PDA

View Full Version : FW190 A/D Performance.



Flamin_Squirrel
03-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Im aware that the questioning of flightmodels, especialy Luftwaffe aircraft is a bit of a taboo subject, however this is seriously something that needs looking at.

In 1.22 the FW series was perhaps a touch on the undermodeled side, but it remained a competative aircraft if flown right, even against superior russian aircraft.

Now with the release of AEP, although an undoubtedly great add on, the FW's suffer even more. Before it was possible to defeat Yak3's and La7's, now its a struggle to beat the new early spitfires in late war FW's, which is ludicrous.

Now im no luftwhiner, Im a brit who holds as much contempt for the Nazi regime as anyone else with a moral bone in their body. However the Luftwaffe aircraft best suit my style of play. I fly them because i (used) to enjoy them, and the disparity in relative perfromance between them and the other nations aircraft disapoints me. Since this is supposed to be a simulation, an accurate as possable representation of the aircraft depicted, shouldnt they perform as they did too (this includes the underpowered weapons, especialy the MG151/20)?

I must emphasis this is a genuine concern about the validity of the FW model, (it simply doesnt measure up against the other aircraft as it should) im not looking to cause a flame war.

I hope this issue is just one of relative performance, just one of those things that happens after introducing new features. Not as some people have said, an inherant bias against the german planes resulting in an effort to make them as poor as plausably possible.

I trust this will receive a positive response in an effort to make this sim as realistic as possible, not to create accusations whining for the sake of it - i just wish to see the planes perform as they should, and the model of the FW190 restored to represent the competative aircraft it used to be, and indeed was.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Im aware that the questioning of flightmodels, especialy Luftwaffe aircraft is a bit of a taboo subject, however this is seriously something that needs looking at.

In 1.22 the FW series was perhaps a touch on the undermodeled side, but it remained a competative aircraft if flown right, even against superior russian aircraft.

Now with the release of AEP, although an undoubtedly great add on, the FW's suffer even more. Before it was possible to defeat Yak3's and La7's, now its a struggle to beat the new early spitfires in late war FW's, which is ludicrous.

Now im no luftwhiner, Im a brit who holds as much contempt for the Nazi regime as anyone else with a moral bone in their body. However the Luftwaffe aircraft best suit my style of play. I fly them because i (used) to enjoy them, and the disparity in relative perfromance between them and the other nations aircraft disapoints me. Since this is supposed to be a simulation, an accurate as possable representation of the aircraft depicted, shouldnt they perform as they did too (this includes the underpowered weapons, especialy the MG151/20)?

I must emphasis this is a genuine concern about the validity of the FW model, (it simply doesnt measure up against the other aircraft as it should) im not looking to cause a flame war.

I hope this issue is just one of relative performance, just one of those things that happens after introducing new features. Not as some people have said, an inherant bias against the german planes resulting in an effort to make them as poor as plausably possible.

I trust this will receive a positive response in an effort to make this sim as realistic as possible, not to create accusations whining for the sake of it - i just wish to see the planes perform as they should, and the model of the FW190 restored to represent the competative aircraft it used to be, and indeed was.

boohaa
03-07-2004, 04:27 PM
Have you tried higher altitudes where the FW shines?

Fennec_P
03-07-2004, 04:40 PM
No offense, but your thread doesn't seem to make a point.

I mean, if you think something is broke, then it would be usefull to state

1. What characteristic is incorrect.
2. Why.
3. What it should be changed to.

Commenting on airplane performance in vague terms based on your online experiences isn't constructive. Especially if you are going to imply bias at the same time (you are not sure what is wrong, but you are sure there is bias?). What discussion could one expect, if not a flame war? Is this the time to air my grievances about the P.11 feeling just a tad "undermodeled" for my tastes?

So I ask, what exactly is incorrect about the FW-190 flight model, how do you know, and what should it be changed to?

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-07-2004, 05:26 PM
For example:

poor accelaration during level flight
it's one of th biggest concerns i have.

I get outclimbed by spits all the time.
for example 1942 spit vs. a5. at altitudes of 1000-4000 (didn't test higher).

lack of firepower (ever noticed how much punding it takes to down one of the spits ?)

Ok i am prepared to be called a luftwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers

Flamin_Squirrel
03-07-2004, 05:32 PM
I think saying i planned to generate a flame war because I wasnt specific is a little strong. I didnt want to say exactly what i thought was wrong, because I was hoping to generate a discussion whereby people could throw in their opinions so a concensus could be reached. Opposed to saying 'this is whats wrong' and having the rest of the thread arguing about wether im right or not.

However, i feel the problem with the 190 is acceleration, E retention, acceleration, or both. Examples of scenarios ive encounterd that gave me these impressions: acceleration testing, A9 vs spit to find little difference. E retention, going head to head with a spit, again in an A9, attempting to extend in a gentle climb after passing only to have the spit 180, catch me, and shoot me up the backside.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-07-2004, 05:35 PM
My reply was a tad verbose. What JaBo_HH--Gotcha said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
03-07-2004, 05:44 PM
As a dedicated 190 driver I still have more of a problem with what other planes are doing rather than what the 190 is not. Some complaints are simply disagreeing with data used such as La-5 standard's ('42) speed at sea-level. Others are FM issues such as climb-rates for 190A. Whether the 190's are too low or others are too high (what I suspect) I'm not sure. What I do know is that in-game things happen that don't make sense like Spit V ('41) climbing better than FW-190A-4, most planes out-accelerating the 190, etc. Another issue is energy bleed, or lack thereof for some planes. Again 190 doesn't retain energy that well, and it shouldn't, but some planes hold it too well IMHO. My opinion of the FW-190 in FB right now is:

Things I am happy with:

-Handling. Plane doesn't turn well and it should't. Controls at high speed are great and they should be. Basically it feels real/believable (unlike many others) and gives the plane character. Still, some others need to have more character. New tendency to spin while hammer-heading and performing similar maneuvers feels real but should be universal, not sure if it is (would like to know from others if this happens). Shutting down throttle helps and so does use of rudder. Seems to be the result of increased torque effect in 1.22 and exacerbated in AEP. Like I said, I like it but I don't seem to notice this on other planes, they "go over" much easier. There may be another reason the 190 doesn't turn over well and I invite anyone to educate me about it.
-Roll-rate. It was reduced at high speed in AEP and it feels great.
-Damage model except "gunsight knocked out way too easily" bug. Need more time with it but seems goos so far.
-View. Not really satisfied but I'll let others discuss "the bar." I wish there was a way to see around cockpit bars and framing but all planes have this limitation.
-Speed. 190's seem to get to their indicated numbers well except the A-4 at altitude has some trouble.

Things I am not happy with:

-Climb-rates, either 190 is too low or some others are too high, I think it is the latter. Almost everything out-climbs the 190 at low and medium altitudes where the 190 was actually a pretty good climber. In Eric Brown's test it out-climbed planes like the Spitifre F.V, P-38F (up to 15-20,000 feet), P-51A, Typhoon. And it was similar to that of the Spitifre IX. Currently the Spit V ('41)will out-climb the 190 and I don't anticipate it will even approach Spitifre IX. The bottom line is that the 190 was a good climber at low-medium altitudes, and a poor climber above 20-22,000 feet.
-Overheat times. This I am very unhappy with. Not because of the 190's overheat time, but because of the totally absurd long overheat times of some planes (like La-5).
-Energy retention (probably my biggest complaint in FB, always has been)). Again, not because of 190's poor retention, but because of a few other planes lack of e bleed. If two planes merge at 300+mph and one does a fairly quick 180 degree turn behind a plane that is faster (performance wise), it should fade pretty fast, they don't. Planes perform very tight maneuvers in FB with very minimal loss of speed energy. I simply don't believe planes bleed/scrub enough energy/speed in FB.

Not sure about weapons, they felt good in 1.22 but in AEP release they seem less powerful. Not sure if this was a universal thing or not but others seem to notice it too. I have been playing in arcade mode alot and have seen some strange things (Lagg-3 is a tank). An example would be that machine guns of American planes tear up VVS planes while cannons seem very ineffective. I have put 30mm rounds (can't miss that huge arrow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) right through the center (from above) of a P-63's wings and caused minor damage. Structural failures seem to be down so again this may be a universal thing but then planes like the P-40 seem the same while the P-47 seems weaker. Some say they have had better luck downing 190's with .303's from Spit than the Hispanos.

