nose-wandering ('wobbles'), but it took too much 'wrestling the stick' (I don't have pedals -yet-) to keep it under control. It was too twitchy.

Now with 4.04, I don't feel the need to wrestle the stick AND the way the plane reacts is also predictable when I am hamfisting the stick, or just manoeuvring hard. Predictable means, for me, that the gyro, P-factor, torque, etc., forces are there and are pushing, so no 'on rails' for me, but they push in a way that makes quite some sense to my aeronautically-uneducated mind, in a more proportionated way as I said.

This is only the next day, and having flown only the P-51D (and the P-47D for a short spin). BTW, I have a better (TM) feeling now, too, of the relative weights and sizes of both (P51 and P47), but it's too shortly after anyway.

So, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif from me (for what it may be worth)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cheers,
S.

SeaFireLIV
02-24-2006, 12:13 PM
Well, perhaps 4.04 is more realistic, i don`t know. I just don`t get these multpile changes, you settle into a supposedly new BOB FM, then it`s not over 3 main Patches and now we`re back to pre-4.01 almost. It almost feels to me like the Patch is made by whoever complains the most here, not by the dev crew aeronautical science science.

why do i get the feeling that in 10 years when oleg`s being interviewed on TV for mega-amazing air simulations that even the military uses he`ll think back ans say,

"I remember when I was make PF 4.04 update with new more real BOB fms, but the user-player could not take new real effects, so I had to change it back arcade. Everyone happy, but no real, be sure!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-24-2006, 12:15 PM
That should be Pf 4.02! Stupid forum never lets me edit mistakes. I hate it! Bwaaaah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

HayateAce
02-24-2006, 01:05 PM
No edit?

Maybe you should just delete both these posts.

papotex
02-24-2006, 02:27 PM
the wobbles were not realistic. as it was more a rudder exaturated input rather than air turbulence. as far as i can tell 4.04 is what this sim should have been from the begining, since we changed from the original IL2 to Forgotten battles.

BTW may the good ol IL2 rest in peace

BM357_Sniper
02-24-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Seafire, I'm not quite sure why you think a plane should wobble around and be unstable. I saw that you posted an example about standing on top of a tall building in the wind. While I understand what you're trying to say, its not correct. The unstable yawing of aircraft that was present in the previous two patches was as unrealistic as the flying on rails patch prior to what we have now. So far, this one seems to be the closest. I'm not making my opinion from what I've read or what I think without experience. On the contrary, I've been flying real aircraft for 16 years. Although not all planes fly or handle the same, they sure as heck aren't as unstalbe as 4.02 and 4.03 had them. S!

GR142-Pipper
02-24-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it. You're right. Which begs the question, "Where's the 'beta' team?". It's clear there really isn't one. No matter. 4.04 is an improvement. 'Still waiting for the 50's punch to be improved. Overall though, not bad.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it amusing when people make loud statements. Just be thankful that it was released so quickly and dont make assumptions on something you dont really know. As far as beta testers go.. you have no right to judge, understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's you understand something, mod. I'll judge what I please, when I please and with whom I please. If you have a problem with that...

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:WyFGEz2CHdc-ZM:images.wcities.com/www.wcities.com/cityrecords/86999.jpg

BM357_Sniper
02-24-2006, 03:38 PM
I wonder as well, why do they go from one extreme to the other then in the middle? I would personally have it realistic vs arcade. I do hope that they don't make changes to the unrealistic side of things only to please the masses. From what I can tell though, people want realism and from there we will adjust.

crazyivan1970
02-24-2006, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Let's you understand something, mod. I'll judge what I please, when I please and with whom I please. If you have a problem with that...

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:WyFGEz2CHdc-ZM:images.wcities.com/www.wcities.com/cityrecords/86999.jpg

Wow, tough guy. Allrighty.

Burnzoire1
02-24-2006, 03:42 PM
seafire what you said about turbulence is exactly what I thought was WRONG about 4.03.

When the weather is set to poor, or anything other than clear, I'd expect to get some turbulence at certain levels. It makes it very hard to aim, but you actually 'feel' the turbulence and can understand why your nose wobbles.

