PDA

View Full Version : OT-ish: The WoP FW-190 - initial impressions



msalama
09-15-2006, 12:01 AM
OK, this is about FS2004 on an IL-2 board. Sorry 'bout that, but since you guys are into these things more than your usual run-of-the-mill FS9 Airbus weenies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I might as well post this here, right?

And I definitely don't want to shove FS9 down your throats either! It's just that my main gaming rig broke down a while ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif and this old back-up machine only runs FS9 adequately, not IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

But anyway, I bought this W├╝rger package from Shockwave a couple of days ago, and here's what I've found out so far flying the A-3 -

GOOD:

* The FM is excellent within FS9's limitations. This bad babe has to be flown with attention or she _will_ bite your behind!

* Torque is pronounced, and she'll drop a wing during takeoffs.

* Coordinated flying is a must with her at all times. As I said already, bad things will happen if you don't treat her right.

* Stalls are abrupt and harsh, and will develop into spins in an eyeblink. You don't want to abuse this beast - a smooth and steady hand is a necessity.

* Energy management during all phases of flight is everything with this plane. You _DON'T_ want to get behind the power curve with this babe, and you've got to build up your airspeed before doing loops f.ex. or the plane will stall out on you at the top!

* Absolutely no turn and burn / yank and bank. The plane will depart violently if you get too agressive with the controls, and is only recoverable with sufficient altitude.

* Spin recovery is normal (power off, stick forward, rudder against the spin direction).

BAD:

* The sounds are somewhat anemic.

* The manual, as pointed out by Kettenhunde, has a contradiction or two. It f.ex. says first that "this aircraft is equipped with a fully automatic mixture control", but later on instructs the pilot to "check the mixture control and set to rich" before landing... go figure that one out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

* The WoP A-3 only has 3 flap positions, whereas the original (to my knowledge) has 4.

* The WoP v1.0 Focke was fully trimmable, but the originals AFAIK only had elevator trim. This was corrected later, but isn't that _still_ a bit funny for a company that prides themselves on building all their craft "using a new and ambitious process called Absolute Realism"???

Yep, that's it, more or less... Have you bought this bad bad babe yourself, and what are your opinions if you have?

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 12:17 AM
HI, thanks for the review.

Can you post a pic of the forward view pls?

EDIT: Its OK, I just downloaded a video of it.

The forward view looks just like the Il2 forward view, which makes me think the FW190 view isnt porked at all.

Why would 2 leading sofware developers come up with the same 'porked' view from the FW190?

Would be a slight coincidence, dont you think?

horseback
09-15-2006, 01:00 AM
Or maybe it's just that imitation is the sincerest (and least expensive) form of flattery...

We've heard from many people on these boards who have had the opportunity to sit in a real 190's cockpit, and they all agreed that the forward view is MUCH better in the real thing than on the Il-2/FB/PF FW 190.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
09-15-2006, 01:31 AM
I found it a challenge but enjoyed the long-nose pack more, esp for the Ta 152C which is very demanding. Shockwave doesn't sand off the rough edges of challenging aircraft like Maddox often does. The FS9 aircraft have more in common with what is coming with BOB than with IL-2 ETC. The screams will reach the heavens, I am certain, when people try out BOB. No more free lunch. Shockwave's BATTLE OF BRITAIN 2 Hurricane I is easy if you are used to FS9 but will be a shock to people who use the IL-2 ETC Hur I.

6DOF makes a difference in FS9 cockpits---the view is not fixed and changes with your position; thus, comparing the Maddox Fw 190 view to Shockwave's is not easy. For example, you can't even use the Shockwave He 219 Revi gunsight unless you place your head in the proper position, just like in the real airplane---compare that to the "handed to you on a plate" gunsight view in Maddox! Also, in FS9 you can hit the spacebar to alter your eyepoint. As in all things between FS9 and IL-2 ETC, the former is more complex.

I consider FS9 (and incoming FSX) to be the best way to prepare for BOB.

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Or maybe it's just that imitation is the sincerest (and least expensive) form of flattery...

We've heard from many people on these boards who have had the opportunity to sit in a real 190's cockpit, and they all agreed that the forward view is MUCH better in the real thing than on the Il-2/FB/PF FW 190.

cheers

horseback

Rgr Horseback, I have enever sat in a real FW190, so I cannot be sure.

