PDA

View Full Version : From love to hate.. ex FW190 Fan



XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:40 AM
Ive been playing flight sims. since C64.
I have real life flying expirienc on various single engined prop planes.
I havent done 10000 posts on this forum.
I do not claim to uber expert on WW2 birds.
I am only talkin abaout FW190A series.
so read and judge from that, not from that above.

What does most books ive read say.
High wingloading (caused by the wing construction low drag low lift and its weight. in short ment for high speed and high speed fighting) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

Evil violent wing drop at speeds below 300 if pressed (u would catogorise the wing shape in rectangular and eliptically. on the first mentioned you will have no or very little warning for a stall and it will most likely be a complete stall throug) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

It has a glide caracteristic of a brick when the engine was gone.(many instuctors advised not highly experienced pilots to bail out and not try to ditch it)

High speed stall and G stall (the FW had a high controll output and could overide the lift of the wing (Max aoa) at almost any speed, it didnt suffer much from volumising of controll surfaces. The BF109 became sluggish and heavy at high speed like many WW2 Birds did when using fabric coverd controllsurfaces many russian planes did too) Modelled wrong for the high speed part in FB 1.0

Never fight on the horisontal plane, if forced to do so make sure u have enough alt to roll out and disengage (Due to the high wingloading you would loose in a continous turn-fight to almost any fighter, simply not capable of turning sharp at low speeds. High speed turnrate was good but u would loose too much speed quickly if fighting an expirienced turnfighter so it was advised not to) Got that good in FB 1.0....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Climb rate wasent too good 750-850 meters a min in continuos climb, Not linier. (again the lack of lift and the weight plays the part here. But when chased u were advised to do a steep climb if u had the upper hand in speed, (zoomclimb), if not u could outrun most planes including the F6F, F4U and many more in a low rate of climb run, sub 10 meters/s most likely 450-550 meters a min.) Modelled quite well in FB 1.0

The rollrate was equall to non exept for the clipped wing spitfire at low speed. near max speed you would feel a rollrate drop like in all planes. (British and amarican test pilots said that the drop was no problem for the FW, it would still keep the advantage at high speed because the drop was more felt in other planes. the amaricans learned fast to stay out of high speed sisurres, roling sisurres and spiral dives.) Not modelled well in FB 1.0

I have read a lot of post in forums about the FW190 most are well ment but seems wrong, i would hate to see the fw as a new manouver king there are no way you can outmanuover a yak, la5fn, or a Lagg3-late at altitudes below 3500, these planes should in reallife be much easier to look good in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, if you want to win you have to use your plane for something that its ment for like trying not to get involved in turnfighting if in a FW190 or outclimb someone.

Compare this to the FW190A4-9 we got now, I loved this bird in FB 1.0 but i must say i hate it now.. Just my point on this

The things that needs attension in 1.1b:
The flaps creates too much lift and too little breake effect FW190 used split flaps, and the turbulence created in the gap between the the wing and the flap created more breake than on plain flaps.

The overall lift seems to have been increased too, i think its a bit too much as well, u can flick and trash it around at low speed now with near no danger af overriding the max aoa.

Odd behavier of the komandogeraet.

The rollrate drop is nearly non existent. should be like in 1.0 with a change from 500 to 650 Kmh before the drop would be felt.

THe highspeed manuovorbility is too high, should be good even when entering compressability
But the danger of G stalles and highspeed stalling is near non.. unless u do something stupid.

A couple of wishes and questions.

1 The A4 uses the same BMW 801-D2 as the A5 (why have they modelled to diff. engines? im not takin the late ones used on A7-A8 in to acount)

2 The FW190 is close to beeing too fragile.. Dont get me wrong, im not talking about the plane falling apart from a few hits, but try this test. Take an FW190A4 and someone in a yak7 give the FW190 a few 12.7 hits.. just enough to see the smallest hole in the fuselage or wing or tail thats 1 or 2 visible hits.Now the bad thing is u loose approx. 60-120 kph in speed and your acceleration and climb rate suffers too, that is = 100% death for the FW all other planes in game can still perform desent with this degree of damage, the FW190 needs it speed and power to survive.

3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons still forcelinked? in real life you could arm, disarm and fire any pair of guns/cannons. They even wrote that in the planesdatabase in the game.... that i really hate. I know this has been debated forth and back many times so if anyone can tell me the name of a book or documents that states that the Mgs and wingroot canons were linked please tell me!!...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Keep up the good work FB team
Thx.

Feel free to burn and flame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
VH

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:40 AM
Ive been playing flight sims. since C64.
I have real life flying expirienc on various single engined prop planes.
I havent done 10000 posts on this forum.
I do not claim to uber expert on WW2 birds.
I am only talkin abaout FW190A series.
so read and judge from that, not from that above.

What does most books ive read say.
High wingloading (caused by the wing construction low drag low lift and its weight. in short ment for high speed and high speed fighting) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

Evil violent wing drop at speeds below 300 if pressed (u would catogorise the wing shape in rectangular and eliptically. on the first mentioned you will have no or very little warning for a stall and it will most likely be a complete stall throug) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

It has a glide caracteristic of a brick when the engine was gone.(many instuctors advised not highly experienced pilots to bail out and not try to ditch it)

High speed stall and G stall (the FW had a high controll output and could overide the lift of the wing (Max aoa) at almost any speed, it didnt suffer much from volumising of controll surfaces. The BF109 became sluggish and heavy at high speed like many WW2 Birds did when using fabric coverd controllsurfaces many russian planes did too) Modelled wrong for the high speed part in FB 1.0

Never fight on the horisontal plane, if forced to do so make sure u have enough alt to roll out and disengage (Due to the high wingloading you would loose in a continous turn-fight to almost any fighter, simply not capable of turning sharp at low speeds. High speed turnrate was good but u would loose too much speed quickly if fighting an expirienced turnfighter so it was advised not to) Got that good in FB 1.0....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Climb rate wasent too good 750-850 meters a min in continuos climb, Not linier. (again the lack of lift and the weight plays the part here. But when chased u were advised to do a steep climb if u had the upper hand in speed, (zoomclimb), if not u could outrun most planes including the F6F, F4U and many more in a low rate of climb run, sub 10 meters/s most likely 450-550 meters a min.) Modelled quite well in FB 1.0

The rollrate was equall to non exept for the clipped wing spitfire at low speed. near max speed you would feel a rollrate drop like in all planes. (British and amarican test pilots said that the drop was no problem for the FW, it would still keep the advantage at high speed because the drop was more felt in other planes. the amaricans learned fast to stay out of high speed sisurres, roling sisurres and spiral dives.) Not modelled well in FB 1.0

I have read a lot of post in forums about the FW190 most are well ment but seems wrong, i would hate to see the fw as a new manouver king there are no way you can outmanuover a yak, la5fn, or a Lagg3-late at altitudes below 3500, these planes should in reallife be much easier to look good in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, if you want to win you have to use your plane for something that its ment for like trying not to get involved in turnfighting if in a FW190 or outclimb someone.

Compare this to the FW190A4-9 we got now, I loved this bird in FB 1.0 but i must say i hate it now.. Just my point on this

The things that needs attension in 1.1b:
The flaps creates too much lift and too little breake effect FW190 used split flaps, and the turbulence created in the gap between the the wing and the flap created more breake than on plain flaps.

The overall lift seems to have been increased too, i think its a bit too much as well, u can flick and trash it around at low speed now with near no danger af overriding the max aoa.

Odd behavier of the komandogeraet.

The rollrate drop is nearly non existent. should be like in 1.0 with a change from 500 to 650 Kmh before the drop would be felt.

THe highspeed manuovorbility is too high, should be good even when entering compressability
But the danger of G stalles and highspeed stalling is near non.. unless u do something stupid.

A couple of wishes and questions.

1 The A4 uses the same BMW 801-D2 as the A5 (why have they modelled to diff. engines? im not takin the late ones used on A7-A8 in to acount)

2 The FW190 is close to beeing too fragile.. Dont get me wrong, im not talking about the plane falling apart from a few hits, but try this test. Take an FW190A4 and someone in a yak7 give the FW190 a few 12.7 hits.. just enough to see the smallest hole in the fuselage or wing or tail thats 1 or 2 visible hits.Now the bad thing is u loose approx. 60-120 kph in speed and your acceleration and climb rate suffers too, that is = 100% death for the FW all other planes in game can still perform desent with this degree of damage, the FW190 needs it speed and power to survive.

3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons still forcelinked? in real life you could arm, disarm and fire any pair of guns/cannons. They even wrote that in the planesdatabase in the game.... that i really hate. I know this has been debated forth and back many times so if anyone can tell me the name of a book or documents that states that the Mgs and wingroot canons were linked please tell me!!...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Keep up the good work FB team
Thx.

Feel free to burn and flame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
VH

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 02:11 AM
...

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 08/19/0303:40AM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:33 AM
and the movement of the elvators and roll rate are way too quick, fly online and look what the people are doing with the 190s super sensative controlls now, looks like cfs1 aera 51 mods, the jink isnt a jink its a fish flop super roll snap, looks so stupid online, slow it down so it the planes movement looks semi realistic, same witht he mig3u


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:44 AM
JG77Von_Hess wrote:

Great summary.. and it goes hand in hand with my impressions, from reading accounts, of how it was and how it is in the game.. Funny the P40 seems to model the Fw190 acc stall flip onto it's back better thatn the Fw190!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:58 AM
Yes it seems like the P40 beats the FW190A on that... an adjustment would be nice there. but the FW190A and wasent the only WW2 bird to do so.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:13 AM
JG77Von_Hess wrote:
- Yes it seems like the P40 beats the FW190A on
- that... an adjustment would be nice there. but the
- FW190A and wasent the only WW2 bird to do so.

Too true.. Funny thing is that the P39 actually had that problem.. like the Fw190.. Im not sure if the P40 did.. or didnt.. I dont have any info on it, like I do the P39. the P39 is one of the most documented aircraft of WWII. The NACA did more testing on that ac they all of the rest.. Not sure why.. I think the Army just could not belive or accept that it was not all that! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:21 AM
I wonder how many of these planes actually would be able to fly with fully crosed controles?... target/any do u know?
Fully crosed controles = right roll left yaw full force

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:31 AM
JG77Von_Hess wrote:
- I wonder how many of these planes actually would be
- able to fly with fully crosed controles?...
- target/any do u know?

As in reality vs the game? Not sure.. But the P47 is a must if you want to get any decent roll rate out of it.. that and to keep the nose from droping into the dirt.. Works well when a 109 is on your a! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:40 AM
Got your name wrong.. Tagert i meant in real life.. i wont recomend doing it in a cessna 150 XP lolol tough flip went over in to a bad spin.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:01 AM
P39 in this game is and always has appeared to be all that, but I really don't know that much about it, just how tough it can be in this game.


I must compliment on the primary post though...Hes didn't claim to be this or that authority on anything but stated some interesting observations....his own observations mind you and admitted they were subjective.