But basically my real complaints (excluding gunsight bug) are climb-rates, overheat times, and energy retention. But I believe the problem is with what other aircraft are doing (namely VVS), than what the 190 isn't doing.

Sorry to be wordy, these are just my thoughts and others are free to disagree.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Kwiatos
03-07-2004, 05:53 PM
Hi!
I like flying aliance and luftwaffe planes. My notice:
1. Spit 1941 vs Fw190 A-4 - Fw190 is inferior except turnig (zoom climb should be better for Fw190).
2. Spit 1942 vs Fw190 A-4 - Fw190 has better speed but climb worse - very hard fight to A-4
3. Spit 1941 vs Bf F-4 - 1-3 km F-4 has better climb rate but above 4 km Spit has better climb rate. Spit is better in turn. In F-4 yu could only slighty outclimb Spit to 3km than Spit start to catch you.

I though that Bf F-4 could outclimb Spit MkV at all alt in real life. But in FB it doesnt.
So anybody have any info about these?

Flamin_Squirrel
03-07-2004, 06:24 PM
Great post Hunde. I was wondering myself if the 190 might not be as inaccurate as I thought, just the relative performances being off. Of course, this would leave alot of aircraft over modeled, as just about everything seems to bleed E more slowly than the 190. Try to extend after a head to head pass with a plane that has an incling of turning ability, simply results in being shot up the backside. There just isnt the energy penalty there should be for a no brainer yanking back on the stick.

The advent of the IX should prove very deadly for the 190 (as indeed it was in reality) with its comparable (or in some cases better) climb rate and superior manuverability, leaving the 190 only its extra speed to save it. However, with any luck the introduction of the IX will mean its no longer plausable to cover up the grossly inacurate performance deficit, and the models, one way or the other, will be changed to reflect the relative performances of the real aircraft.


Kwiatos, here are climb rates. This book doesnt give altitudes but i presume they're at sea level. Although ive read elsewhere that the 190 had a better rate of climb over the Spit V at all hights anyway.

Bf109 F-3 4,291fpm
Spit Vb 3,650fpm
Fw190 A-3 4,100fpm
Spit Vb 4,150fpm

[This message was edited by Flamin_Squirrel on Sun March 07 2004 at 05:42 PM.]

Zen--
03-07-2004, 06:46 PM
Good points Hunde, you match my thoughts completely.

I fly the 190 everyday, literally, and your observations are what I have seen consistently day in and day out.

Acceleration, E retention and in some cases climb rate are what hinder the 190 in FB/AEP, along with how some planes don't overheat nearly as fast, which detracts from any theoretical advantage the 190 may have. It's one thing to have better performance, it's another to not being able to use it because your engine is cooking while the other guy's isn't.

-Zen-

faustnik
03-07-2004, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
For example:

poor accelaration during level flight
it's one of th biggest concerns i have.

I get outclimbed by spits all the time.
for example 1942 spit vs. a5. at altitudes of 1000-4000 (didn't test higher).

lack of firepower (ever noticed how much punding it takes to down one of the spits ?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JaBo_HH--Gotcha,

I have been all over the 190A series poor climb issue for a long time but, can't agree that there is any other issue (besides the gunsight damage bug) with the 190A series.

Level acceleration is excellent. Much better then the P-51 and P-47.

Firepower, uhhh, how much can you need? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The 190A series shreds everything. I like the F8 because it has cannons and MGs on seperate swithches. Two Mg151 cannon are more than enough to bring down any fighter, even a Jug.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Gunner_361st
03-07-2004, 07:05 PM
-Information from the Forgotten Battles Object Viewer-

Spitfire MKVB 1941 - 8 minutes, 24 seconds to 6,100 meters.

FW190 A4 - 6.8 minutes to 5,000 meters.

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Spitfire MKVB 1941 description summarized - Fw190 A3 arrived, being able to out-run, out-climb, and out-roll the Spitfire MkVB at all altitudes. Spitfire MKVB flights suffered heavy losses against Fw190 A3 gruppen.

Quick mission test of Fw190 A4 vs. Spitfire MkVB, 1941.

Start at 1,000 meters altitude, 50% fuel for each plane. Full power, radiator closed/auto in FW190A4, climbing at 300 km/h IAS... Spitfire able to match climb all the way up to 4,000 meters.

Inverted and pulled into a steep dive, pushed it to 750 km/h IAS, pulled up slowly into a zoom climb, able to out zoom-climb the Spitfire by 400+ meters, hammer-head back down, and blow its wing off with a 2 second deflection shot burst of all weaponry.

Now gents, I am not saying I am expert or know lots and lots about these aircraft, but even the object viewer's information supports the Fw190 being able to outclimb the Spitfire MkVB. Out-roll and Out-run certainly, but not able to out-climb currently in AEP.

Granted, the object viewer said Fw190 A3. Anyone know the differences between A3 and the A4 version that we have? Information would be much appreciated.

Now before anyone says I have an agenda, my only agenda is to see realistic performance with all the beautiful aircraft we have in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Spitfire and Fw190 are planes I both love to fly, and I understand completely that it is long and difficult to make everything work properly in a sim this complex.

~S~ gents.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-07-2004, 07:35 PM
Things in 1.22 were fantastic for the FW190's for me. I was very much in control of almost all situations. The roll rate and firepower were the main draws. I am a little concerned that many have noted that none of the cannons causing the structural damage that they should.

I suspect some of the complaints are because the A-4 we have isn't a Western Front one and probably shouldn't be compaired to the Spitfire V 41 and that some have been saying the FW190 has been under modeled even in 1.22 where I find it outshines almost all others. Take the A-5 against the Spit V (41)...that should be a better feel for what Western front pilots were using against Spitfires.

I'd be a bit disapointed if the cannons aren't working properly or if the plane has some kind of serious flight model problem. I guess I'll have to judge for myself. Just hoping the cannons are working like normal and that some are just having a placebo effect.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Gwalker70
03-07-2004, 07:37 PM
I often sometimes wonder if Oleg knows about all the problems about a small curve of allied planes being too good and LW planes being too bad.since the LW in general had better planes across the board in real history, I think maybe he figured that when somebody logs into an online game the server would be filled with german planes. hey you think that idea is crazy.. but its all about dollars and cents here in the end for Oleg-and I have no problem with that and online play is what is going to sell his games not single player. can you imagine if he fixed the FW's to accelerate to true top speeds without baking half the motor.. and climb historicly ect. and fixed the La7 to bleed energy like it should and not to climb so great.. forget about it. see what I mean. there goes your allied player base that = popularity and money.. would the game die? of course not.. but would he lose 10% of the buyers overall for the next series or add ons? sure he would and 10% is a LOT in business.. and he knows that only 2% of us here that argue for or against LW planes are smart enough to do so compared to the general buyer. I really dont think 95% of the people give a damn that the FW is wrong or the LA7 is wrong and ect. the average person can jump in any plane that they wish to (well for the most part) and blow you up in whatever you are in .. even if in a million years that woulda never happen in real life with two skilled pilots... that is what is going to keep the general player base happy.. hey you spent 40 bucks plus 30 bucks for FB and addon.. Oleg wants it to where if you like the LA5 you can jump in it and blow up a A9 50/50 chance given same pilot skill you see what I am saying

JG14_Josf
03-07-2004, 08:55 PM
Gwalker70,

I see what your saying.

It makes perfect sense. Dollars and cents.

Gwalker70
03-07-2004, 09:12 PM
hehe plus theres some russian pride there too.. I mean for gods sake the games log in screen shows a Dora getting flamed by a LA7.. I mean gosh .. couldnt he have them just dogfighting in a turn or something hahahah http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

faustnik
03-07-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
since the LW in general had better planes across the board in real history<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That deserves a W-T-F?

Care to support that statement? Is the 109E better than the SpitMkI? Is the Fw190A a better dogfighter than the La5FN? I'm a huge FW190A series fan, but, I realize it faced some superior competition.

Oh, why don't you convince me that the LW had better heavy bombers, you'll have to try real hard.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Gunner_361st
03-07-2004, 09:43 PM
Here we go with the Luftwaffe superiority bit...

I'd agree with that statement in the 1930's. Germany was producing the BF109 and it was light years ahead of the biplanes most nations were still fielding. But come 1940 and onwards? The luftwaffe still had an advantage, but the Allied nations were fielding better and better airplanes and their pilots got more and more skilled..

In terms of aircraft it really started to turn around in 1942-43... LA5FN, Spitfire IX, P51-B...

I personally think that flown properly and as a team the virtual Luftwaffe in FB has very good chances for success. I think the developers strive for realism and its not easy to do, games like these are very complex and things can go wrong, as with all the bugs they are getting now.

There are oversights and miscalculations, etc, etc... But they keep working on it, and thats admirable.

I was just flying in a quick mission, and I shot an enemy bandit with machine guns at close range, and the small debris that came off his airplane hit mine, and caused an oil leak! I was like.. WOW!

They actually modeled that in, hehe... FB amazes me everyday. We are lucky to have such a quality product. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gwalker70
03-07-2004, 09:50 PM
I said in general across the board LW had better planes although allied has some great ones too

Gwalker70
03-07-2004, 09:57 PM
fasutnic my proof? well add-on is still new so ill comment on that later.. but in 1.22 what where allied peeps flying mostly.. La7 for unreal climb and energy rating,, LA5 cuase they didnt overheat ect ect ect. the russian planes seemed to hold energy a bit too well and accelerate a bit too good in general.. as well as stayed cooler than LW planes in general. I mean the list goes on.. do this.. do a search for the problems I am talking about here in ubisoft and when you finish reading (which some of them are true luftwhiner post) like in a month cuase theres a lot of valid and tested post to what I am saying .. get back with me and youll have to buy me a beer for being right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
03-07-2004, 10:04 PM
The La-7 seems a bit overmodeled on some points although I'd say its fairly close on others (roll, speed, agility in general - sometimes holds E too well and climbs too well). Try any of the Yak's and you'll notice quick overheating (the Yak 3 for sure!) thats much faster than the overheating on 109's and 190's.

I like my 190...but I know that the A models were inferior overall compaired to the La-5FN and I know that the 190D is a tough match for the La-7. The big thing is however...that the Russian planes strengths are the German planes weaknesses and vice versa. Reverse the tables on almost any plane (the La-7 truly does seem to fall out of this category - its a bit too good) and the Luftwaffe fighter will win. In general it does take a different mindset...and its not the circling dogfight of WWI that most VVS planes tend to favor.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hristo_
03-07-2004, 11:59 PM
From another sim with decent FMs:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5climb.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit9climb.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit9speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit5climb.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit5speed.gif

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg
"Boom and Zoom does NOT equal Hit and Run. Not the same thing, no way, no how. BnZ means I manage my energy state (while judging yours) to keep myself from getting into your sights in the vertical.
Turn and Burn is the first refuge of the uneducated, Hit and Run the last refuge of the incompetent, while BnZ is the sign of a true master of Air Combat."
-Moggy, 666th Internet Daemons

Gryphonne
03-08-2004, 01:13 AM
My biggest concern right now is the gunsight and the overheat times. Other than that the MG151/20 _definately_ needs to be looked into. That gun is way underpowered right now and it affects not just the FW but all German planes!

Regards,

Gryph

Hunde_3.JG51
03-08-2004, 01:15 AM
Nice charts Hristo, wish we had that type of climb for the FW-190A in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Flash_ram
03-08-2004, 02:09 AM
I have a question for mr Oleg...
What are you going to do with German plaines? Now they are more crap than ever... even our salvation Fw are now destroyed, theyr engine is overheated now even at 105, and they used to fly superb at 109
Also spitfires are also like rock, when they should fall apart very quikly...
What are you going to do?
In my opition you are transforming this game into an arcade one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Too bad

Flamin_Squirrel
03-08-2004, 03:10 AM
The post about making planes bias to increase sales alarms me, cos its not beyond the realms of possibility. I just hope it isnt true.

Lets hope with the next patch and the advent of the A6 and the mk IX the other planes get tweaked too. They might have gotten away with undermodeling the 190 in 1.22, but now the performance gap is too big. This is a gread game, it would be a shame to ruin it by leaving in completely unrealistic flight models. Right now the 190 might as well be a completely imaginary aircraft called 'Thetargetdrone' given its performance is so far from the real thing.

Btw, does anyone know how likely this thread will be read by the powers that be? Obviously we cant tell if Oleg and co will choose to ignore it or not, just as long as they know we arent being fooled.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-08-2004, 03:55 AM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Great link kindly supplied by Veltro. Shows that the 190 is all the things in real life that it isnt in FB.