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 07:04 AM
Is it just me or did reading your account of the FM make me think that this sim is way off in the FM of the Fw 190 too.

The Fw 190 was renowned as an 'easy' aircraft to fly.

Contrary to your notes it was not a 100% hands on aircraft.

The Fw 190 required no trimming in flight, it flew trimmed at cruise speeds.

The Fw 190 possessed a harsh stall ONLY IF AERILONS WERE INCORRECTLY ALIGNED.

The Fw 190 was considered a beginners friendly aircraft to fly - certainly in comparison to the Bf 109.

The Fw 190 was an aircraft that possessed a reserve of usable power. It was not a fly at 100% throttle 100% of the time aircraft - again unlike late Bf 109s.

The Fw 190 was not unmanuverable like your account states. It was regarded as very manuverable by those who flew it and fought against it.

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 07:09 AM
I have read that it could be nasty to beginners if you were not careful.



The plane in the sim is very manouvrable, except in turning circles. In fact you can manouvre much faster than any other planes.

Brain32
09-15-2006, 07:17 AM
The forward view looks just like the Il2 forward view, which makes me think the FW190 view isnt porked at all.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Well I find forward view in WoP:FW190 excellent and much better than in il2. The view through the gunsight is completely unobstructed...
When we say WoP, we talk about Shockwave Wings Of Power right?

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 07:24 AM
This one Brain :-

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/movies/

Watch the 2nd movie, I htought they looked quite similar.

Apparantly Oleg used actual factory drawing for the FW190 cockpit, but refraction is not modelled.

I think they look similar :-

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/46.jpg

BaronUnderpants
09-15-2006, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I found it a challenge but enjoyed the long-nose pack more, esp for the Ta 152C which is very demanding. Shockwave doesn't sand off the rough edges of challenging aircraft like Maddox often does. The FS9 aircraft have more in common with what is coming with BOB than with IL-2 ETC. The screams will reach the heavens, I am certain, when people try out BOB. No more free lunch. Shockwave's BATTLE OF BRITAIN 2 Hurricane I is easy if you are used to FS9 but will be a shock to people who use the IL-2 ETC Hur I.

6DOF makes a difference in FS9 cockpits---the view is not fixed and changes with your position; thus, comparing the Maddox Fw 190 view to Shockwave's is not easy. For example, you can't even use the Shockwave He 219 Revi gunsight unless you place your head in the proper position, just like in the real airplane---compare that to the "handed to you on a plate" gunsight view in Maddox! Also, in FS9 you can hit the spacebar to alter your eyepoint. As in all things between FS9 and IL-2 ETC, the former is more complex.

I consider FS9 (and incoming FSX) to be the best way to prepare for BOB.


Sure, why not make it even harder than it allredy is for newcommers to start flying combat flight sims. BoB is after all supose to be a COMBAT flight sim, not a FLIGHT sim like FS2004. a big differance in my oppinion.

The reviev about FW190 A3 sounds to me like MS made it more difficoult to fly than it actually was irl.

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I found it a challenge but enjoyed the long-nose pack more, esp for the Ta 152C which is very demanding. Shockwave doesn't sand off the rough edges of challenging aircraft like Maddox often does. The FS9 aircraft have more in common with what is coming with BOB than with IL-2 ETC. The screams will reach the heavens, I am certain, when people try out BOB. No more free lunch. Shockwave's BATTLE OF BRITAIN 2 Hurricane I is easy if you are used to FS9 but will be a shock to people who use the IL-2 ETC Hur I.

6DOF makes a difference in FS9 cockpits---the view is not fixed and changes with your position; thus, comparing the Maddox Fw 190 view to Shockwave's is not easy. For example, you can't even use the Shockwave He 219 Revi gunsight unless you place your head in the proper position, just like in the real airplane---compare that to the "handed to you on a plate" gunsight view in Maddox! Also, in FS9 you can hit the spacebar to alter your eyepoint. As in all things between FS9 and IL-2 ETC, the former is more complex.

I consider FS9 (and incoming FSX) to be the best way to prepare for BOB.