Lately with the way the forums are I feel like it's almost useless to post anything because I don't have a stack of charts next to me...I do have a pretty good background in history but I suppose we all know what that really counts for when talking about flight models these days. What is discouraging is that people's opinions no longer appear to count anymore. Have there really been that many flaming whiners crying about everything to justify so many of the responses we all see everyday? Whew, seems like we're all getting a bit cynical here I think.

Anyway, back on topic:

What I like is that Hess says what he thinks and in my book isn't whining about it...he has an opinion and thats that. I don't feel the same way as he does necessarily, but I like the way he laid it out, think he did some level of research before posting (oops, he read a history book, not a chart...forget what I said then) and said what he felt. To me, thats a good post. I don't recall seeing where the forum rules stated you had to be an expert on anything to make a comment, instead I think he used the forum the way they are intended to be...he laid out his thoughts and invited a discussion.

One of the ways we become more educated about history is by debates in forums. The cool thing about forums is you don't have to be an expert to chime in and get feedback on what you think, many people will hop in and share what they know with you about the topic in question. To me, that's really productive. I've learned a lot here and read a lot that generated enough interest to go out and learn more. It would seem that the way things in this forum are now though, books are no longer the proper way to educate oneself about something we want to know more about...now to me, thats really funny. In a bad way though.


Back on topic again:

Personally I like a lot about the new FM for the FW's. Am I an engineer? Nope. Am I a pilot? Nope. Was I in world war two and did I ever fly any of these planes? Nope. So am I really technically qualified to comment on the pure accuracy of the game? Nope, but is that the point at all?

But a number of things about the FM coincides with a lot that I have read about the FW's real life performance. It's durability for example, or the whole series excellent diving ability. To me thats significant. A number of things don't, like the new FM of the FW190A9, particularly the overheat and turn rate..I won't say it's uber at all, but in my opinion it seems a tad better than I have read about it. In many ways it appears to out turn the D9 (at least in my general experience with it, which is all in the last few days since the patch came out) which doesn't jive with what I have read in the past. I unfortunately do not have any tracks to post or concrete tests to verify this...this is a subjective opinion about the way it feels compared to what I have read. In any case, I am not making a claim that it should be this way or that way at all, nor does Hess appear to be doing that either...he's stating his impression of the plane.

I suppose I could go out and get a degree in aeronautics, take the time to dig up all the charts, bust out the calculator and begin doing extensive testing to prove why this plane or that is over/under modelled, but whats the point? If it's close enough to history, I suppose thats good enough for me, because to me history (and the books I learned it from) are still the most important factor for me to decide if a game is relatively accurate, not whether I am educated enough to create a game on my own.

Maddox/1C games did all the work for us and did an excellent job.Is it perfect? I don't think so. Will it ever be? I highly doubt it, but thats the nature of a game sold to a large number of people. Some will never be happy regardless of how well done the game is.

I'm saying that we're reasonably close with this game and while it can and should be tweaked and improved, to me it's close enough to historical accuracy that when someone like Hess takes the time to say what he thinks in the manner that he did, I personally can think about what he said, maybe go research it a little more on my own and make up my own mind on what I think. He's given me something to consider, some things that perhaps I hadn't thought of before and to me, thats what this forum is all about and is still why I come here.


For those that scream bloody murder at the drop of a hat about their favorite plan being butchered, I can say well perhaps they ought to come out with something more concrete and substantial, otherwise they really are just annoying.

But for members of the community to slam anyone and everyone who dares to post an opinion of any sort because they instantly feel that anyone who says anything is whining is completely the wrong answer. I enjoy reading posts like this one because it gives me something to think about, the author doesn't appear to be trolling and he raises some good points. To have an atmosphere of elitism in a forum is a turn off for lots of people and probably also sets a bad example for people new to the sim...is that what we want to say out here in public?

I personally wish more people posted in the manner that Hess did here, as I mentioned I am not obsesssed by charts or tracks and while I also do not care for screamers who can be rude and insulting, I think I learn more from reading things like this post than having a million people saying why nothing the author says can be considered because there is no hard data to back up their claims.

If you are not claiming anything, isn't it still ok to state your opinion, as long as thats clarified beforehand?


Salute!





TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:06 AM
I have to agree with VH, I been flying "against" him for some time, incredible pilot who most of the time finishes a coop. I say against, cause I fly red, him blue. Highly respect him for his attitude and talent he has. He knows how to fly this bird, and knows all the tricks of the trade of the FW's. I been watching dogfight from my IL2, and this plane now turns so tightly with incredible maneuvers that I wonder. No it's not lag, since I host 90% of the coope, no skin download allowed and no one complains of lag.I even ask client how it goes, everything is perfect. The other thing that bugs me is the climb rate of the FW's, this thing exceeds specs by 20%, and the roll rate at high speed is way off.

I do not know why the FW became so good all of a suddon. VH expressed to me in HL, via the pager that he's back to 1.0 until the FW's is corrected. This is the first time that someone that flies exclusively that plane, that actually find it too good to be true... Never seen someone complaining it was too "ubber", VH is one.

Hope this will be corrected as well.

For those who are already crying out loud NOT TOO touch the FW's as they are, are simply showing that they really need a super plane to be a killer on HL. VH is a killer without that super plane, I applause him.

Cheers



------------------
Eric


http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:15 AM
must admit I agree

use to love the prepatch 190

but all the stooopid 190 whiners who couldnt fly it the way it was seem to have got their way and turned it into another boring Yak 3 clone

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:21 AM
I don't know about it being an uber Yak clone, but I will agree it's been given a serious kick in the pants. Still, for me I'm enjoying the moment, I've been flying the 190's since IL2 1.02 back in the day and it was terribly frustrating to be out turned, out climbed and out gunned by just about everything out there.

These days the 190 might be a little much, but I'm sure it will be changed soon enough anyway. So for me I'm going to take a minute to enjoy the better aspects of the FM tweaks because many areas of the plane seem to be right on now...it's not completely overdone as a whole, just maybe over tuned in some areas.


Once again my compliments to Hess on a good post and for standing up and saying what he thinks.




TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:33 AM
I agree with number 3, I posted about this before, and most people agree with me that they like to use the MG17 and the Wing-Root cannons seprate from eachother. The rest, I dont have an opnion because I dont fly the FW190 often.

http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/Regia/MC202-003.jpg
"THE ITALIAN STALLION!"

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:50 AM
TX-Zen wrote:
- P39 in this game is and always has appeared to be
- all that, but I really don't know that much about
- it, just how tough it can be in this game.

Well the "all that" statement is a relative one.. Relative to the ARMY it was to be the do all aircraft.. Which is not to say it did not do some things very well. Mostly it was the Allison engine.. The Army just kept tossing money at it trying to fix it and justify the whole water cooled concept. NAVY vs ARMY.. sometimes a good thing, some times bad.. The ARMY could have been escorting bombers to Berlin a lot sooner had they just went with the F4u... but the ARMY buying a NAVY plane? NEVER!

- I must compliment on the primary post though...Hes
- didn't claim to be this or that authority on
- anything but stated some interesting
- observations....his own observations mind you and
- admitted they were subjective.

Exact ally... Which if you will notice is what most people DON'T DO!

- Lately with the way the forums are I feel like it's
- almost useless to post anything because I don't have
- a stack of charts next to me...

Well.. as long as your not commenting on how wrong the charts are, you know the ones you don't have and have never seen) and demanding it be fixed.. Than you should be all right and free from someone disagreeing with you! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- I do have a pretty good background in history but
- I suppose we all know what that really counts for
- when talking about flight models these days.

Exact ally! SQUAT! History is written by the winners.. And that is not the whose part.. It than gets read and interpreted by someone 50 years later... That is to say some kid reads one book with one paragraph about how a Brewster shot down a ZERO in a head on pass and he thinks that every encounter was a HEAD ON PASS and that Brewsters should be able to shoot down ZEROS at will. So history is not to blame as much as the people who read it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- What is discouraging is that people's opinions no
- longer appear to count anymore.

THANK GOD! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Do you really want a sim via DIRECT DEMOCRACY? You would end up with BF1942.. a sim that does everything.. but nothing great.. where a flight sim is basically an extended Quake jump from one mountain top to the next.

- Have there really been that many flaming
- whiners crying about everything to justify so many
- of the responses we all see everyday? Whew, seems
- like we're all getting a bit cynical here I think.

Been the trend for about 10 years.. A lot of the DOOM and Quake kids are growing up.. and they want something a little more... real.. Problem is they just cant except the fact that a realistic flight sim is hard and takes time and PACENTS to be good at it.

- Anyway, back on topic:
-
- What I like is that Hess says what he thinks and in
- my book isn't whining about it...

Agreed.

- he has an opinion and that's that. I don't feel the
- same way as he does necessarily, but I like the way
- he laid it out,

ME TOO! He was very clear that this is the impression he gets from his readings.. never once saying his impression is the ONLY POSSIBLE ONE, therefore FIX IT to meet HIS impressions.

- think he did some level of research before posting
- (oops, he read a history book, not a chart...forget
- what I said then)

LOL! His post is very VERY different then MOST peoples posts, he is clear that this is his interpotations from his readings, noting there is room for error there. But goes on to note what does and does not match his interpotations of said... Which is not to imply he did NOT look at a CHART! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- and said what he felt. To me, that's a good post.

THE BEST! In that he is clear that his FEELINGS are not the only possible answer here.. UNLIKE 99 out of 100 other people in this forum!!

- I don't recall seeing where the forum rules stated
- you had to be an expert on anything to make a
- comment,

I don't recall seeing where the forum rules exclude it either, or where they say you can not comment on someone else comment.. in that is what a FORUM is (see links at the end if you don't belive me)

- instead I think he used
- the forum the way they are intended to be...he laid
- out his thoughts and invited a discussion.

Agreed.. which is so UNLIKE most.. Most come in here with their comic book interpotations and demand it be fixed to match the comic books they have read.. And when you consider the FACT that the comic book readers out number the others... Well I'm just GLAND that Oleg has the Balls to stand up and say NO to these guys... Even if it means I don't get what I want sometimes! Better to stick to you guns and keep your eye on the ball.

- One of the ways we become more educated about
- history is by debates in forums. The cool thing
- about forums is you don't have to be an expert to
- chime in and get feedback on what you think, many
- people will hop in and share what they know with you
- about the topic in question.

Agreed.. I just have a weakness for the ones that chime in as if their interpretation is the only reasonable answer.

- To me, that's really productive.

Agreed. But so hardly the case.


- I've learned a lot here and read a lot
- that generated enough interest to go out and learn
- more. It would seem that the way things in this
- forum are now though, books are no longer the proper
- way to educate oneself about something we want to
- know more about...now to me, that's really funny. In
- a bad way though.

LOL! Your just reading the wrong books.. Or.. Getting the wrong impression from what your reading.. Or your interpetation of what was written is out of wacky.

- Back on topic again:
-
- Personally I like a lot about the new FM for the
- FW's.

Some I like, some I don't.

- Am I an engineer? Nope. Am I a pilot? Nope.
- Was I in world war two and did I ever fly any of
- these planes? Nope. So am I really technically
- qualified to comment on the pure accuracy of the
- game? Nope.

Agreed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- but is that the point at all?

Only if your comment is on how wrong the chart is based on your FEELINGS of what someone said about the chart once, instead of reading the chart itself.

- But a number of things about the FM coincides with a
- lot that I have read about the FW's real life
- performance.

That is good for you.. In that some here cant find any value in this great sim! The thing that keeps me going is, it is better now than ever, it will get better as time goes by, and no sim will ever be perfect, so, enjoy what you got.

- It's durability for example, or the
- whole series excellent diving ability. To me that's
- significant. A number of things don't, like the new
- FM of the FW190A9, particularly the overheat and
- turn rate..I won't say it's uber at all, but in my
- opinion it seems a tad better than I have read about
- it. In many ways it appears to out turn the D9 (at
- least in my general experience with it, which is all
- in the last few days since the patch came out) which
- doesn't jive with what I have read in the past.

Note what you read.. unless it is a chart, typically only notes one experience at one altitude in one moment in time.. The sim has to be good for all experiences at all altitudes over an infinite amount of time.

- I unfortunately do not have any tracks to post or
- concrete tests to verify this...this is a subjective
- opinion about the way it feels compared to what I
- have read. In any case, I am not making a claim that
- it should be this way or that way at all,

THANK GOD! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No worries though.. for every one of you there are ten out there picking up the slack and not just asking but demanding fixes to things they can not even justify.. all based on FEELINGS... BAH! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- nor does Hess appear to be doing that either...
- he's stating his impression of the plane.

Exact ally.. I loved his post! I wish more realized that their interpretation of the data is just that.. an interptation.. not a FACT.

- I suppose I could go out and get a degree in
- aeronautics, take the time to dig up all the charts,
- bust out the calculator and begin doing extensive
- testing to prove why this plane or that is
- over/under modelled, but whats the point?

To prove why this plane or that is over/under modelled.

- If it's close enough to history, I suppose that's
- good enough for me,

Me too! I don't give a RAT's A$$ if the climb rate is off by 10%! Just as long as the RELATIVE charterstics of the aircraft are captured to the point that realistic tactics can be employed.. Than I'm fat n happy! I knew a guy once.. Richard Ordway.. He actually demanded that the cockpit colors be changed.. Because he had one color photo that showed they were a different shade of green.. He use to also demand the FM be fixed because the stall speed of the F4u was off by 2mph.. GIVE ME AN FIN BREAK! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- because to me history (and the books I
- learned it from) are still the most important factor
- for me to decide if a game is relatively accurate,
- not whether I am educated enough to create a game on
- my own.

What ever gets you to sleep at night! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Maddox/1C games did all the work for us and did an
- excellent job.Is it perfect? I don't think so.

News Flash... NO SIM EVER WILL BE!!!

- Will it ever be? I highly doubt it,

Ah good!

- but that's the nature of a game sold to a large
- number of people.

News Flash... It is the nature of a sim sold to a small number of people too.. i.e. the AIR FORCE.

- Some will never be happy regardless of how well done
- the game is.

Agreed.. They are the same people that think sex is bad... The worst sex I ever had was better than a stick in the eye.

- I'm saying that we're reasonably close with this
- game and while it can and should be tweaked and
- improved, to me it's close enough to historical
- accuracy that when someone like Hess takes the time
- to say what he thinks in the manner that he did, I
- personally can think about what he said, maybe go
- research it a little more on my own and make up my
- own mind on what I think. He's given me something to
- consider, some things that perhaps I hadn't thought
- of before and to me, that's what this forum is all
- about and is still why I come here.

Agreed!

- For those that scream bloody murder at the drop of a
- hat about their favorite plan being butchered, I can
- say well perhaps they ought to come out with
- something more concrete and substantial, otherwise
- they really are just annoying.

Agreed 100%!!

- But for members of the community to slam anyone and
- everyone who dares to post an opinion of any sort
- because they instantly feel that anyone who says
- anything is whining is completely the wrong answer.

Depends on how they present it.

- I enjoy reading posts like this one because it gives
- me something to think about, the author doesn't
- appear to be trolling and he raises some good
- points. To have an atmosphere of elitism in a forum
- is a turn off for lots of people and probably also
- sets a bad example for people new to the sim...is
- that what we want to say out here in public?

Maybe?

- I personally wish more people posted in the manner
- that Hess did here, as I mentioned I am not
- obsessed by charts or tracks and while I also do
- not care for screamers who can be rude and
- insulting, I think I learn more from reading things
- like this post than having a million people saying
- why nothing the author says can be considered
- because there is no hard data to back up their
- claims.

Agreed.

- If you are not claiming anything, isn't it still ok
- to state your opinion, as long as that's clarified
- beforehand?

As long!


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 07:00 AM
my time two drop two cents...

I'm no flyers expert and my whole experience on flying is from fyling with somebody, flying simulations (which never are accurate) and of course armchair flying (reading tons of books).


I don't know which booko you've studied for this but I've read at least four books about the Fw190/ TA152/BF109 series.
I also studied many documents about the Spitfire etc. In short the stuff everybody would read.

ISBN: 3893656693
ISBN: 3925505725
ISBN: 392550544X
etc....

I'll take short replies on what you've posted.

High wingloading (caused by the wing construction
- low drag low lift and its weight. in short ment for
- high speed and high speed fighting) Modelled near

this almost never mentioned this way in the books.
The FW190 was designed as a counterpart for the Bf109. It was found that if you have two competing development teams building fighter this will lead to one emerging victorious.

So there's no special Role which the fw190 was designed specifically for. Forget all this !.
Kurt tank said of his construction:
"The Bf109 was a Horse war Races. If properly used under perfect conditions it will win. The FW190 is designed as warhorse. It has to work under every condition, be easier to control and more sturdy" (which comes from his background in WW1 where he was in the cavalry..)

every Pilot quoted in the Series of Books confirmed that the overall handling of the lpane was exceptional and the only probems arised with the BMW 801 Series of Testengine.
There's no mention that the plane performed bad at slow speed (you wont find such quotes on allied sides too. at least o havent found).

There's even a testcombat between a FW190-A (i think it was even the V1) vs. a Bf109F4 where the 109 outturned and outclimbed the 190 (but again this was a v1 which means it was a flying prototype with an engine having one fourth less power..´)

Of your so mentioned "evil wing drops of 300" I couldn't find any trace so far. But I will spend this afternoon re-reading all three books.

Of your mentioned glide characteristic of a brick is found no evidence. Besides, the FW190 was so well and sturdy constructed that even several testpilots successfully ditched it. They even ditched several test-machines and they were completeley rebuilt as the damage which was taken was minimal. Again I couldn't find any evidence of the posted...

All testpilots and several mentioned real-war-piltos said, that in high speeds the plane was easier to control than a 109.


to the "never fight on the Horizontal"...
This is not true. The only plane on western side that could outturn ist was the Spitfire and even this babe had a hard time until the allies captured a fw190.
It is mentioned that the p47 and P51 posed a serious threat to the fw190 as it was able to achieve higher high-alt speeds (which led to the Ta152..) but no mention about being outturned.

In addition a general tactic to do the following if faced by a spitfire on your six.
Fly an violent S. That's it. The Rollrate of the other planes was not very good and so by turning left (90?) and then turn right (90?) again you would gain distance and this way the attacker would lose you.

There's a acid comment from an english pilot saying "Fights are not worn by turning" which proves high useless turnfights were.
However, it is written that in a sustained turnfight the 190 would lose against a spitfire. Judging from the sim, where the hurricane is a great turner (but historically was inferior to spitfire) this means that every russian plane (la5/7 yak-9) was better turner (which may be true, who am i to prove this. Although sometimes I get the feeling that the air-war on east side was something completely different as on west sides...nevertheless)

Climb rates:
these were during testphases inferior to the 109F4. Outspeeding an F4 at this stage was NOT AN OPTION. This was corrected later by better engine.


In general: I fly the 190 a-8 a-9. I also fly the 109 and so maybe i fit into your picture of a LW-Whiner.

From my experience i say bluntly that in 1.0 the 190 was complete crap . It's no coincedence that nobody fewl it. Yeah there were some fanatcis which tried over and over again only to be ripped apart by EVERY othe rplane. I wont comment on 1.0 any longer.
In 1.1 I have a plane which will stall at 450km/h ifpulling the elevator 2/3.
It's got some strange accel feeling.

The only thing I realised is that once I find a good position to swoop down, my WEAPONS do some better work. After one pass the enemy either drops to the ground or has so serious problems (due to damage) that I would dwon him in a HE-111 afterwards.
It's no Uber-plane.
I'm still amazed how nice the P-39 outturn you now.
I'm still running from yaks which will outturn me with ease. I still dive out of combat as soon a 109 is about the "pick" me as a target and will only return if situation is good (call me coward if you like...)

in 1.0 i flew the 109-G14 now i fly the a-8 and a-9 because I always tried to fly this plane and it was simply bad. How could a plane that shocked the allies and turned out to be the best overall fighter in germany be so bad ?
I mean advanced tactics are one thing but the best tactic wont do you credit if you have no means by realise them....

Since 1.1 i play this Fw190 and I get outtunred and outclimbed in almost on daily basis. I really don't know what you think is wrong with the plane.
It certainly isn't a THE Killer plane. A lot of people chase others around in odd P-39, La-7s and Yaks (no flame here, just MY observations).

Last but not least, who am I to judge. Who are you to judge. We both never flew WW2 aircraft. All stories are biased. All of them.
One is put in AWE/RESPECT the other has so much pride.
There's almost no story about wartime stuff (be it tanks, planes or weapons) where you would hear the stuff posted in forums like these.
Planes called "flying coffins" is just ridiculous etc.
Just form questions of morale...
A lot of so called reports from Aces are highly biased and exagerated (from every side) and highly depend on the overall situation at this particular moment (if for example comparing combat reports)..


In short:
please do not RETURN to the FM of 1.0. I mean for every plane DON'T do it.
maybe the planes NEED tweaking. Who am I to disagree but I think the whole Forum is messed up woth so called experts which from general feeling judge.

if you want to see how a plane performs turn on ALL realism. Disable Padlock, externals etc.
Have a go at greatergreen for let's say 3 hours. Afterwards , you can say you had some serious combat and maybe then we can judge.
Right now in this "arcade-padlock-external-view, no cockpit"-community talking about the FM of a specific plane is like wanting to correct the mirror of your sportscar and the angle of your spoiler when everyone is driving not faster than 50km/h....

the problem in FB lies with it's high number of planes.
on the one side it attracts a lot of fans (as usual everyone has his plane and wants it modelled as good as possible to match the "wartime stories" etc.) on the other side this leads to the fact that a development team has to split it's attention on "modelling" , "balance" etc wheras it could spend more attention on Physics in general http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To close this post (finally you're through.. *g*)
i think WAIT and be PATIENT.
This is a beta patch. A lot of planes need fixing and I am more than certain they will be fixed. I certainly agree that FW190 pilots now received kind of bonus. But mostly this bonus comes form the fact that the plane was crap before and a lot of people aren't used to the fact that the 190 is more than a bad joke. Now it's a threat. That's how it should be.
Just to recall yesterdays flying.
Iwas online 1 hour. I killed 4 planes. 3 of them were Fw190 and one was a P-39... And trust me I am a crap pilot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers...