In 4.03, with CLEAR weather, we'd get as much wobbling as if we were in turbulent air, only the wobbling doesn't feel at al llike turbulence and is very unpredictable. It wasn't turbulence at all, it was just an over zeoulous flight model that seriously needed to be toned down.

Flying light aircraft in wind results in this sideways wobble, but they are LIGHT aircraft and this is when going through turbulence or in wind... we're flying heavy WWII aircraft in 'clear' weather (read: no weather)... it should fly reasonably smoothly when trimmed out.

With the new patch I completely ripped up ground units in the mustang with the 50's thanks to steady aim - 600 points from ground targets plus 1 bandit for a single co-op and returned home with a smile on my face. I can finally strafe and turn to attack again wihtout shaking all my energy off.

I LOVE 4.04 now. if you flew more planes you'd be more qualified to evaluate the new FM.

BM357_Sniper
02-24-2006, 03:45 PM
I have a question that I hope isn't too OT concerning in game joystick parameters. I've NEVER messed with them and they are still at default. It seems fine to me, however, if there are any opinions on it I wouldn't mind a PM from someone on a change or two. Using MSFB 2 S!

crazyivan1970
02-24-2006, 03:49 PM
I`ll send you mine when i get home Sniper.

MB_Avro_UK
02-24-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Let's face something, did you ever see a patch come out so fast? And unannounced? The powers that be knew it was broke and they promptly fixed it. You're right. Which begs the question, "Where's the 'beta' team?". It's clear there really isn't one. No matter. 4.04 is an improvement. 'Still waiting for the 50's punch to be improved. Overall though, not bad.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it amusing when people make loud statements. Just be thankful that it was released so quickly and dont make assumptions on something you dont really know. As far as beta testers go.. you have no right to judge, understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good reply Ivan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

thefarb2
02-24-2006, 04:06 PM
hated 4.02, love 4.03 - 4.04. am happy to leave it just as it is and wait for bob. has anyone flown the A20 since 4.04? very nice. like a cadilac, which is what I think that plane was like.

Willey
02-24-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


...flight model has been rolled back several patches...a good thing.


GR142-Pipper

This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My feelings. Also, I have the impression that the "wobbles" were fixed by stiffening the rudder. It had much more authority at higher speeds in 4.01-4.03. It's like in concrete now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Loki-PF
02-24-2006, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is my impression too. While many regard me as a fanboy, I do not consider this good. With 4.02 (and less with 4.03) I think we had a taste of reality - a reality some found too much.

4.04 has gone back to planes flying on rails, untroubled by layers of air around us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

SeaFireLiv

I think your memory might be playing tricks on you old chap.

I still have 3.03 installed as a seperate install and I *assure* you they are *nothing* alike.

Load it up and try it out yourself. You'll see what I mean.



.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
It seems fine to me, however, if there are any opinions on it I wouldn't mind a PM from someone on a change or two.

Sniper,
Have a look at FoolTrottel's IL-2 Sticks tool (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087). It's great to try different profiles, you can store them and easily edit them and switch from one to another. It comes with a few ready-made profiles, including O.Maddox's, CrazyIvan's (I'm sure not the very same he's using right now, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) and Eric Brown's.

Cheers,
S.

Rjel
02-24-2006, 05:04 PM
I've only had a couple of hours to fly the P-51D and the Mosquito. I don't think I'm flying on rails by any means. My plane seems steadier to be sure. But if I'm flying a Mustang with full tanks and I pull back on the stick too hard, I go a$$ over teacup in a hurry. As long as I make less abrupt movements I think it flies like I've read about. I still would like to see a little more top end, speed wise, in both the Mustang and the Mosquito but I like this patch so far.

SeaFireLIV
02-24-2006, 05:12 PM
Ok, guys, i`ll live with 4.04, it`s been a long time since 3.03 anyway. besides, now i get more kills.


And, HayateAce, thnx for the bonecrackingly witty remark, really, you totally pwned me with that one. I doubt I`ll ever bother visting the forums after that back-hander! In fact i`ve just cancelled my registration with UBI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

msalama
02-24-2006, 05:45 PM
[DELETED] No need to get overtly impolite here...