Sure, why not make it even harder than it allredy is for newcommers to start flying combat flight sims. BoB is after all supose to be a COMBAT flight sim, not a FLIGHT sim like FS2004. a big differance in my oppinion.

The reviev about FW190 A3 sounds to me like MS made it more difficoult to fly than it actually was irl. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with this.

Do you guys remember a game called 'Trespasser'? It was a game where you were stuck on a island with lots of dinosaurs and it was supposed to be 'super realistic' with a key for all things.

Rather than walking over a gun to pick it up, you had a 'hand' which you waved about in front of you and had to place over the gun, then press 'pick up'. Then you had to hold a key down as your arm waved about in front of you and you tried desperatly to get the gun pointing straight ahead with the mouse.

Now SURELY if you see a gun on the floor, you simply walk over and pick it up, if something nasty is heading for you, then you aim it in front of you and fire. There is no thought involved, you just 'do it'.

Sometimes, trying to make things more realistic, just doesnt work. It is simply nOT THAT COMPLICATED to walk over and pick up a gun. We do it instinctively.

Same with aircraft flying. Please dont make 'flicking a switch' or 'moving our head to look through the gunsight' more complicated than it needs to be!

Rant over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Oh and the game was a flop. That system has never been used again. It was just too ridiculously complicated to perform simple tasks.

msalama
09-15-2006, 07:38 AM
Well, I just flew the WoP Focke A-3 back-to-back with Oleg's A-4 (to my knowledge they're essentially the same plane, except that the A-4 is equipped with methanol injection making it somewhat faster).

Now as I said this s**tty back-up rig of mine can't run IL-2 properly. A small 1-plane test mission is however doable, so I went into the FMB and put the A-4 in there, and fired her up and flew a bit... and yep, both planes felt _very_ much alike, you could tell without any doubt whatsoever that it's the same machine in both sims!

There were two interesting differences however:

1) You hardly had to touch the rudder at all in the FB/AEP/PF Focke (I'm running v.4.05 here). The ball stayed centered - or nearly so at any rate - by itself, whereas putting the boot in is a necessity in the WoP machine!

2) The flaps in Oleg's FW create a huge amount of lift (the nose pitches upwards) unlike in the WoP machine where they create mostly drag (the nose goes down).

So there were differences, yes, but that was only to be expected IMHO. What's really striking however is the similarity, because regardless of the sim platform you could really tell that it's the same plane!

Brain32
09-15-2006, 07:42 AM
I think they look similar
Well first of all, you see more of your nose, second and extremely important observation is that in IL2 the infamous "bar" is covering the lower part of the gunsight circle, while in WOP not only you see whole circle but you also have plenty space under the circle, that is a HUGE difference http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I think that we often confuse terms, not that whole front view of the FW is messed up(although the tickness of cockpit framing seems a bit too pronounced), it's the gunsight that is nearly unusable. You can give me 50m2 of front window I'll see everything, but when I shoot I'll look through the gunsight only, feck the gunsight up and the fighter turns into a heavy tourist sightseeing plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
09-15-2006, 07:54 AM
Roland: Where did I say that the WoP Focke is unmanouverable? It will punish you _if_ you get all ham-fisted with the stick and venture outside the power envelope, but it's a dream to fly if you know what you're doing! And yes, rolls like a devil in FS2004 too...

Now it could be that I didn't explain myself properly there, but I definitely didn't mean the FS2004 version is a pig. And if you take the time to read my previous post, both planes - Oleg's and Shockwave's - are actually surprisingly _similar_ if anything IMHO. Now what does that tell you?

The Shockwave version is maybe a bit harder to fly, granted, but not overtly so by any means. And oh yeah, Oleg models spins much more beautifully, but the differences aren't that great otherwise... HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
09-15-2006, 08:37 AM
most planes would benifit from refraction btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

some WOP products leave me feeling :\ when ive tried them out, p47 and p51 where reallyreally edgy, the lanc was heavier on the controls that b17..

msalama
09-15-2006, 09:24 AM
p47 and p51 where reallyreally edgy, the lanc was heavier on the controls that b17..