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:06 AM
*Sigh* More FW whining. I give up. You would think the 190 kills planes just by pointing your nose at them, and is immune to damage by reading the forum lately. Nobody flew it before because it sucked so bad, now it is a Tie-fighter cleansing the skies of the opposition.

So far I have seen that the FW-190 rolls too fast, is too tough, doesn't overheat, turns too well at low and high speed, doesn't bleed energy, climbs too fast, etc. Soon people will be complaining that the visibility is too good. I have flown the 190 for a long time now and it is not THAT much improved. Funny, nobody flew the 190 now everyone is an expert on its FM. Strange. I agree that the roll rate should decrease with speed and that if it is capable of some cheesy maneuver that can be exploited then these things should be fixed. Still the FW whining is getting ridiculous and much of it is BS from people who fly it once or twice. Its amazing how many people here snap to judgement and make claims that later on are totally disproven after some actual time is spent. I just love statements that start with, "I just tried the FW-190 and...."

And the FW overheat is fine. It overheats normally with radiator closed. With Radiator on auto it doesn't really overheat but your radiator will be fully open and you will be going VERY slow.

The FW is the new Yak-3? LOL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . I just hope Oleg uses sense and reason when examining the FW and makes whatever changes are appropriate. If he bases his changes on the crap posted in the 30 threads complaining about the 190 then we will likely have the dog that was ignored by most players again and we will be blessed with all 109 servers again. Isn't that great?

And this post isn't directed at those who make informative posts, or that state something as opinion. This post is directed at those who just post to jump on the bandwagon and make claims without even flying a certain plane for an extended period of time. Or to those who just make general statement to attract attention to themselves or to exaggerate things. I'm all for getting things correct, but like I said, I just hope Oleg uses good judgement when making changes. The FW-190 was regarded as one of the best fighters in WWII with exceptional high-speed handling, toughness, and speed. Let's just hope after the changes to the patch are implemented we have something that even remotley resembles that, unlike before.

Sorry to vent, bad day at work and this stuff is getting old. Every week we have a "noob" plane. At one time or another, this is the updated list of uber planes since IL-2 was released:

I-16
I-153
Hurricane
La-5FN
La-7
109E
109G-10
109K-4
P-39N
P-39Q-10
Yak-3
Yak-9T
Yak-9K
Mig-3U
& last but not least the FW-190.

There was even a thread about the P-47 being "uber." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'm sure I am forgetting some but you get the point.


<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/19/0307:20AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:25 AM
IMO

Rollrate OVERMODLED

Manual PropPitch Does not Induce Drag as it should

Climb rate may be slightly overdone not much tho

Been flying FW since IL2 not changin now

Tweeked ingame stick sensitivity to make FW flyable Online
(dumbed the inputs down)


I think what alot of you are seing is the fact that since the patch many Pilots are trying the FW & trying to fly it like an la7 or Yak... spining wildly & making repeted snapstalls to evade these are last resort manuvers that imo are lame... and never work

I have not changed my style of fighting with FW because the FM changed...

I stick with Raw speed & Strict B&Z never tailing one bandit for more than a few moments when someone does attain my six I use real manuvers not silly ultra rolls & mulitple
snap stalls but large Barrel rolls combined with flaps & rudder to evade or 1 hard snapstall or a series of rolling sizors or horizontal sizors

Not braging but I am good in this ac in il2 & fb & still good in fb1.1b

IMHO I think that the true FM of the Focke Wolf layes somewhere between FB 1.0 & 1.1B I just hope they can tweek it right for the Final patch

Then it will be a joy to fly again !!!



<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:42 AM
agree 100% !

It seems like a lot of people are now really p***** off because their one trick pony doesn't work any more. Often the whole forum evolves into mass-hysteria and a lot of people jump on topics.
I think it's solely because the "brick'o'old-days" now is capable of throwing stones back. back in old days I heard "learn to fly" "use tactics" bla bla. Now the same people didn't try the same plane as me.
After 1.1 the same people are here and demand the 190 to be castrated...
you right kyurule it's really boring http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've flown the 190 before, tried it over and over again, even if failed and in case fun was going to be flushed down the toilet switched to 109. Now I don't have to switch.
Plane works. I don't call it UBER (holy crap, that's an ugly word..).

As I said I get outturned frequently. I get shot down tima and again. Maybe it needs tweaking, maybe not. Who knows...

@Murdoc:
--Manual PropPitch Does not Induce Drag as it should

--Climb rate may be slightly overdone not much tho

I think these points apply to almost any plane here.
Especially the drag issue is rather connected to the whole FM-Physics and not to a plane in particular...

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:48 AM
Hi there JaBo_HH--Gotcha i will try to give you some of the things that lays the backgrund for what i am saying

The highwingloading is from books and simeple aronautic calculation. try multiplying the weight and the wingarea for the FW190A4 and Bf109F4 the one with the lowest figure is best off this is a simple way. but theres is more to it like the form and shape. This determins a lot of things on turnrate at lowspeed like the F4u pilots vere advised not try to outturn the zero its the same matter.

I dont think the low speed handling is bad i just say low speed plus hard manuvers are not good for the FW190 many planes with a rectangular wing does have a violent stall with no or little warning even the modern cessna 150 does have that nasty habbit of dropping a wing if pressed at low speed,the use of leading edge slats are importent means of preventing this.

A yak or a spit has very different wingconstruction in both the form and shape. It will stall partly and give you some warnings before a complete stallthrough.

Yes i do think the FW190 was the best german piston driven fighter, and i think the 1.0 represented the FW190 better.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:08 AM
Hi JG77Von_Hess,

thx for your input.

I'm no aeronaut and so I can't discuss such topics. I know that PERFORMANCE as such depends on various factors. One of them is wingload. It's one.

Next are:
Weight balancing
Aerodynamics as such
Weight load.
Power / weigh ratio etc.

With all these factors being then again dependant on the material used, furhermore it depends on the way and markmanship the stuff is then welded together... we could go on for hours. I know you wanted to make a rough assumption and wanted to confirm you're right. that's legal.

As I posted above I've read the books above and that's about everything I got.
I mean as a youth you also read articles from AEROPLANE and all that but they were not accurate (to say the least).

The whole Fw190 issue was debated to death.
From what I see is, that the Fw190 was one of th ebest fighter germany has produced. It was produced in very high numbers and has proven itself in countless times. If it were so crappy as it was in 1.0 (and MOST will admit it) it would've'been a joke.
That's the assumption I make. An Aircraft that produced a stalemate in 42/43 and then was still competitive until 45 until it was inferior to LA-7 and P-51 only couldn't be that bad.

I've read enough articles, books and the so called "LW-Whines" to know my share of this plane. I don not dare to say "roll rate must be that, climb rate must be this" or "this is too hard".
I thought that of the LA too until i read some material.
I've read the above mentioned books from the design teams of the FW-company and even if taking into account that every author biased I think i read enough to say that the plane must have been good.
nobody says it was a "kiddie"plane. I mean face it. No plane is.
It's Fm is very demanding. From what I judge the observations I can say that the bird is very competitive. But I've yet to see some of these so called "UBER"-effects you speak.
If the plane would be that bad as you write it it wouldn't be accepted.

The matter with F4U vs. Zero is simple. After Midway the Japanese couldn't catch up with engines. The Zero remained a great turner but (similar to hurricane) was slow and a very light construction. Now if your topspeed is so low it's no wonder americans switched to BnZ and that's the swansong of the Zero. It's no wonder the japs had their version of the FW190 called Ki-84 i think.(at least they look very similar.. *g*)

To close this one. I think even if your calculations prove right they can't possibly demonstrate anything. We are no engineers. It takes years of development to produce a plane and, no offence, I seriously doubt that an armchaor pilot like me or even a part-time pilot like you can accurately judge how a more than two ton weighing plane armed to teeth will react if you have to take on enemy planes in rough conditions and the fact that your life depends on it.

how dare we to say "this is wrong" or "this is right"...
isn't that ridiculous ? No offence again.

I for my part can say that as long as the planes feel the way the majority of historical documents and given technical data proves they'Re ok.
As long as I face the situation that I take a plane from 1945 and be shot down repetitevely by a plane form 1941
(as long as I use the plane according to spec)
there're two solution.
a) I suck
b) something is wrong.

In most cases it will be a)
With time we get to see b)
most problems here arise from simply wrong assumptions.

I personally was shocked in 1.0 of how crappy the 190 was.
I wasted countless hours of climbing to high alts in order to prepare a Boom only to find out that the moment i apporached the enmy outturned me and then climbed on my back.
I was shocked that although I held every advantage and watched that I keep it, the A/C reacted strange.
But I was shocked even more when I treid these tactics with different planes (namely: Bf109, Yak-9 and even the infamous LA-7 which I threw away in disgust after this *g*)
and they worked.
I then checked back all I read and I couldn't find a match.
That's the only assumption I make.

of course, I could have met ppl that are better. I certainly will everyday. But there will be ppl out there that you'd call "noob" or less skilled. And I found out that the enemy must be really really DUMB in order to be toasted by a FW190...

this simply doesn't match with quotes form allied pilots like "deadly adversary" or "frightening enemy".
And it doesn't match with the quotes of the pilots flying the plane saying "very nice to handle, good response" etc. You name it...

it simply didn't match.

Check the above posted books. Give thema try. There're reports form Pilots that fewl 109s fw190 and even allied pilots that captured a 190-d9.

cheers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:33 AM
I have made a test...

In QMB, I chose a FW190A4, 100% fuel, default armament, Smolensk map, 100m altitude.

I started the game and climbed right away at almost constant 270 km/h IAS, up to 5000m, 110% power. I had no overheating.

I reached 5000m after 5'17"... Should be around 6.8 min.

Where is the problem ? What did I do wrong ?

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:35 AM
To JaBo_HH--GotchaWell
yes as with all reading of history books you have to be sceptical. the subject is 41-45 for the estern front its a long time ago and there arent many veterans around to ask how things vere, so reading is almost the only way left of getting the feel and the all the odd habbits the planes in the game might have had.

still there is a way to get the basics of flying right,
i would strongly recomend this book as it would anwser many of the questions about what planes can do and not do
The Advanced Pilots Flight Manual by William K. Kershner
Single and twin engined prop planes are coverd in this book

The uber. well did u see the uber in my post? and id never said anything about noobplanes and so.
I said to hanger that the rollrate was stinking uber at high speed. this was a conversation between him and me, and again it was my judgement http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
if u read carefully throug my first post u can see that many of the things mention there are what i get from reading and some flying expirience. i dont want to pork the FW190A why should i? i loved this bird.

Ive flown this plane in all the WW2 Sims i played and i think that the FM in FB 1.0 are the best FW simulation ive tried so far.

I think there is as many anwsers as there a books on this subject. i wont say he said and this is the way i must be.

Do you want me anwser on some specefic thing u wrote?
if so i will try, but dont take my word for more than 1 vote
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Could you help me on point 1,2 and 3 in my first post havent got any clue yet on those

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:50 AM
I've flown the 190 alot in 1.0. I loved the firepower and speed on it, but it was outclassed on every other department. In 1.1, it is much improved.

I'm no AE, nor have I flown any a/c in real life, so all I can do is compare performance in 1.1b to specs, and pilot reports.

Rollrate seems to be too high.
Elevator response is excellent, even at high speed. Too good? I don't know.. And you're STILL limited to 6G, pull more and you black out, or get a nasty snap stall, which bleeds alot of speed in the process. I don't see the problem. The 190 still can't outturn anything. Only the A5 can outturn the G6,G10,G14 and K4, but the difference is small.

About the climbrates, are they too high? at first I thought so. Search the web and you'll find many sources saying 700-800meter/min.. Eric brown's test on a A3 with derated engine shows 16m/s. Ask yourself, what power settings were used? Cruise settings? Combat settings? Was Emergency power and boost on? My guess is that these numbers are from normal combat settings. You would expect a significant increase with EM power and boost.. and since those are the settings most people use online almost all the time (they don't have to worry about engine durability, like pilots had in r/l). Suddenly the 19m/s(A4) - 23m/s (A9, Dora)becomes plausible, no?

Back to 1.1b, I've flown the A5 almost exclusively since the patch.. it still can't dogfight against most a/c, you can keep an alt advantage if you're carefull, but it's definately not a noob a/c. It is now much more deadly at high speed hit and run and BnZ. Thanks to the high speed elevators, you can now actually pull your guns on a bandit trying to break away hard. The tactics used in r/l, like a quick roll and diving turn in the opposite way to escape DO work in 1.1.

IMO, the 190 in 1.1b seems to be much closer to what I've heard about the 190 in WW2 than 1.0 ever was, or IL2. Is it an a/c to be feared now, especially in numbers. Maybe it needs some minor tunes, but for christ sake, don't turn it back to how it was in 1.0.(climb 8 mins to 5000m, get one pass and spend another 5 mins running away, and another 8mins to get alt back)

PS: about the "no overheat".. only works with auto-radiator and you have to keep your speed up to keep the radial engine cool.. slow down below 400kph and you're overheating easily, even with radiator full open.

"Ich bin ein Würgerwhiner no longer"

Message Edited on 08/19/0310:56AM by JZG_Kaiser

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:01 AM
Hi JZG_Kaiser,

So you think the test is faulty because I used 110%, instead of 100%, right ? I had no overheat message at 110% (there is no WEP on the A4). I didn't have the feeling I was frying my engine...

So what does the 6.8 minutes to 5000m given in the game mean ? I guessed it was the best time to reach 5000m, am I mistaken ?

You also talk about climb rates, I am pretty sure climb rates depend on altitude, so I doubt that 19m/s is achievable from 100m to 5000m.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:06 AM
The 19m/s for A4 is below 2000m, it drop off fast above it, then picks up again when the supercharger comes on around 3400m, after that it drops off fast again.

Message Edited on 08/19/0311:10AM by JZG_Kaiser

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:17 AM
To JZG_Kaiser
Thx for your reply.

Should FW190A5 be able to outturn the Bf109G-to K?
My suggestion would yes at high speed and no at a speed that matches the best turn rate for the various planes.

If this is the fact in 1.1b perhaps the FW190A is a bit overdone on this matter and the Bf109 a bit undermoddeled?

Even if we had factory new planes availeble my bet would be that pilot A outturns pilot B in the same planes and this goes for climbing too.

Read my first post again and comment the points ive written there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:25 AM
Hi again.

lets concentrate on your points. I pick out the ones I remember. I'll read the documentation about the othe rpoints at home.


-->2 The FW190 is close to beeing too fragile.. Dont get me wrong, im not talking about the plane falling apart from a few hits, but try this test. Take an FW190A4 and someone in a yak7 give the FW190 a few 12.7 hits.. just enough to see the smallest hole in the fuselage or wing or tail thats 1 or 2 visible hits.Now the bad thing is u loose approx. 60-120 kph in speed and your acceleration and climb rate suffers too, that is = 100% death for the FW all other planes in game can still perform desent with this degree of damage, the FW190 needs it speed and power to survive.

same here. I've witnessed the once you get slight hits (I dfly a-8 and a-9) to plane loses speed. Moreover the plane becomes prone to shaking (at about 450 the wings start to flutter.). We now don't know how the developers model damage and its effects. Of course judging by the external view they look minor. But I've accepted it so far. In most cases it still doesn't stop you from disengaging. I try to live the hartmann way "be content and patient" so I break from comabt and rtb... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons still forcelinked? in real life you could arm, disarm and fire any pair of guns/cannons. They even wrote that in the planesdatabase in the game.... that i really hate. I know this has been debated forth and back many times so if anyone can tell me the name of a book or documents that states that the Mgs and wingroot canons were linked please tell me!!...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is historically correct Sir. What I've read from technical documentation the RLM demanded it that way. They said it doesn't make ANY sense to fire them seperately as the firepower is to low.

You could fire Nose and wingroots OR ALL guns.



About the UBER thing. Ok of course u didn't say it. It was rather related to several posts. I mean everyone can see the so called "whining" started as the patch hit the deck.
I for my part remember all my Squadron mates (flying 109s) complaining about crap "patch" because their 109 started to stall... lol
some people forget what they have. I told them to have a try in the 190 and after five mnutes they were back in the 109.... guess why http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But again sorry for making it look like an accusation ..
see ya in the air http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:41 AM
Hi again JaBo_HH--Gotcha

Thx on 2 and 3 subject.

The purpose of this thread was not to campare peformance charts or demand some specefic change but i stated ot my point on the the new FW190A and compared the overall 1.1b to 1.0 issues with out claiming that my chart is more accurate then yours.

Murdocs way of flying it reflects mine aswell and your hartmann style goes high for me too.

if you still wants some specefic anwsers you could mail me!

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:46 AM
VH:

>>The flaps creates too much lift and too little breake >>effect FW190 used split flaps, and the turbulence created >>in the gap between the the wing and the flap created more >>breake than on plain flaps.

Agreed, the A4-A9 even accelerates with 0% throttle, max flaps and gear down.. the thing is HARD to slow down when landing.

>>The overall lift seems to have been increased too, i >>think its a bit too much as well, u can flick and trash >>it around at low speed now with near no danger af >>overriding the max aoa.

I don't know, I think it's still VERY twitchy and prone to stalling at speeds below 350.

>Odd behavier of the komandogeraet.
Clarify please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

>>The rollrate drop is nearly non existent. should be like >>in 1.0 with a change from 500 to 650 Kmh before the drop >>would be felt.

I liked the roll-rate better in 1.0 too. It's incredible now. Totally agree.

>>THe highspeed manuovorbility is too high, should be good >>even when entering compressability
>>But the danger of G stalles and highspeed stalling is >>
>>near non.. unless u do something stupid.

I don't know, I'm used to being smooth on stick from flying 1.0 FW190's, but if I yank the stick back full at high speeds, I snap-stall it easy.

>>A couple of wishes and questions.

>>1 The A4 uses the same BMW 801-D2 as the A5 (why have >>they modelled to diff. engines? im not takin the late >>ones used on A7-A8 in to acount)

I've heard/read this too, but maybe Oleg has more accurate data?

>>2 The FW190 is close to beeing too fragile.. Dont get me >>wrong, im not talking about the plane falling apart from >>a few hits, but try this test. Take an FW190A4 and >>someone in a yak7 give the FW190 a few 12.7 hits.. just >>enough to see the smallest hole in the fuselage or wing >>or tail thats 1 or 2 visible hits.Now the bad thing is u >>loose approx. 60-120 kph in speed and your acceleration >>and climb rate suffers too, that is = 100% death for the >>FW all other planes in game can still perform desent with >>this degree of damage, the FW190 needs it speed and power >>to survive.

100% AGREE! This annoyed me to hell in 1.0 also. One ping from a simple MG and you get the effects you described + the wing that got hit (even from 1 MG) loses alot of lift and the 190 becomes very hard to control. The effect seems totally overdone. But on the other hand, lotsa VVS complain about 190 being to durable and hard to down. DM might have to be reworked.

>>3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons still >>forcelinked? in real life you could arm, disarm and fire >>any pair of guns/cannons. They even wrote that in the >>planesdatabase in the game.... that i really hate. I know >>this has been debated forth and back many times so if >>anyone can tell me the name of a book or documents that >>states that the Mgs and wingroot canons were linked >>please tell me!!...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yup yup, gimme the option to switch off the MG's, which are totally useless STILL, and only blind you with the uber-muzzleflashes.


"Ich bin ein Würgerwhiner no longer"

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 11:58 AM
THX for the cool reply Kaiser

For the highspeed part try not to bank the FW190 and it dosent flick when pulled out of a high speed dive. now that seems a bit overdone to me if looking at the the g stall statements.

For the low speed part.. this is my personal experience try an a8 lowereing your flaps and apply full hammer on the throttle. I can twist and turn this bird like no other in the game this dosent fit in anywhere to my knowledge on flying and any of my books

again thx
VH

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 12:03 PM
IMO the 190 is a lot more realistical in the currect patch version.

1.0:
- heavy elevator and instantaneous turnrate (way too low): wrong
- climbrate: wrong (too low, especially below 3050 or 3100m, (depended on the altitude, where the second gear of the charger has been activated)
- topspeed: too fast for the later versions and too slow for the A4 and A5 (they were 40-60 km/h too slow at 6000m)
- rollrate: maybe a bit too slow: correct
- highspeedstall was not possible: wrong
- turnrate at slow speed was nearly the same as in 1.1b: correct
- flaps: the brakeeffect of them was too strong and they created not enough lift
- ...

1.1b:
- topspeeds: correct
- climbrates: correct
- rollrate at very high speeds: wrong
- highspeedstall is possible now, because the elevator isn't as heavy as before ... : correct
- turnrate isn't overmodeled ... turning at slow speeds against Russian fighters is useless, anyway (the testdata of Huckebein can be read in the forum) : correct
- it loses a lot of energy while turning: correct
- flaps: it's just the other way around, if compared to 1.0 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif : too much lift


Everybody, who says that the 190 is the new newbie plane barely flies FR or with "cockpit always on" I guess (flying B&Z on a dogfightserver with activated external views and several enemies, which are turning at low altitudes is way too easy with every plane) ... the bar is still there and together with the 190's controlability of FB1.0 it prevented the 190 from being flown according to the historical tactics (attack with high speeds and don't turn longer than ~45-90?).

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 08/19/0305:10PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 12:05 PM
ok ! lets have a talk this evening. I'll be online at about 8pm (central european time) or in other words

in 7 hours from now. I'll then read on your topics and maybe we can discuss this.
the books provide charts or speeds and climbing as well.
maybe we can compare.

I think we generally agree. I just thought from your post (I think I've misjudged it...sorry for that) that it sounded like
"The Fw190 is to powerful now, bring it back to 1.0" That's the moment I seem to have overeacted http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I don't want to have it back like in 1.0 as it was absolutely no fun to fly and moreover you were treated like an idiot when flying the fast-rolling-but-allways-stalling-brick. (same was for P47).

Let's discuss this later. i try to have some scans to for comparisons.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 12:12 PM
RGR that JABO
I have no scanner and i only 4 of my books on the FW190A.D
At my home i can get the rest in the end of the week
Im glad u dont see my threat as whining and crap

VH http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 12:15 PM
Hey Von Hess,

do your books have accurate and detailed "blueprints" on the FW190, useful for modelling in 3dsmax? If so, can you scan them and email it to me? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


EDIT: oops, I misread your post, you DONT have a scanner.. LOL, never mind http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Ich bin ein Würgerwhiner no longer"

Message Edited on 08/19/0312:16PM by JZG_Kaiser

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:19 PM
Well I guess it's a good thing this is a beta patch.......... If you guys could put your beefs in the proper format and submit them..(that is if you havent already..) then maybe you will see results. I just hope the 1.2 doesnt take as long ag the 1.1b did.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:46 PM
I tend to agree with Atzeruecks comparing with the two versions.

I truly believe that most of the people who do nothing but complaing about planes dont fly full real.

As I have noticed there used to be alot more full real servers in HL (ok mayby speed bar on /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) than nowdays.

I just want to add my own opinion which (unfortunately for the trolls) tends to agree with general lines of this thread.

In the 1.0 wasnt a good plane one must face it, even with correct tactics it had too many FM faults working against him that succesfull flying needed either very very good piloting or plain luck.

Lets see, you had to use B&Z to be succesfull now this is correct but the high speed handling added to infamous bar made this tactic nearly impossible. Now with better high speed handling in 1.1b we have more correct FW190 in our hands since it can use its historical tactic correctly.

I agree that after the speed gets too fast even FW190 should slow down in handling this isnt the case with 1.1b .

Iam actually very proud of this thread it has all the good features a critical thread should have. No flaming and deacent discussion. And the most of all it should be the proof for VVS side that not all LW pilots want uber planes but correctly modelled planes.

In this case wouldnt we be screaming bloody murder if somebody even suggested that FW190 high speed roll rate etc should be toned down a bit? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:02 PM
As to the 190 being a better representation in FB 1.0, no way.

You can also find numerous sources that say the FW-190 out-turned the 109, maybe they were referring to high speed turn.

Also, like the low altitude tuned Spitfires (LF.Mk.IX for example), the FW-190 actually had a good climb rate at low to medium altitudes and it fell off as its height increased.

And Murdoc, I agree. I have become pretty good and that is how I fly my 190. I don't sacrifice speed for anything. If the shot is not there, I'll just break off and build more speed/altitude. If I do get killed I'll be going fast when it happens. If I had a bumper sticker on my Focke Wulf it would be, "I brake for nothing." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Again, having said this they should lower the roll-rate at speed and get rid of any ability to perform cheesy low speed maneuvers. I still don't know what people are talking about (I never slow down when fighting) but I'll trust they are right.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:03 PM
The DM of the FW190 is what i want to stress on. It is hard to be downed at once, but few people pay attention that once hit the FW starts bleeding speed and lift. An AI Yak almost got me the other day. I bagged him, but then headed to base cuz I could not make more than 530 kmh and barely managed to handle it and that after a couple of MG hits, no cannon.


"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

ZG77_Nagual
08-19-2003, 03:20 PM
I agree with Atzebrueck on all counts

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:39 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- As to the 190 being a better representation in FB
- 1.0, no way.
-
- You can also find numerous sources that say the
- FW-190 out-turned the 109, maybe they were referring
- to high speed turn.
-
- Also, like the low altitude tuned Spitfires
- (LF.Mk.IX for example), the FW-190 actually had a
- good climb rate at low to medium altitudes and it
- fell off as its height increased.
-
- And Murdoc, I agree. I have become pretty good and
- that is how I fly my 190. I don't sacrifice speed
- for anything. If the shot is not there, I'll just
- break off and build more speed/altitude. If I do get
- killed I'll be going fast when it happens. If I had
- a bumper sticker on my Focke Wulf it would be, "I
- brake for nothing." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Again, having said this they should lower the
- roll-rate at speed and get rid of any ability to
- perform cheesy low speed maneuvers. I still don't
- know what people are talking about (I never slow
- down when fighting) but I'll trust they are right.
-
- <center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg
-
- "Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

If you don't know what theyre talking about then don't trust they are right is my advice.Cheesey manuevers?Thats an opinion.I can accept the roll-rate is too good at higher speeds,because I've seen documentary evidence that shows that.But just because some vvs flyers goes around talking about "unrealistic" manuevers don't make them an authority.
Those vvs planes can do similar manuevers but at different speeds.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:54 AM
Hi von Hess. Seems as if I couldn't exchange the data so here'S something i typed form books.

Technical Profile
Type: Fw 190-A3
Wingarea: 18,3 m²
Wingspan: 10,50
Height:3,95
Length:8,85
Engine: BMW 801 D2
Engine Power: 1700 PS at n=2700 RPM on 0 Alt
RPM of Propellor: 1290 RPM
Propellor: 3-blade metal-pitch-controlled, D=3.3 m

Flight stats with Combat weight of 3850kg.

Topspeed at Takeoff and Emergency Power in
ALT
0 565
1300 600
3200 585
6500 680
8000 660
10000 610

Climbrate at Groundlevel 16,5 m/sec

Climbtimes at max. Climbrate and Combatrate from 0 to
ALT min
2000 2
4000 4,6
6000 7,2
8000 11,3
9000 15

Max. Ceiling 11,000
Landingspeed 130 km/h (!!)
Takeoff 300 m
Max. Range if flying at economical power at 5.000 metres alt.: 810 km

Fuel: 525 litres
Oil: 42 litres (max 55litres)

Armanent:
2 x MG17 (900 rounds each)
2 x MG151 (250 rounds each)
2 x MG FF (90 rounds each)

Armor: 109 kg
Fueltype: C3

For completeness. These values have been tested without the cannons in the wings (MG FF).

I also have some charts which I nedd to scan in order to show. Unfortunately the computer with the scanner installed went down yesterday.. 
There you can see the climb and accelrates of the bird with emergency power AND combatpower.

I Also have Data on the A-1 and A-2 as for several V versions.
Unfortunately the Information on the A-8 is inaccurate as it's a rebuild A-8 and the plane is lighter (new materials, no guns, no armor plates) and has different engine, but one can get a guess. The engine power seems comparable. The plane is 450 kg lighter so I can provide on demand.
I also have charts on the TA152 but I guess we don't need it before we get a TA-152 at all. ; )


As mentioned above it's the A3 so we can take a guess at the A-8 / 9 which had more power and a lot of improvements.
Anyone tested these values on an A-3 ?
I fly A8/9 as everyone else sports 44' Birds...

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:07 PM
Hi again Gotcha!

I agree on comparering Perfomance charts will be some of the way to get the FW190A right, but i didnt post any of my charts, because i ment the feel of the birds overall behavior in the game and i took the good and and from 1.0
and compared to the changes in 1.1b and held that aginst my impressions on flying and what the books ive read says.

Ill post my mail adr. so i would be glad if you would send them to me instead.

jg77von_hess@hotmail.com

Big Thx for the interrest in getting improvements this wayhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:25 PM
Charts on any Focke-Wulfs?

Post 'em if ya got 'em!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:26 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- *Sigh* More FW whining.
Soon people will be complaining that the
- visibility is too good.


ROTF


Hey man I been flying this boat since Il2 & Im enjoying some of its new features......


but Im not enjoying the rollrate, or some of its other slightly OM features

Notice I said slightly OM belive me I dont want v1.0 bird back, I would like to have a More realistic version...

As I said before somewhere inbetween 1.0 & 1.1b


<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>



Message Edited on 08/20/0305:04PM by AFJ_Murdoc

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:32 PM
Hmm take a look at the first post i dont see any whining there. just pointing out the good and bad in 1.0 and comparing them to the what the 1.1b gives this is my impression. if you disagree point out on what instead.

No i dont think ill post any charts here this post is not a chart comparrision competition.

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:44 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:

- @Murdoc:
---Manual PropPitch Does not Induce Drag as it should

JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- I think these points apply to almost any plane here.
- Especially the drag issue is rather connected to the
- whole FM-Physics and not to a plane in particular...


No only FW & 109 have manual PP that can act as speed break
it was close to right in v1.0 now its just like all the yaks & la's PP,,,,,, That is a disadvantage for US

I friend of mine told me that these typs of Props could Induce More drag than droping the gear & full flaps combined, That means we are losing a great manuver,
I canot tell you how many times in FB 1.0 that someone was on my six, Id throttle down Adjust the PP & theyd fly right buy & more often than not they ended up shot down
Now this manuver is gone ....... & it was a great manuver http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif





<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:51 PM
Gwihair wrote:
- I have made a test...
-
- In QMB, I chose a FW190A4, 100% fuel, default
- armament, Smolensk map, 100m altitude.
-
- I started the game and climbed right away at almost
- constant 270 km/h IAS, up to 5000m, 110% power. I
- had no overheating.
-
- I reached 5000m after 5'17"... Should be around 6.8
- min.
-
- Where is the problem ? What did I do wrong ?
-
-

you shouldnt experiance any overheating FW had a totaly differant style of colling system that was superior to other forms of cooling it was cooling constantaly and did not have cowl flaps to induce drag

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>



Message Edited on 08/20/0305:07PM by AFJ_Murdoc

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:17 PM
Hi Murdoc i agree with you on the drag part of the game. but when takin the many different drag types in to acount its very hard to moddele

Just to mention:

Parasite Drag
Form Drag
Skinfriction Drag
Interference Drag

As one tough one calculating, the induced drag = the byproduct of lift.

I have spent hours calculating on these planes. not got any useable figures to campare with the game.

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:26 PM
well I dont think that the drag that is produced in fb buy opening cowlflaps to cool the engine on a 109 should be applied to the FW as well, wich at this point it is...

I think its about 10kmh/15kmh thats lost buy opening the Cowlflaps that do not exzist on FW ac http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From what I seen here the FW was constantaly cooling itself
certainly some drag was present in the cooling system but not like thoes big cowl flaps on the back of the 109 would produce


Im not a aeronautical enginear Im just a guy with a joystick & a bad habbit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:28 PM
From what I've seen so far the FW190A-4 does not overheat on a winter map. (Haven't tested summer)

Same is true for the P-47s. They can run full WEP for over 15 minutes and then I simply stopped the test.

The FW190 A-5 overheated for me after 9 minutes on WEP testing on Moscow winter map.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:38 PM
Good point murdoc and i dont claim to be proffessor either
I just have a little different background to back up my thoughts with.

My main concern is not to spoil the FW.. If u read my first post carefully you will see that i didn agree with the highspeed part and more of 1.0. The changes we have seen on FW190A series is just too wild for me knowledge on general flight performance.. this dosent mean that i agree on the behavier on all the other planes in the game. Just that i always flown this bird and i loved it too just like u.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:01 PM
I've had a HUGE number of engine failures flying the 190 lastnight in our squad.

any angle other than dead 6 and the 190 seems to take damage fairly heavily - the deflection of the rounds off the armour plate would be the primary reason for that.




http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 10:27 PM
I'm not sure what the complaints about the 190's overheat are about. It seems to overheat fine for me. Are people taking into consideration the auto-radiator? If you hop into a Yak and go full power the time will be much less until overheat than if you do the same in the 190 because the 190's radiator will open automatically as the engine heats up, slowing you down considerably. I hope people are closing the radiator right from the start if they are testing. I usually leave my radiator open and then close it when the fighting starts and my 190 seems to overheat normally. Maybe I am wrong, but the Focke Wulf's overheat seems fine to me. I don't fly the Dora much though.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/20/0309:28PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 06:49 AM
@JG77_VONHESS

Np Comrade. I try to send you data today. I already added you to my friends list on UBI-Connection-Failure-tool... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@all

As soon as the machine with the scanner is up again I'd post some charts.

I think this thread is rather to be taken as FW190-In general.
It's not whining or similar.
I for my part LIKE the 190 but I think we "MUST" agree that with our limited view, the bias and lack of true knowledge (nobody will every place his butt inot one of these birds and the actually give it a try) this is WILD SPECULATION.
Maybe VON_HESS had a more radical view for this and the title of the thread is rather "spectacular" but it's his POV. I for myself am content with the bird and I don't hate it (ok it sounds a bit like the SUN magazine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I only found that after half a year of punishment it's competetive after all. But again boys this is a BETA. it WILL be changed.

What we can do is to see whether the bird "feels" like the stories it was told about. Right now, I'd say it does.
It's a threat but it can be beaten.
Yesterdays dogfights have proven this to me. Tried with a d9 vs. yak 9u. Yak outturned me (as it should) After two out-of-the-book-maneuver attempts I bled all my energy and had to RUN on full power. After 10 minutes of running I had outclimbed it (6000 metres) and the yak had to disengage as it was to slow up here. Of course I finished it then (which is no real skill). All below you don't stand a chance.
I like the plane.

as the radiators thing.
Yes I seldom overheat but I do.
I ve flown d9 yesterday and it DOES overheat. Especially if oyu start managing prop pitch manually to always have the best RPM.

I think this speed problem is a general problem too. The FW190 and the 109 share it. (although I still outran a Yak with the k4 so it's ok by me..)

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 07:04 AM
Hi again JaBo_HH--Gotcha.

I am trying to leand a scanner, no succes yet.

Yes it was meant as an overall campare of plane behavier and what we had in 1.0 with the good and bad.. and to 1.1b which i dont see as an improovment for having a better FW190A.

I didnt include any speed, power and and climb data ratings or pilot quotas, for not getting off the main purpose of the thread.

The solo point point was to point out what i find out of proportions.. not claiming my rights or wrongs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.. glad that you see it this way now.

And i still hope that things will get sorted out in futher patches.

VH..http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 07:22 AM
This is very well put, very mature post. And very honest too..no BS. Hats off to Hess.

I didn`t try FW after the patch yet, still getting use to 109`s which are my primary rides...nor i encountered FW in DF either, since i don`t fly on mixed servers. So i have no say in it. But one thing comes to my mind...this patch was to please many FM wise...and got outta hand somewhere, probably not intentionaly. I`m sure things will change with final 1.1.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 07:44 AM
There is a bug in the Auto closed setting on the radiator.

All testers must cycle through the rad settings before testing, this resets the Auto closed bug to the propper setting.

Flying the FW190 in the campaign I get out run and out climbed regulary by aircraft that were not capable to do this, so i don't have a major prob with the 190. It is much closer to the AC it was post patch.
Prepatched, some missions in the campaign were uncompleteable in the 190 because it was so undermodeled.

I think the FW 190 is very close to what you would expect from historic records.

Tune down the roll rate a bit.
Stiffen the elevator over 600Ks.
Fix the rad bug.
Fix the damage (Bad AC after the slightest hit)



"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 08:11 AM
Hi uberduper.

There is a serious post on the Rad Bug running on this forum take a look there for the interrest.

I agree the FW190 Campaign is a tough 1, but the the AI uses slightly differnt laws of physiscs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree in 42 fighting the Lagg3-41/yak1 was something that would get your hands full. I always tried to gain alt to abaout 5000m and started the fight from there always stayed fast, this solved the problem for me.

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:47 PM
Can anyone help on 1 and 3 in the first post?
It would be a great help.
THX.

VH.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:32 AM
JG77Von_Hess,

I'm not sure who you are and what your intentions are exactly, but let me tell you this: we have been asking for changes in the modelling of the Fw190's for almost two years now, first in IL2/Sturmovik and then in FB and, like Atzebrueck mentioned, who has been here all that time by the way and knows *exactly* how the 190's have developed during that time, we *finally* had many things that were off, corrected so that the 190 is better and more realistic in FB now than it has ever been before...

So I'm very tempted to qualify your "parachuting" yourself in here as the world's greatest Fw190 expert who is going to tell us all what is wrong with the after-patch 190 in FB as rather "haughty""and "cocky", to say the least.

However, since it seems as if you're having nothing but the best intentions with this, I won't. But I will tell you this: before you convey any request for changes in the 190 modelling to Oleg and his team you should realize FULL WELL how far we have come with getting the 190 model to be improved to what it is today and that the "further improvements" you are going to be asking for, might just as well bring us right back to square one, where we started off some odd two years ago!

In fact it would be very much appreciated indeed if you would...

And if you call this a flame.. so be it. In that case let's just say I merely had a good ear for your invitation.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:29 AM
well you made your point clear, but i fail to see where i claim my rights to be more worth than anyone else posting on this forum, and what makes you think i see myself as some kind of proffessor on the FW190, i draw some parrales to flying yes, and i speak of camparrisons of the feel on 1.0 and 1.1b and to the books i have read.. do you hold more correct info, pass em on here then.

I suggest that you read the first post 1 more time.

when you say we have been asking for changes for 2 years.. does this mean that you actually need to do over 1000 post on this forum to be taken serious??

Just point out clearly where you disagree, you might be able to proove me totally wrong.. and you might not isent this the meaning of a forum? I wouldnt mind even if you used some bad language, calling me eehh Punk! like someone else did.. i can handle that so feel free to shoot i bet you have more to say than this.

I 100% mean what i wrote there!!

VH.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 06:40 AM
To Airborn!!

I have a sugestion for you, you seem to have misunderstood the main purpose of my thread.

Take my first post and you send it to Oleg and the FBteam,
without changing anything in it.

I can see 3 outcome of this:

A) You would do this at once because its totaly wrong on all subjects mentiond there.

B) You are in doubt that i might be right on some of the things i say, so you rather not untill more have been discussed.

C) You wont because you fear that i am right..

So what do you say?

I would say this, I have fully faith in MR.Oleg on his judgement on a post like this and i would accept any anwser
the FBteam showed up with. aslong as there are some statments behind it.

Best regaurds

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:10 PM
"Compare this to the FW190A4-9 we got now, **I LOVED THIS BIRD IN FB 1.0** but i must say i hate it now.. Just my point on this"

Jg77Von_Hess,

This is the part of your initial post that bothers me the most. *You* loved the 190 in FB 1.0, yes, but I and many others, many of whom can be called 190 experts, hated it. Especially it's high speed behaviour. So, if you post something like that, which is merely your own personal preference and opinion, or so it seems, you should tread very carefully in here, instead of coming up with a list of things that you think are wrong regarding the 190 in FB 1.1b now and that you would like to have changed, based on your personal preferences.

Or ppl might think you're doing this simply to get your favourite bird upgraded-backwards to the state that you happened to like best at some point, no?

I'm not saying there are no flaws at all in the 190 modelling right now. I fully agree on the points about the slightly high rollrate, especially at higher speeds and the excessive elevator authority. The last of which btw, is a handicap not a benefit if you don't reset your stick settings accordingly, or you'll be stalling all over the place at all speeds with or without flaps. Funny, you didn't mention that at all.
Plus, as a matter of fact, I could use some more drag induced by the flaps and a little less lift, as well. But I don't think the 190 model should be overhauled completely, once again, perhaps trying to get those last minor points straightened out 100% as well, if that means we're going backwards in time and will be faced with a machine that is more off from reality than it is right now. That and only that is my motivation in this.

And about posting or sending your first post to Oleg/1C:Maddox, you can do that yourself, can't you? By all means, post it, no objections here at all. Could very well be that Oleg has already read it, who knows.

You have the right, like anyone else, to ask for "improvements" of the 190. So I cannot and will not stop you. I've been there myself a couple of times. But I am asking you at the same time: be careful with what you ask for exactly and *do* look at how far we have come with this bird already and please do not throw all those achievements away while pursuing a goal that might fit your personal preferences, but which might make a whole bunch of others "hate" the 190 once again. That's all I'm asking of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 06:00 PM
I agree on this one. Not fully but I too think that we, (the LW-Whiners) can be happy that the bir dwas improved. I think that the title of this thread is misleading and so auto-creates kind of grudge by all who now finally came here to love the bird. I don't think that von Hess really wants to cripple the bird. I sincerly hope that the brid wont be crippled again becuase they could also remove it. He has rather a radical point of view which, i think most wont share. That's of course something taht put him in the line of fire of the 1.1-190-lovers.

I'd be rather interested whether we could check his claims. SO maybe we could meet on a server and try if all these claims are reproducable. Next we could check whether all these observations can be confirmed with technical data and general war-time observations.

I think von Hess will have a hard time here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Again the thread-title is quite offensive and a red-towel being flung in the direction of at least 500 BUlls http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:32 PM
Hello again Airborn!!

Thx for reading the post 1 more time. I do still stick to my point of view. This plane has given me the expression of a well flying FW190A. Both offline and online I have been following the FW190 issues since the game hit europe with version IL2 Sturmovik 1.0.. u can clearly see where i didnt agree on some of the 1.0 FB. I even have included 3 things that i absolutely cant figure out the moddeling for in this game wich is point 1,2 and 3.. do you have a clue on them?

When drawing parralels to flying there are a lot of simplifyid things, it could be the need for using rudder
when makin a turn (keeping the ball in center) and so. again some planes need this more then others, and this is a well made simulator not the real thing.

When i compare the FW190A now in patch 1.1b to my feel of flying it has some UFO style of reacting, and that is by no means an improovement. i didnt state out anywhere that the turnrate at a specific speed are way off or acceleration now is like a rocket... it should only be dooing this and that and so on ect but the things i pointed out in the need some attention in 1.1b is by all means honest.

I dont like compareing the FW190A to Spitfire V or any other western made planes... We are flying on the Eastern front and The main advesary is russian build planes.. these planes are completely different. in most aspects.
I know that the P-47, P51, P40 and hurricane has made their antrence in FB but again there has been much work left on those planes too.

You did mention that before i ran off and did something bad like sendidng this post Oleg/1c.. well i dont see anything mentioning that in post 1 do you??

And this 1 i dont get at all : many of whom can be called 190 - experts,
- experts, why do you make such a claim???

Reading and studing a subject, could be the FW190A is a good thing.. we cant fly those things so reading is 1 way to get near.Do some few simple calculations is an other way. all in all they need to go hand in hand. I dont claim anything exept my honest point of view, this is as good as yours..http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This post has 2 purposes 1 expressing my point of veiw of the FW190A compared books ive read and to my feel of flying and what have become of it.. 2 its a counterpart to posts that stats finaly we have a FW190A 100% correct, this is the real thing and so on... this isent the fact for me at all.

I value the feel of flying more then a plane is 10 kmh too slow or it only climbs 17 m/sek at 3700 meters. performance charts gives the plain figures not feel. again this is my point on the subject. and both needs attention.

Regaurds

VH.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:07 PM
Jg77Van_Hess,

To answer your questions 1,2 and 3:

ad 1.

There were A4's with BMW 801 D2 engines and A4's with partly D2 and partly E engines active over the eastern front. The latter could be found during the later war years. The germans tried to get the E engines ready for both the A4 and A5, the latter of which uses, as you mentioned *in principle* the same engine as the A4, (although it was fitted into this airplane in an entirely different way, it was moved more forward in the fuselage for instance) but they never got the serial production of the E engine fully off the ground, so this led to the appearance of these D2/E hybrid type of engines. Therefore IMO it isn't a clear-cut case of both always having the exact same engines with the exact same specs. Plus there is the problem of how one would name an engine that is partly D2 partly E. Is it still a D2 or should it actually be called an E engine? Very difficult to say and so it is no surprise to me that the A4 and A5 in FB do not have the exact same engine and engine specs. This seems more logical to me than the situation in which they both would always carry the same engine. There was an ongoing and neverending effort to upgrade the engines on the 190's during the entire war, so it's more likely to find a different engine in the A5 at some point during the war than it is to always find the exact same engine as in the A4 IMO. I see no major problem or deviation from reality in this particular case.

ad 2.

Regarding the DM of the 190: here we find a similar problem IMO. We know the 190's ability to take hits and still remain airborne has been improved in FB, some say too much so even. On the other hand there are reports of the 190 losing too much of it's flight performance after just a few machinegun hits. I think these two aspects of the 190's DM pretty much balance each other out. The 190 is certainly no fragile aircraft in FB right now especially in the engine-carrying part of the fuselage and so I see no real foundation for requesting a large overhaul of it's damage model right now. (my personal opinion of course)

ad 3.

And regarding the inability of arming/disarming and firing the different weapons mounted on the 190's in FB in various combinations, well, I actually think you do have a valid point there. It is well known that the 190 pilots did have this option to their disposal in RL and I think it is valid to ask for this to be modelled in FB accordingly.

On the whole, I still do not see any *real* show-stoppers mentioned here, not serious enough to ask for a large overhaul of the 190 model in FB. And I still think if you do, you are running the risk of getting a few minor adjustments realised to get rid of your grievances with the 190 model in FB only to find others, which you might find far more worrying, appear immediately afterwards.

Regards.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:42 PM
JG77Von_Hess wrote:
.
-
- 3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons
- still forcelinked? in real life you could arm,
- disarm and fire any pair of guns/cannons. They even
- wrote that in the planesdatabase in the game....
- that i really hate. I know this has been debated
- forth and back many times so if anyone can tell me
- the name of a book or documents that states that the
- Mgs and wingroot canons were linked please tell
- me!!.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-

D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8

Part 8A Armament Installation

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:44 PM
They were linked to the same button, but you could switch off weapons through a selector on the right side console.


Butch

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:56 PM
butch2k wrote:
- They were linked to the same button, but you could
- switch off weapons through a selector on the right
- side console.
-

Do you mean by using the circuit breakers, Butch?

Can you say what the 3 breakers controlled.

There is a P1 and P2, but the 3rd looks like P-80. Is P-80 the correct label?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 05:17 PM
from front to back :
Flügel aussen (P80)
Flügel innen (P1)
Rumpf Motor (P2)

Butch


Message Edited on 08/24/0306:17PM by butch2k

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 10:55 PM
To airborn and others how gave a hint on 1,2 and 3

Thanx for your help on the 1,2 and 3

1) I agree on your anwser acording to the different enginge specs. but it still dont quite get why the difference, im not takin the differnt tune states of the engine in to acount.when you look in the games database under FW190A4 and A5
¿ou can see that they both uses 801-D2, in the game you have differnt engine controle 100/110 contra 100/110 + Erhoete notleistung now this is where i loose it?

2) well this is more diffecult to point out.. some vvs pilots says the FW190A can take too much punishment and again some pilots who fly it says its performance drops off the way i stated out in my first post. as you see i dont think the bird falls apart too easy.. but the drop in performance whith the slightest wisible scratshes seems odd it might be the damagemodel/graphical shown damage not goes along here, but then again it only takes some few good mg hits to create this effect.

3)This ones goes to butch2k, this switch seems disconnected?... and then again you can still switch off/on gunpods-Flügel aussen (outer wing armament).
Take a look at the D9, those guns aint forcelinked in the game, i still dont get it! The books i have read all indicates that you can arm, disarm and fire any pair of guns. Has anyone posted a print from a book or a ducument that shows they are forcelinked? i would be glad if you could make a link to that post.

Airborn you asked who i was and what my intentions was and how i dare come here and play expert. do u still want an anwser? or have this been satisfied..

Well let me cut out what might give you a hint. When flying the FW190A in FB 1.0 it actually gave me the feel of flying with the limitations in the overall flight model.
I was satisfied with the way it performed overall. I posted my comparrison between 1.0 and what ive read.
To me Flying the FW190A in 1.1b dosent feel like flying a single engined prop plane.. and yes i havent flown a FW190..but perhaps i have pulled the stick of a SAAB MFI once or twicehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif i posted what i think spoils this feeling in 1.1b
Not claiming anything exept my feel..I even wrote needs attention.... not change this or that... how can this be such a threat to you and all those you call FW experts.
Let me ask you this, is flying with fully crossed controles realism to you? or is it a simplification.
I only know of 1 WW2 bird that was said to could do this..
the ME 163B-1.
I 100% mean when takin all aspects into acaount the FW190A4-8 is in FB 1.0 is among the best plane and my choice of ride.. I hope this moved you a bit closer.

Best regaurds

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:36 AM
"1) I agree on your anwser acording to the different enginge specs. but it still dont quite get why the difference, im not takin the differnt tune states of the engine in to acount.when you look in the games database under FW190A4 and A5
¿ou can see that they both uses 801-D2, in the game you have differnt engine controle 100/110 contra 100/110 + Erhoete notleistung now this is where i loose it?"

JG77Von_Hess,

I wasn't speaking of the Object Viewer data. It is a public secret (so, no secret at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) that this data is certainly not 100% correct in all cases. And I wasn't speaking of different engine tunings, but of physically different engines. One machine might have had a pure D2 engine, another might have had a D2/E hybrid engine. And it's only logical the A5 got the engine with the more HP, since it also had to carry more armour weight with it, right? I guess only Oleg knows exactly all the differences between the engines of the A4 and the A5 that were modelled in FB, so if you want to know *all* the details, you will have to ask him.

Regards.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 01:59 PM
Bump

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:20 PM
I cant believe people are saying the 190 is too uber in this game.. sure.. you take a 190 A9 with 30 mm and you are going to get lots of kills.. I would just ban that plane from my server.. problem solved. if they touch the 190's now aside from the small slight roll rate tweak at high speeds, then they better sure as hell fix the La7's complete UFO modeling as well as P39

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:56 PM
Read the DATES those posts were made. Read the patch version those were written about.

People digging up OLD POSTS based on OLD VERSIONS should get a notice from the moderators. This has happened again and again and it ALWAYS makes trouble.

Hey, EURO_SNOOPY... here is a thread worth locking!
Maybe sometime you moderators could go lock down old threads where the discussion is NO LONGER RELEVANT? Or even from about page 3 on?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:09 AM
FW 190A-4/5 sustained turns were around 23-24sec 360dgr.
Rollrate peak was at 165-190degrees/sec at 450-500kmh IIRC.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:35 AM
hi,

another issue...the wrong forward design view/gunsight view(in case of cockpit on/at dogfights..) ..corrups the feeling of virtual flying in optimal dynamic and smooth stick stearing way... in many cases of this plane + some others....
..don't forget this subjetive manner ...while we are talking about different power of warbirds ..far away from real FM simulation in a game like this...


...my two cents on the background of real world flying...




gwalker99 wrote:
- I cant believe people are saying the 190 is too uber
- in this game.. sure.. you take a 190 A9 with 30 mm
- and you are going to get lots of kills.. I would
- just ban that plane from my server.. problem solved.
- if they touch the 190's now aside from the small
- slight roll rate tweak at high speeds, then they
- better sure as hell fix the La7's complete UFO
- modeling as well as P39
-
-



http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/bf109f-7-headon.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:54 PM
Putting on your tinfoil hat and standing on your soapbox is not going to enamor anyone to your cause..

I spent the time to dredge through this entire thread without finding a SINGLE primary source of data cited. Primary sources, gentlemen. Not "Joe-Bob's Big Book of Planes" or some website. Fully corroborated, acccredited, and recognized primary sources, please.

Otherwise, don't even bother, as it makes no difference what an individual's opinion is without valid substantiation.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 08:33 AM
gwalker99 wrote:
- I cant believe people are saying the 190 is too uber
- in this game.. sure.. you take a 190 A9 with 30 mm
- and you are going to get lots of kills.. I would
- just ban that plane from my server.. problem solved.
- if they touch the 190's now aside from the small
- slight roll rate tweak at high speeds, then they
- better sure as hell fix the La7's complete UFO
- modeling as well as P39
-
-

I though we were talking about 190.

Anyway. I think its well modeled now except for highspeed rollrate (which is too high). Rollrate should steadily drop after peak at 450-500km/h.

190 was always noted for it's great elevator authority and could be stalled even at high speed because of this. Just as it works in FB IMHO.

Nose down attitude is well visible in FB unlike some people say. Wings are aligned to movement vector at around 500kmh IAS. So I don't see any problems there either.

Sustained turntimes in FB are around 21-23sec 360. Could be maybe higher by 1-2sec. Though IIRC there was test of 190 captured by soviets (190A-5?) which turned 360 at 22sec. This might be with outer cannon removed though.

I think 190 in FB matches historical performance best of any plane modeled in this game. Climbrates and speeds are almost dead on correct. These if comparing factory data. Maybe it would be good to remove some 5-10kmh to simulate fact that 190s in front units weren't often polished. Then ofcourse same should apply every plane.

Cockpit front view (no refraction of glas) and too small gunsight are problems.


190A was über.(by 1941-1943 standards) So it will be if modeled correctly.





Message Edited on 10/13/0307:49AM by ladoga