I really really really hope they fix it, im lost without my 180 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

jtasker
03-08-2004, 04:35 AM
"I have no problem with that and online play is what is going to sell his games not single player."

The only problem with your argument is that the VAST majority of IL2 owners will never play it on line. Statistics show that most boxed game buyers do not play online..

Hristo_
03-08-2004, 05:46 AM
Can someone please test both AEP Fw 190A-4 and Spit Vb and compare both to the charts above ?

Perhaps as another curve on the same chart ?

Would surely help, IMO.

Thanks

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg
"Boom and Zoom does NOT equal Hit and Run. Not the same thing, no way, no how. BnZ means I manage my energy state (while judging yours) to keep myself from getting into your sights in the vertical.
Turn and Burn is the first refuge of the uneducated, Hit and Run the last refuge of the incompetent, while BnZ is the sign of a true master of Air Combat."
-Moggy, 666th Internet Daemons

zugfuhrer
03-08-2004, 09:05 AM
Dont expect that the flightmodels in IL2/FB should be as there was during the WWII.
The game is a game and cant be as it was in 1942.
Some planes are to good and some arnt so good as they should be.
When I fly a plane that according to my sources, should be better, and shoot down a plane I am double happy because I managed to use the opportunity in a good way.
When I got hit in the engine by a reargunner from 700m distance, I dont think that it was that way in 1942 and accept that it is only a game.

PzKpfw
03-08-2004, 02:54 PM
I havent had a chance to fly the Fw at all yet (work), But I have flown the Spit V and the 4x .303 to my suprise are deadly Ie, I dropped 1 Bf 109 & 4 Ju 52 useing .303 only.

I hope to test the P-47 .50cal, Fw 190 MG 151 etc over the next few days.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

SAF_ginner
03-08-2004, 04:34 PM
no one of us flyed a real fw. only real pilots can say what is bad. so all wise guys notes here cannot be taken seriously. info on internet is also not 100%. bud there are numbers, a real documents how fw was flying. when some official german archive or museum will print it on internet, then we will know where is the truth. truth is - historicaly fw was not known as a dogfight outsider. truth is in fb focke wulf is an dogfight outsider. i believe oleg will fix it. even only for those 2% of us that are carring for hist. accuracy.

VVS-Manuc
03-08-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SAF_ginner:
no one of us flyed a real fw. only real pilots can say what is bad. so all wise guys notes here cannot be taken seriously. info on internet is also not 100%. bud there are numbers, a real documents how fw was flying. when some official german archive or museum will print it on internet, then we will know where is the truth. truth is - historicaly fw was not known as a dogfight outsider. truth is in fb focke wulf is an dogfight outsider. i believe oleg will fix it. even only for those 2% of us that are carring for hist. accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe he will NOT fix it....you know..Oleg's world has a different reality from our world http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-08-2004, 06:34 PM
With the game giving 190A4 80km/hr sea level speed advantage over early Spit~5, you may wish to climb at a higher airspeed, then the Spit will not catch you. I must get a clock/watch that shows seconds before I can do anymore climb tests--that clock in the Spit is hard to use.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
03-09-2004, 06:08 AM
I have done a climbchart comparing the Fw 190A-4 and A-5 with the Spitfire LF, Spitfire CW and the Spitfire Mk.Vb. I have yet to upload it but I will soon. It clearly shows the inferiority of the Fw 190A-4, even the A-5. The 1941 Spit starts outclimbing the Fw 190 at 1000m, and from there the gap increses with 1m/sec for every 1000m. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Flamin_Squirrel
03-09-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SAF_ginner:
no one of us flyed a real fw. only real pilots can say what is bad. so all wise guys notes here cannot be taken seriously. info on internet is also not 100%. bud there are numbers, a real documents how fw was flying. when some official german archive or museum will print it on internet, then we will know where is the truth. truth is - historicaly fw was not known as a dogfight outsider. truth is in fb focke wulf is an dogfight outsider. i believe oleg will fix it. even only for those 2% of us that are carring for hist. accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All very true, noone here has flown a 190. However, when alot of sorces all say that the 190 out climbed, outran and out accelerated the spit V at all altitides, but doesnt in the game, then people start asking questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. The climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive tried diving away from a spit them zoom climbing. The higher top speed will allow you to draw away slightly during the dive. Due to the poorer acceleration of the 190 in the game though, it wont help you much because the spits gaining on you till you go over his top speed. When you come to pull up for the zoom, because the 190 dumps energy alot faster, it most certainly does not draw away rapidly like it should. In fact Ive been shot down a couple of times as im coming over the top of the hammer head after such a dive/zoom, because i expected the spit to be alot further away.

[This message was edited by Flamin_Squirrel on Tue March 09 2004 at 06:00 AM.]

Functio
03-09-2004, 07:22 AM
Hristo - I think those charts from Aces High just show how those planes work as far as that particular sim is concerned - not necessarily how they were in real-life.

03-09-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hristo - I think those charts from Aces High just show how those planes work as far as that particular sim is concerned - not necessarily how they were in real-life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, Functio. But the AH forums have their own share of "realism freaks".

Sure, there were some major/minor debates concerning FM from time to time, but it was usually about 'which dataset' HTC was using. As for the used data, nobody up to date, ever came up with any complaints or objections that the data used in Aces High didn't match real world data.

I think the largest uproar I've seen there was something about the roll speed being little too low, or how some planes 'feel wrong'.

In other words, AH uses the data as is known about the planes, and in that area, it is pretty much without complaint or objections.

hop2002
03-09-2004, 09:23 AM
Aces High II has changed the Spitfire. The Spit V now does 318 mph on the deck, which gives it mid 42 performance.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 07:02 AM
Are we going to get a response on this? Im getting bored of being caught in zoom climbs by spitfires in an A9. That really shouldnt happen. Combined with less effective MG151 it makes the 190s unrealisticly impotent.

ajafoofoo
03-10-2004, 09:53 AM
If you think spit zooms excessively, try an la7. It's borderline insane how well it zooms.

With it's climb rate it is one of the more questionable FM in the game.

JG26Red
03-10-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Great link kindly supplied by Veltro. Shows that the 190 is all the things in real life that it isnt in FB.

I really really really hope they fix it, im lost without my 180 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what A series was that, probably a A4 or less.. lol... try a A4 against a spit in this game... lololololololol

all i know is the 20mm suck... i pumped about 4-5 rounds of a 20mm into a p51s wings last week, i saw them hit, all in the same spot, no damage... nice wings...

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Are we going to get a response on this? Im getting bored of being caught in zoom climbs by spitfires in an A9. That really shouldnt happen. Combined with less effective MG151 it makes the 190s unrealisticly impotent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever considered that just maybe there's some things you're not doing right? One, maybe two possibly?

Well okay I'm sure you did. After that did you do the same things over and over then came to the conclusion it's not you that's wrong?

Nahhh, you tried a couple changes, right? And those didn't work so it's time to quote the books. If the books say such and such then you should be able to do that too.

If the books don't say just how then whatever you do should get the same results, right? And if Oleg says he gets different then it's him that's wrong? After all, it's not just you that gets the same results as you, is it. Just Oleg and a few others y'all can dissmiss.

So why don't I buy that?


Neal

faustnik
03-10-2004, 02:50 PM
Maxgunz,

I only have one problem with your post above. Yes, you can still beat a SpitVB with the 190A4 by extending in the horizontal. Like you said, switch tactics if one doesn't work. The problem with this is that so many historical recollections describe the 190 extending in the vertical. The 190s could escape the Spit VB by climbing.

Now, not saying it is right or wrong in FB, if you are forced to use tactics that were not used historically to be successful, something is wrong with the way things are modeled. Just using tactics that work promotes gaming, not simulation.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Piston_Pete
03-10-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Are we going to get a response on this? Im getting bored of being caught in zoom climbs by spitfires in an A9. That really shouldnt happen. Combined with less effective MG151 it makes the 190s unrealisticly impotent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever considered that just maybe there's some things you're not doing right? One, maybe two possibly?

Well okay I'm sure you did. After that did you do the same things over and over then came to the conclusion it's not you that's wrong?

Nahhh, you tried a couple changes, right? And those didn't work so it's time to quote the books. If the books say such and such then you should be able to do that too.

If the books don't say just how then whatever you do should get the same results, right? And if Oleg says he gets different then it's him that's wrong? After all, it's not just you that gets the same results as you, is it. Just Oleg and a few others y'all can dissmiss.

So why don't I buy that?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should we buy anything you say? I've NEVER ever seen you provide a single test, a single chart, a single book-reference on this forum. All you ever seem to be able to do is crap on others and the evidence they are providing.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all coming from a m***n who never even noticed the auto-leveling of planes in FB had been changed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 05:04 PM
The FW should outzoom the Spit if it doesn't start too slow. It needs to be well over sustained best climb to do that which from what I'd read is over 400kph. The zoom doesn't need to be too steep either, just a fast raise. After that upon getting down to 400, a nice wide gentle spiral climb should do fine. The Spit can't keep speed enough to stay on you. If he drops speed to get his best climb then you have him because you can come in with good speed while he is slow and can't outturn you. If he dives then you still have him. If you choose to then you can climb out by not circling and while the Spit may get higher sooner, by the time it's enough to matter you will be far away and able to move so fast he'll never get you. Is that extending in the vertical? You don't expect to just climb forever?

IF a Spit VB tries chasing a FW-190A-3 at the best climb speed of the FW then the FW will outclimb the Spit according to a pilot who was part of the tests. So there you have a FW climbing to extend. Bet that happened in battle enough times.

I'd have hated to be in the Spit because if he didn't chase then the FW could come back at a heavy advantage. If the Spit ran then he'd be at a disadvantage. If the Spit climbed at best climb speed which is slow, then as above he is at a disadvantage. And some people say the FW's can't rule while others say they do.

Beware of accounts, esp short ones. We tend to fill in the blanks or just expect them to cover wide ranges of situations. The 109 outturns the Hurri I have read. Half true but if I didn't know better then would I believe it was always true?

If both planes start a dive from well under the top speed of the Spit then the Spit should out accelerate the FW in the beginning and up till its top speed. Then the FW should start to pull away with a weight advantage. If they're both moving fast then the FW should get a start on a lead quicker.


Neal

SAF_ginner
03-10-2004, 06:51 PM
oleg is typical russian guy. simply unprofessional in public relations. he should long ago stop this forums about fw. only it needs to publish here a real document from official source ( germany -museum, -aviation archive,- defense ministry...or i dont know...) about fw performance. then all discusions simply stops. but than this dates must be realised in the game. to proof to public real dates and to put them into game are two things that is he not capable to do. ok. may be now is fw real.. but where is the proof??? its simply unprofessional.

Gwalker70
03-10-2004, 09:00 PM
well also its funny how the LA 7 has clearly been modeled wrong and people post charts from multiple resources both red and blue as well as in game test in detail but nothing ever gets done about it... but thats not my worries now.. I am worried about the Ki-c fighting/performing so well at above 8000 meters in FB 2.0

melkorjl
03-10-2004, 09:35 PM
ey SAF_ginner, you repeat a lot your self.
why the la 7 is wrong? all the data, blue or red show clearly that the the la 7 was clearly superior to all german figther at low altitude, this is why the german high comand diddnt allow to their pilots to fly at low alttitued.
i think this topic is becoming really boring.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 09:41 PM
I was under the impression that the Spitfire climb rate, in comparison to other planes, was quite good. Typically at higher altitudes but generally very good...its just that the FW190 was better.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Piston_Pete:

Why should we buy anything you say? I've NEVER ever seen you provide a single test, a single chart, a single book-reference on this forum. All you ever seem to be able to do is crap on others and the evidence they are providing.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all coming from a m***n who never even noticed the auto-leveling of planes in FB had been changed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try reading the whole post on that. I wasn't around. Wasn't able to run FB. Capish, Id**t?

Speaking of crapping, what the hell does the attack manner so many take on the product and Oleg strike you as? Keep trying and don't bother calling me anything. Why has Oleg not been here so much? Why have so many people moved off this forum over the childish whining and tantrums pulled over stupidly applied quotes and anecdotal so-called evidence? Why does this board have the nickname of Olegs' Torture Room for over two years?

I've brought in references, and I have posted tracks. I just don't insist the sim gets changed to suit them. I do point out flawed logic and poor to bad arguments from those who do. Don't like it? Tough! YOU don't have to buy anything I say and I don't have to give a damn.


Neal