Haven't tried any of those so don't have a clue. What I have found, however, is that different FS2004 planes benefit greatly from different controller settings - just like the ones in IL-2 for that matter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The Lanc was heavier on the controls than a B17, you say? Now that's incorrect modelling for sure!

But as I said, the IL-2 and Shockwave FW190 are at any rate surprisingly similar IMHO. And that I think is an interesting finding...

faustnik
09-15-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Well, I just flew the WoP Focke A-3 back-to-back with Oleg's A-4 (to my knowledge they're essentially the same plane, except that the A-4 is equipped with methanol injection making it somewhat faster).


Wait, A4s with MW50 injection? That's an error.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2006, 09:47 AM
Just a comment or two regarding a few other comments in here which I find once again a little too Oleg-worshippy.

Regarding the forward view: The view over the nose of the aircraft is dependant on the height of the pilot. If the few people on these boards that sat in a "real" FW190 cockpit were 6'5", then I'd understand, but if they were just 5'6", maybe we'd have something to rant about.

Regarding the Manoeuvrability: The original poster's account states "Absolutely no turn and burn / yank and bank", which holds true with the real aircraft as well as the one we have in FB. The violent departure if the controls are jerked around holds true for any low-wing high powered airplane.

Regarding the Combat vs Flight sim argument: I find this to be completely stupid, since even if this is a Combat sim, you still have to learn how to FLY. You're not going to be able to fight worth dog **** if you cant fly from the get go.

WOP aircraft benefit from one thing that FB's aircraft most likely do not have: The FMs are created from the actual pilots manuals data, and data from both the Axis and Allied evaluations. They really put out the nicest models IMHO.

luftluuver
09-15-2006, 10:07 AM
Regarding the forward view: The view over the nose of the aircraft is dependant on the height of the pilot. If the few people on these boards that sat in a "real" FW190 cockpit were 6'5", then I'd understand, but if they were just 5'6", maybe we'd have something to rant about. The 190 had 100mm of vertical seat adjustment plus usually a chute under the pilot's butt.

faustnik
09-15-2006, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The 190 had 100mm of vertical seat adjustment plus usually a chute under the pilot's butt.

Good post Luft!

This is an important point and I think this is the source of this painful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif controversy.

msalama
09-15-2006, 10:26 AM
Wait, A4s with MW50 injection? That's an error.

Is it? Their docs say that "the Focke-Wulf 190 A-4, introduced during the summer of 1942, was essentially the same as the A-3, with the exception of uprated radio equipment and the addition of the MW50 methanol-water injection system, which increased the power to 2,100 HP for brief periods of time". Now please note that I personally know jack s**t about Fockes - hey, I'm a Sturmo driver who, just like Chairman Mao, wants to know his enemies here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - but if that's an error then it's quite a big one IMHO!

And this from a company who call their modelling system "Absolute Realism"?! Hmmm...

Black Sheep
09-15-2006, 10:30 AM
Sure, why not make it even harder than it allredy is for newcommers to start flying combat flight sims. BoB is after all supose to be a COMBAT flight sim, not a FLIGHT sim like FS2004. a big differance in my oppinion.


That's one of the reasons why Il2 allows you switch options on and off at whim, to suit your own abilities.

I'd far rather see stuff that helps the game to mimic the challenges experienced flying a warbird irl be included and allow people to tailor the difficulty level to their own needs (e.g. switching off accelerated stalls, cross-wind landings etc) rather than have it left out altogether on the off chance it may put newcomers off.

msalama
09-15-2006, 10:33 AM
...holds true for any low-wing high powered airplane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif My point exactly, be it real-life, FB or FS2004 we're talking about. And the same holds true for the WoP Focke as well!


...dog **** if you cant fly from the get go.

Absolutely true as well. I've never _ever_ understood that juxtaposition myself either...

faustnik
09-15-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by msalama:

Is it? Their docs say that "the Focke-Wulf 190 A-4, introduced during the summer of 1942, was essentially the same as the A-3, with the exception of uprated radio equipment and the addition of the MW50 methanol-water injection system, which increased the power to 2,100 HP for brief periods of time".

The system was never used in the A4s. There is some evidence that it was used late in '44 in the A8s, although it probably was very rare. This is one of those errors on the Fw190 that gets constantly repeated over time.

Maximum power in the A3/4 was 1770ps with 2700rpm@1.42ata. Problems with fuel mixture and rough running of individual engines led to some Fw190A3s being restricted to only 2400rpm@1.35ata. So, 2,100 hp in 1942 wasn't happening. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
09-15-2006, 10:45 AM
We've heard from many people on these boards who have had the opportunity to sit in a real 190's cockpit, and they all agreed that the forward view is MUCH better in the real thing than on the Il-2/FB/PF FW 190.

The Flugwerke people I emailed said that they felt the 190 view in IL-2 wasn't the best.

One thing I have noticed is that for a number of planes the pilots seem to be midgets in the external views (e.g. Mosquito) and there seems to be a problems with where view points are located (was it JtD who did the analysis?). So perhaps some of the problem is the view point in cockpit being too low as well? It provides a better view of the instruments when panned back, I suppose. Until we can flick our eyes to the instruments naturally with Track IR 17 or something, then it might not be ideal, but maybe it could be better than it is now.

msalama
09-15-2006, 10:56 AM
OK, cheers for beers Faustnik m8 - I'm having a Kapuziner Weissbier ATM myself, BTW <burp> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There's a thing or two I've gotta ask them one of these days it seems... S!

faustnik
09-15-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
OK, cheers for beers Faustnik m8 - I'm having a Kapuziner Weissbier ATM myself, BTW <burp> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There's a thing or two I've gotta ask them one of these days it seems... S!

Msalama,

Check out our Fw190 forum (in my sig). If you dig around in there, you can find some interesting posts by some guys who really know their stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lrrp22
09-15-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 possessed a harsh stall ONLY IF AERILONS WERE INCORRECTLY ALIGNED.

That's one enthusiast's interpretation, nothing more.

LRRP

leitmotiv
09-15-2006, 11:19 AM
6 DOF will allow you so much freedom it will blow your mind at first.

faustnik
09-15-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
6 DOF will allow you so much freedom it will blow your mind at first.

Cool! I'm looking forward to it!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Manu-6S
09-15-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The system was never used in the A4s. There is some evidence that it was used late in '44 in the A8s, although it probably was very rare. This is one of those errors on the Fw190 that gets constantly repeated over time.


But people's error or book's error?

Because my book says that "some" A4s were equipped with 50MW.


Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The 190 had 100mm of vertical seat adjustment plus usually a chute under the pilot's butt.

This is an important point and I think this is the source of this painful Roll Eyes controversy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure? I've seem a lot of pictures of FW's pilots with only chute on their back.

Rgr for the seat adjustment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
09-15-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

Because my book says that "some" A4s were equipped with 50MW.

Maybe for test purposes but, not in service AFIAK.

msalama
09-15-2006, 01:05 PM
Maybe for test purposes but, not in service AFIAK.

Ah, but herein exactly lies the problem with all modelling of WWII planes IMHO, in that there's waaaaay too much contradictory data floating around! S**t, even the official WWII-era docs sometimes contradict each other so who the h3ll should you trust, now?

So a question then presents itself: exactly what did Shockwave base their decisions on when they modelled their A4 w/ the MW50?

Von_Rat
09-15-2006, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think they look similar
Well first of all, you see more of your nose, second and extremely important observation is that in IL2 the infamous "bar" is covering the lower part of the gunsight circle, while in WOP not only you see whole circle but you also have plenty space under the circle, that is a HUGE difference http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I think that we often confuse terms, not that whole front view of the FW is messed up(although the tickness of cockpit framing seems a bit too pronounced), it's the gunsight that is nearly unusable. You can give me 50m2 of front window I'll see everything, but when I shoot I'll look through the gunsight only, feck the gunsight up and the fighter turns into a heavy tourist sightseeing plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i gotta agree, that pictures gunsight looks much better than olegs.

msalama
09-15-2006, 03:25 PM
...by some guys who really know their stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Thanks, will do. Might like to join too, because I've a question or two about this WoP beast as well... S!

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Roland: Where did I say that the WoP Focke is unmanouverable? It will punish you _if_ you get all ham-fisted with the stick and venture outside the power envelope, but it's a dream to fly if you know what you're doing! And yes, rolls like a devil in FS2004 too...