Bearcat99
02-24-2006, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
I've only had a couple of hours to fly the P-51D and the Mosquito. I don't think I'm flying on rails by any means. My plane seems steadier to be sure. But if I'm flying a Mustang with full tanks and I pull back on the stick too hard, I go a$$ over teacup in a hurry. As long as I make less abrupt movements I think it flies like I've read about. I still would like to see a little more top end, speed wise, in both the Mustang and the Mosquito but I like this patch so far.

My sentiments exactly..... and as far as the Mustang goes... from what I read and what I have been told from veterans who flew it in combat... it was like that, twitchy I mean. I hope we have Full CEM in BoB.. from switchable fuel tanks to all switches and levers that move.. not neccessarily with a mouse click.. but if you assign a control to them they move.

msalama
02-24-2006, 05:59 PM
I hope we have Full CEM in BoB.. from switchable fuel tanks to all switches and levers that move.. not neccessarily with a mouse click.. but if you assign a control to them they move.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Let's take it to the extreme if at all possible, or as far as it can be taken.

But that would, of course, mean a bit more as regards our abilities and our will to learn, too... no more a**eing around when taking off and that... no more air quake... no more just "gaming" if you know what I mean... yep, verily, more TRAINING for the AC type, and that type only, that we want to master...

Would just love it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Or, in other words, more realism, within the limits. All for it, myself.

faustnik
02-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:


why do i get the feeling that in 10 years when oleg`s being interviewed on TV for mega-amazing air simulations that even the military uses he`ll think back ans say,

"I remember when I was make PF 4.04 update with new more real BOB fms, but the user-player could not take new real effects, so I had to change it back arcade. Everyone happy, but no real, be sure!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Great post SeaFire!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The clowns like 4.04, so, it must be better, right? After all, wasn't WWII flying just seeing who could turn in little circles the fastest with full deflection? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

4.01 introduced an FM that really felt "alive", too bad it's getting whined away.

msalama
02-24-2006, 06:15 PM
...too bad it's getting whined away.

.. or too bad you're getting carried away with what YOU think is correct, be it in any way realistic or not...

Well, I don't know either. But there we are then, aren't we?

faustnik
02-24-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...too bad it's getting whined away.

.. or too bad you're getting carried away with what YOU think is correct, be it in any way realistic or not...

Well, I don't know either. But there we are then, aren't we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The clowns like 4.04, so, it must be better, right? I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here, Faustnik, do you mean to imply that liking 4.04 is clownish? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Or is there an irony that I may be missing?

Cheers,
S.

faustnik
02-24-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
The clowns like 4.04, so, it must be better, right? I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here, Faustnik, do you mean to imply that liking 4.04 is clownish? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Or is there an irony that I may be missing?

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no, I was just referring to particular clowns.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Oh no, I was just referring to particular clowns. I feel relieved (I'm assuming here) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

My memory of 4.01 starts to dissipate, but I remember that 4.02 introduced additional enhancements that I wouldn't like to loose... and introduced a twitchiness too, that I'm quite happy to find toned down now in 4.04.

If I remember correctly, the sequence of novelties would be something like:
4.01 --> torque + inertia improved and becoming important factors. Good feel.
4.02 --> gyroscopic, P-factor, ground effect, aerodynamic focus and a few other goodies. Twitchiness.
4.03 --> retouching 4.02, nothing really new. Twitchiness.
4.04 --> retouching 4.03, maybe something new but we don't know what it is yet. Untwitchiness, but not 'on rails' either.

How would you all see this?

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: I'd add to that 'Good feel' again in 4.04, for me.

faustnik
02-24-2006, 06:35 PM
I liked 4.01 the best, if we're voting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 06:36 PM
No, I didn't mean like voting, rather just recalling how the more complex factors have been added progressively. Just the sequence.

*Edit* OK, I'm not as completely terse as that. I have a point here, and the point is that several goodies (gyroscope, P-factor, etc, are 'good' to me) only came in after 4.01. And that's what I wouldnt like to loose... Not sure if I'm making myself clear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Cheers,
S.

msalama
02-24-2006, 06:39 PM
How would you all see this?

Hmmm... seconded, for the most part, i.e. not a bad quick & dirty analyzis that there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Hmmm... seconded, for the most part, i.e. not a bad quick & dirty analyzis that there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Certainly quick, and dirty is probably an understatement, but hey.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S.

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
And, HayateAce, thnx for the bonecrackingly witty remark, really, you totally pwned me with that one. I doubt I`ll ever bother visting the forums after that back-hander! In fact i`ve just cancelled my registration with UBI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
He's really good isn't he? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'm right with you Faustnik. I started a thread on precisely that: How do we know? Even the pilots here are speaking mostly about aircraft that often bear little resemblance to the originals. More significantly though, why would half the people not experience 'wobbles' as such while it was unplayable for the others? For me, the tip is in the 4.03 readme, the part about joystick routines. It tells me that, for whatever reason, what was intended to be a realistic portrayal of dynamic instability was being overemphasized on some people's rigs and resulted in all the hooplah. I just hope Oleg found a way to fix it instead of disabling the feature. Realistic or not, I quite enjoyed the sensation I got while piloting my little slice of virtual pixels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

willyvic
02-24-2006, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
And, HayateAce, thnx for the bonecrackingly witty remark, really, you totally pwned me with that one. I doubt I`ll ever bother visting the forums after that back-hander! In fact i`ve just cancelled my registration with UBI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
He's really good isn't he? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'm right with you Faustnik. I started a thread on precisely that: How do we know? Even the pilots here are speaking mostly about aircraft that often bear little resemblance to the originals. More significantly though, why would half the people not experience 'wobbles' as such while it was unplayable for the others? For me, the tip is in the 4.03 readme, the part about joystick routines. It tells me that, for whatever reason, what was intended to be a realistic portrayal of dynamic instability was being overemphasized on some people's rigs and resulted in all the hooplah. I just hope Oleg found a way to fix it instead of disabling the feature. Realistic or not, I quite enjoyed the sensation I got while piloting my little slice of virtual pixels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe anything has been disabled. Rest assured if you gun the engine you'll get torque. If you stir the controls in flight, you'll get a gyroscopic reaction. If your hands shake when you get the foe in your sight, your nose will wander. If you ham fist the controls in a turn, you'll take a dirt nap. Etc....

You and SeaFireLIV have been around a while. Some of us take your opinions as honest dialogue. Give the patch a go for some time and we'll all meet back here in a month or so to trade experiences. Deal?

WV.

danjama
02-24-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...too bad it's getting whined away.

.. or too bad you're getting carried away with what YOU think is correct, be it in any way realistic or not...

Well, I don't know either. But there we are then, aren't we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i love a happy ending

gkll
02-24-2006, 11:45 PM
Well if we're all just posting random first impressions I'll post mine...

I read the posts <after> flying for a few 1v1. One post that caught my eye said the rudder was now in concrete. I'll second that, I had that distinct impression, independently.

Secondly, 403 felt more agile... somehow the new FM is more sluggish and strangely harder to fly out to the edge of flight envelope. I need to reload to 403 and try back to back, I bet I can get a better turn time with 403 in my 25ib spit, new fm is less lively on the feedback I would say...

Centering the ball while climbing shows the plane to be slower to respond. It could be the FM is difficult to tune, and they hacked the rudder into sluggsville to get things stabilized?

Still all in all who knows? Seems pretty nice, much better than 304 eg, as someone else posted. We are still moving ahead, or trying to.... lot of wobble talk, obviously something there....

I've been following this game and these forums on and off for years.... Oleg has always responded in some way to forum feedback. Things have changed to suit taste, but I also see a committment to good physics and sound and realistic modelling. This is key and a bit of tuning here and there is OK against that backdrop. Still I did like the agile 403, somehow it suited my style.

BfHeFwMe
02-25-2006, 12:34 AM
As far as wind equating into turbulance, seafire is dead wrong. Wind effects on flight are only a factor in takeoff and landing, an airborne object has zilch for difference in operating regardless of winds velocity or direction when aloft. The only thing that matters or affects you is ground drift for navigation and fuel burn. These are human planning issues, not systems problems.

If you were flying an old Cub with no doors on, it doesn't get one bit windier aloft through that door, you still fly your same 110 knots, you simply get there a little bit later is all. Ground speed is slower, tail winds are opposite with faster. Your airspeed and lift don't change one whit, they're based solely on engine settings not wind. Without nav instruments aloft, you couldn't even guess which way the wind was blowing or how fast. Why do you think they only put windsocks on airports? The only place a pilot needs to know.

Far as turbulance, one cause is updrafts, mainly by tempurature thermals near the ground. Good example is green fields against black plowed fields, you fly low over those on a hot summer day and your going to get some wing flexing time till you puke.

Also caused by downdrafts like windshear, which is often fatal because it's hard to detect until to late and your in one for the ride.

The high altitude turbulance is caused mainly by jetstream activity, where you have a shear where the wind suddenly switched 200mph or even greater.

Than the most classic and commonly experianced, heavy weather cloud formations. These aren't due to wind, but change in air density with sudden moisture changes affecting wing lift and drag.

But normal clear air bouncing and wobbling? No way. Please don't mislead people by your "feeling" of what you imagine turbulance to be.

It pretty well does thermals on the summer maps in humid weather at low altitude. Be rare for the warbirds of that era to be hitting jetstreams, and cloud density turbulance is already there.

Unknown-Pilot
02-25-2006, 12:36 AM
The short take?

The Do-335 got nerfed (slowed way down, acceleration hampered, and turn capability shot to pieces. It was basically matching all reports and data for the A0 in 4.03, but, as can be expected of things like this...... Oh and they didn't change the gear lights either, like was claimed in the readme)

The P-47D (late) seems to have been boosted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif (Finally seeing a difference over the D-27, and closer to the M-type, low level performance we were promised)

The Temptest ROCKS! I really liked it before, despite the kvetching about it, but now.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Speed, acceleration, climb, and it still turns very well for such a big plane. (even Oleg86 and Arm_Slinger should be able to make use of it now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

The Ta-152 still sucks eggs. "The ultimate evolution of the 190" it is not. From 5Km on down it's a dog. Slow roll, slow speed, and can't turn with a P-51D. The only thing it's got going for it is turn and big guns (that are a pain to use anyway). Screw the 152 (as it stands, and always stood, in this sim), give me the Dora (either one) any day. Now *that* is a serious 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

That's about it so far.

Never had twitchyness, never had wobbles. My OS was a shambles through 4.02 and most of 4.03. But it was always fine for me. And still is.

Although I can say that it does have a loose, inertial feel, especially in yaw, at low speed, and stiffens up to a weathervane effect and higher speeds - at least in the F4F-4, where I happened to notice it. Always flying too fast in anything else. lol

I'll also bet money that the ASI in the Go-229 and Me-262 haven't been fixed yet either (and they never will be, I'm sure).

Decent patch overall, the Tempest improvements are the coolest part (second to the Mosquito bug fix). Beyond that, 4.03 was better. But as we are all lemmings and can't do without the absolute latest, I'm stuck with 4.04. lol (in fairness, the Mosquito bug was too much to live with, even though I don't fly it, so it's not *exactly* being "stuck" with 4.04.... )

airdale1960
02-25-2006, 12:58 AM
v4.04-1 H81 against 2 zeros.
Found myself having to hit and run, distance myself because they were climbing faster than my crate. I was making speed passes, and diving away. After I got one, the other pounced on me and I dove for my life and ran. Feels, very realistic.

Jetbuff
02-25-2006, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
I don't believe anything has been disabled.
I hope so.

Rest assured if you gun the engine you'll get torque.
Yep, torque is still there.
[quot]If you stir the controls in flight, you'll get a gyroscopic reaction. If your hands shake when you get the foe in your sight, your nose will wander. If you ham fist the controls in a turn, you'll take a dirt nap. Etc....[/quote]
This is the part I'm missing at the moment, but it could be my new rudder pedals too, or just all in my head.

You and SeaFireLIV have been around a while. Some of us take your opinions as honest dialogue. Give the patch a go for some time and we'll all meet back here in a month or so to trade experiences. Deal?
Well, thanks for noticing our tenure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif However, I hope that my opinion is always subjected to the proper scrutiny regardless. Just because I've flown IL-2 since the demo means diddly-squat in terms of lending weight to my arguments. I've been wrong before. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'll take your advice and give it another whirl before I make up my mind. Cheers...

SeaFireLIV
02-25-2006, 05:17 AM
Sure. Me too.

OldMan____
02-25-2006, 06:12 AM
I personally think FM now is more believable. It feels like a ton of glue was removed from the controls connections. Input goes more linearly and predictably. My problems with anotn completely loosing control when rolling and reverse are quite reduced for example.

It ismore pleasant to fly and better than taht.. US plane are back on DF rooms !!!

carguy_
02-25-2006, 06:37 AM
Yeah,US planes back in DF rooms.The change is fantastic.People finally can fly WWII warbirds.

Believe what you want to believe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

OldMan____
02-25-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Yeah,US planes back in DF rooms.The change is fantastic.People finally can fly WWII warbirds.

Believe what you want to believe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I really beleive chanes are MUCh smaller than most beleive, But they were enough to bring back the best days of online flying.

MLudner
02-25-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
As far as wind equating into turbulance, seafire is dead wrong. Wind effects on flight are only a factor in takeoff and landing, an airborne object has zilch for difference in operating regardless of winds velocity or direction when aloft. The only thing that matters or affects you is ground drift for navigation and fuel burn. These are human planning issues, not systems problems.

If you were flying an old Cub with no doors on, it doesn't get one bit windier aloft through that door, you still fly your same 110 knots, you simply get there a little bit later is all. Ground speed is slower, tail winds are opposite with faster. Your airspeed and lift don't change one whit, they're based solely on engine settings not wind. Without nav instruments aloft, you couldn't even guess which way the wind was blowing or how fast. Why do you think they only put windsocks on airports? The only place a pilot needs to know.

Far as turbulance, one cause is updrafts, mainly by tempurature thermals near the ground. Good example is green fields against black plowed fields, you fly low over those on a hot summer day and your going to get some wing flexing time till you puke.

Also caused by downdrafts like windshear, which is often fatal because it's hard to detect until to late and your in one for the ride.

The high altitude turbulance is caused mainly by jetstream activity, where you have a shear where the wind suddenly switched 200mph or even greater.

Than the most classic and commonly experianced, heavy weather cloud formations. These aren't due to wind, but change in air density with sudden moisture changes affecting wing lift and drag.

But normal clear air bouncing and wobbling? No way. Please don't mislead people by your "feeling" of what you imagine turbulance to be.

It pretty well does thermals on the summer maps in humid weather at low altitude. Be rare for the warbirds of that era to be hitting jetstreams, and cloud density turbulance is already there.

I experienced winds pushing my aircraft when I was in flight school flying an R-22 (A light helicopter). You had to particularly watch it during hover maneuvers while doing pedal turns, because as you pivoted the aircraft around the wind would catch you and spin the aircraft very suddenly. You had to be cognizant of which direction the wind was blowing so that as you came around into it you would reduce your pedal input in the wind direction as you went from pushing into the wind to going with the wind. Even up in the air I had to use pedals the keep myself on heading or the wind would cause me to drift.

MLudner
02-25-2006, 09:22 AM
And thanks for all the quick help, guys. The answer was:

Yes, they corrected the compass bug in the MC 205's but had not listed the correction.

heywooood
02-25-2006, 09:41 AM
4.04m is a nice correction. The planes in question no longer feel like they are hanging from a string.

Torque effect is still there, rudder authority is still solid, trim is still needed with power adjustments and turbulence near the ground is still present if turbulence at altitude near cloud masses isn't (and never was) but thats ok.

More acceleration would be a plus for the P51 but I'm not complaining....really...I'm not.