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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose this simple test:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/newrepl...reply&p=414147

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

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

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

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

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

+1
thats exactly what my problem is

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

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

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

i just removed it to the desktop...

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

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

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

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