Now it could be that I didn't explain myself properly there, but I definitely didn't mean the FS2004 version is a pig. And if you take the time to read my previous post, both planes - Oleg's and Shockwave's - are actually surprisingly _similar_ if anything IMHO. Now what does that tell you?

The Shockwave version is maybe a bit harder to fly, granted, but not overtly so by any means. And oh yeah, Oleg models spins much more beautifully, but the differences aren't that great otherwise... HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you say its like the Fw 190 in IL2 then your description of it differs from my experience. The Fw 190 doesnt need to be treated with cotton gloves in IL2 or flown 'within its power envelope' I think its rather benign compared to some aircraft like the Tempest or Mustang.

Anyway, I read your comments on the shockwaves 190 FM and felt immediately that it doesnt relate to pilots reports of how the aircraft handled in reality. Your description reminds me of test reports of a Bf 109 G6 or something not a Fw 190 which was renowned as being 'easy'

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 possessed a harsh stall ONLY IF AERILONS WERE INCORRECTLY ALIGNED.

That's one enthusiast's interpretation, nothing more.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its one Fw 190 enthusiast who is restoring an actual Fw 190 and has access to origional flight documents and manuals.

I would take his word over a clumsy half assed test report.

But I also know why you like the perpetuated myth about its aleged deficiencies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-15-2006, 05:45 PM
iirec its power off level, landing configish stall was beign, but the power on accelorated stall (ie, some kind or turn, even vertical http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) could be sudden, and with little warning.

most planes had "easy" stalls.

faustnik
09-15-2006, 10:46 PM
Some pilots say the Fw190 gave no warning of stall, others say different:

It was highly responsive around all axes, could be reefed into a tight turn, and gave its pilot ample warning of a stall by sharp, jerky aileron movements. If these were ignored, the machine would automatically go into a flick half roll, losing height and turning 180 degrees in less time than it takes to describe here.
- Norbert Hannig.

I *envision* the Fw190 high speed stall as being exactly like the Tempest in PF, if that makes sense. As I've said before, they took the Fw190 stall away along with the elevator authority some patches back.

leitmotiv
09-15-2006, 11:11 PM
Just for the record: FS9 allows you to cherry pick complexity just like IL-2 ETC. You are not forced to use mouse control of switches, levers, etc for example (I never do because with TrackIR the virtual cockpit has too much motion for me to precisely click on them). I have a suspicion BOB may become the ultimate immersion tool and possibly more popular with offliners than onliners. IL-2 ETC may be kept alive for online play. This would be a rational compromise to keep everybody happy.

msalama
09-16-2006, 01:03 AM
...or something not a Fw 190 which was renowned as being 'easy'

Hmmm, we just don't seem to understand each other here. Well, let me clarify my notions about the WoP bird a bit further still:

* The accelerated stall is hard, _not_ the power-off level stall. The spins, however, are recoverable using standard methods.

* The plane is fully aerobatic, but sufficient airspeed is needed for manouvering. This of course holds true for all AC, not only for the FW!

* The FW is a high wing loading AC w/ a high stall speed, so you've got to use sufficient power in order to fly her safely. She can be dead-sticked, of course, but you've got to keep the airspeed up in order to succeed.

* The IL-2 and the WoP versions are actually very similar. You could tell without any doubts whatsoever that it's the same bird you were flying in both!

* ...and NO, you DON'T have to drive her w/ cotton gloves on! This thing is a fighter after all, fergadssakes, and fighters are built to withstand all kinds of abuse aren't they?

* Finally, it could be that I over-emphasized the "hardness" in my original post a bit too much - being the FW non-expert that I am - because what's hard to ME mightn't be hard to YOU, y'see?

OK, done. HTH this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BaronUnderpants
09-16-2006, 07:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skunk241981:

Regarding the Combat vs Flight sim argument: I find this to be completely stupid, since even if this is a Combat sim, you still have to learn how to FLY. You're not going to be able to fight worth dog **** if you cant fly from the get go.
________________________________________________



Not suprisingly my point wizzed right over your head. If u cant see the differance between a FLIGHT sim ( MS 2004 ) and a Combat flight sim ( IL2 ) in terms of pre flight checks/cockpit functions/damage moddeling/weapons functions and so on i dont know what to tell u.

Implementing completly accurate functions across the board in a combat flight sim might make hardcore pilots wet there pants in delight but it sure wont bring in new blood into olegs game. For every post by newcommers screaming for help because they can even get of the ground/land or what not, let alone fly in COMBAT im sure there are 10 who didnt even bother posting and just chucked it in the bin.

Not that im saying 4.06/4.07/BoB shuld be simplefied, im not. Im saying making it even harder is a bad idea.

And if there isnt any differance between MS Flight sim and IL2 combat sim i sure cant understan what the fuz about MS 2004 is all about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The new state of the art improvments should focus on visual effects, weather effects, more accurate DM, ammo options, graphics and NOT on something that forces u to use 2 keyboards with functions just to be able to take of/ stay in the air, unless your using a 6dof, tuch screen, hotas...yada, yada, yada.

Calling someonse point stupid when u obviously completly missed it is kind of, well...stupid, dont ya think.

Aaron_GT
09-16-2006, 03:32 PM
Not suprisingly my point wizzed right over your head. If u cant see the differance between a FLIGHT sim ( MS 2004 ) and a Combat flight sim ( IL2 ) in terms of pre flight checks/cockpit functions/damage moddeling/weapons functions and so on i dont know what to tell u.

Shockwave's BoB II tries to be both, in that you can use involved start up procedures, including needing to pump-prime the engine. The problem I had with that as the mouse gyrations needed weren't exactly that easy to perform.

mrsiCkstar
09-16-2006, 04:30 PM
okay, could someone post a picture of the 190 pit with maybe a circle or a rectangle surrounding this infamous bar? I was never around here when this stuff happened so I have no clue what people are talking about when they talk about the bar.

R_Target
09-16-2006, 05:38 PM
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6574/barne2.jpg

The-Pizza-Man
09-16-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
The new state of the art improvments should focus on visual effects, weather effects, more accurate DM, ammo options, graphics and NOT on something that forces u to use 2 keyboards with functions just to be able to take of/ stay in the air, unless your using a 6dof, tuch screen, hotas...yada, yada, yada.


Better than that they should focus on a decent help and tutorial system. The reason people throw this game away is because it is bloody un-user friendly. If I hadn't already been proficient in half a dozen other sims before flying FB I would have thrown it away as well. If Il-2 had a help and tutorial system of the calibre of FS9 there would be no problem with people learning to fly more complex aeroplanes and having fun doing so.

Xiolablu3
09-16-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The 190 had 100mm of vertical seat adjustment plus usually a chute under the pilot's butt.

Good post Luft!

This is an important point and I think this is the source of this painful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif controversy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I thought they always had it on their back in a FW190 and sat on it in the Bf109?

luftluuver
09-16-2006, 07:59 PM
pg 111 of Planes of the LW Fighter Aces Vol 1 a pic of Uffz Merbeler in front of his 190 with a seat chute'

pg 41 a pic of Walter Horten in a 109E with a back chute.

mrsiCkstar
09-16-2006, 09:39 PM
Thanks Target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
09-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
Thanks Target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No prob. You wouldn't think it would be that big of a deal until you try to pull an under-the-nose deflection shot. Then it becomes a real pain.

BaronUnderpants
09-17-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
The new state of the art improvments should focus on visual effects, weather effects, more accurate DM, ammo options, graphics and NOT on something that forces u to use 2 keyboards with functions just to be able to take of/ stay in the air, unless your using a 6dof, tuch screen, hotas...yada, yada, yada.


Better than that they should focus on a decent help and tutorial system. The reason people throw this game away is because it is bloody un-user friendly. If I hadn't already been proficient in half a dozen other sims before flying FB I would have thrown it away as well. If Il-2 had a help and tutorial system of the calibre of FS9 there would be no problem with people learning to fly more complex aeroplanes and having fun doing so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree on the help and tutorial system, no doubt, kind of obviouse when one think about it...dont know why i forgot that one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mrsiCkstar
09-17-2006, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
Thanks Target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No prob. You wouldn't think it would be that big of a deal until you try to pull an under-the-nose deflection shot. