“a discussion” doesn’t start with “opinion” and insults, it starts with facts and question.
Not once, despite the multiple times I’ve prompted you to, have you refuted or even referenced the facts I presented to counter yours. Why is that? That’s what a discussion is based on, not just shouting your opinion and ignoring evidence and facts you don’t like because they’re counter to your opinion.
Your whole approach could well be seen as deliberate trolling or gaslighting, rather than an effort to invoke any serious discussion of what the aircraft model was built with reference to, or how the sounds were recorded and mixed.
I’m not insulting anyone, if an airplane is badly modeled like this Flying Iron BF109, no personal attack to anyone, just some critics to a payware simulated airplane. “Arcade” is not an insult but an observation. Anyway I posted very good hires video previously showing some of the numerous problems are affecting this BF 109, hoping that the developer will see and will give us a less arcade airplane.
Not once, despite the multiple times I’ve prompted you to, have you refuted or even referenced the facts I presented to counter yours. Why is that? That’s what a discussion is based on, not just shouting your opinion and ignoring evidence and facts you don’t like because they’re counter to your opinion.
"In February 1944 alone over one thousand Luftwaffe aircraft were lost in accidents, a good proportion of which were due to inadequate training (quoted in Isby ‘The decisive duel’ P361). As Bob Goebel points out, all fighter pilots - certainly all US P-51 pilots - could probably fly well. However only relatively few could shoot well. The Luftwaffe Nachwuchs at the controls of their high-powered and heavily armed Bf 109s could do neither. They didn’t stand a chance. "
I bet those Luftwaffe Nachwuchs would have killed for an arcade plane.
As far as im concerned its a great plane recreated in a great model. Looks great, flies great, dogfights Spitfires great.
But i duno if im the “wierd” guy in the room when i spend my time looking out the cockpit rather than measuring oleos
Here other photos to compare the real plane and the simulated one, the oil cooler intake has wrong size and you can see a sort of strut there, completely absent in the original plane. The exhaust pipes appear too large, here you have a better view of the wrong gear leg, no real Me109 has so long and thin legs. Also, the turbo air intake looks wrong.
Here you can see a too small sized pilot and sitting too high in the cockpit, the gun “bumps” on the engine cowl recall the G14 model shape, but we have a supposed G6 here. The writing under the exhaust pipes appears to be too small. On the gear legs again, if we have so wrong legs in the real plane, it would be uncontrollable in take off and landing. I like the original gear legs, please model it in the right way!
Well, this is quite a bizarre discussion. I can’t contribute fully because I don’t yet own the 109 (the fact that it’s an airplane that wants to kill me built by a regime that wanted to kill me is proving to be a bit of a barrier to entry, though I’m still open to the possibility). But I am, among other things, a photographer, and as such, I’ll say that I’d never accept any of these videos or still photos as evidence of inaccurate modeling. There are far too many variables - lens (not just the focal length but the specific lens because different models distort differently), vantage point, lighting - to make it possible to draw any conclusions. The only way to do that would be to compare schematics with the 3D model and measure. If @Claudius2114 is able to make his case on that basis, I’m sure the developers at Flying Iron would listen - they’re extraordinary about revising and refining their products through multiple rounds, The latest Spitfire update is a case in point - the Spit has evolved dramatically from its release version. To get a hearing, it’d help to be careful about tone. That’s a bit of advice from one of my other lives, as a public relations person…
I’m puzzled by the use of “arcadey” as a criticism - I’d normally associate that with an airplane that’s overly simplified and “on rails,” not a viciously unforgiving airplane like the 109 seems to be, judging by reports.
A constructive conversation must certainly be possible… though we don’t seem to be there yet…
I was a photographer and an aeronautical designer, I know the limits of the videos and photos, and my above images speak clearly because the lens distortions and aberrations are completely out of question. Regarding the word “arcade” it isn’t an insult, but the right word to define (in my opinion), a simulated airplane with design and flight model problems.
Yes, there were a lot of take off and landing accidents in the Me109, but it was the same for the P51, just to name one another famous WW2 fighter, but the simulated Me109 has a very irrational behavior if you compare it with the real cockpit videos and pilot reports.
Nonetheless the FI Me109 has a good potential because the developer is trying to recreate systems and physics, but please those gear legs are completely out of grace.
Well, if you can say that, then you have a very different viewpoint about photography and accuracy than I do.
Can you share your aeronautical design credentials and tell us technically what it is that makes distortions and aberrations completely out of question? Not asking that to be snarky - it’d be genuinely helpful to know as much as possible what bases we’re using for our arguments.
I don’t need to show any credential in this case because what makes a bad modeled curve or in general a bad design as is shown in the FI BF109 is not depending by the lens aberrations. Simple and clean. But while you and others here are asking me to prove what I’m saying, it’s sad to see that you guys are just upset about my opinions without proving any good reason to see that the Fi BF 109 has a good design and a “real” flight model. So the discussion is ended from my side.
My opinion: yes there are minute differences … first and foremost in the livery but also in the tires and and in the shape of the oil cooler. But as long as we don’t compare the EXACT same aircraft in real life and in the sim, the discussion is moot. Aircraft in WW2 were in a constant flux with new technology and designs being applied on a weekly basis. One batch of aircraft in WW2 was never the same as the one before. So yeah, there are bound to be differences between aircraft, even within the same model. They are not enough, however, to call this “amateurish”.
I’m not sure you understand the definition of “opinion”. You can’t give an “opinion” on something that can be objectively proven fact. I can’t, for example, tell you that the grass outside my house is orange, and you can’t argue with me, because that’s my “opinion”. You can’t hide behind that. You’ve stated something as fact, and as YOU are the one making said claims, it is on YOU to prove them. You can not do so with different model variations, and different camera angles, focal lengths, etc. Like @AlanA4643, I was a photographer for a long time as well, and I agree with his statements earlier. Different angles, focal lengths, lighting conditions, etc, will greatly affect your perspective. This is why professional 3D modelers, like FlyingIron Simulations, don’t model their projects off of the first photograph that comes up in a Google Image search.
So many of these planes have been modified, restored, updated, & changed since they were in operation. At a start, you need to know exactly which plane they modeled theirs after before you can start criticizing whether or not something is an inch too high here or an inch or two forward there.
You’re also being quite disingenuous concerning your “arcade” comment. You’ve been around flight simming enough to know full well that calling anybody simulation project an “arcade” is not only an insult, but the worst insult you can throw at it. Don’t hide behind that and claim you don’t intend it to be so.
This thread has already received a reminder to keep it on track, and to avoid comments aimed at other users.
If you want to continue participating in this thread, focus only on discussing the BF 109 G-6, and not other user’s or their views/opinions. Further posts to this effect will be removed and acted on.
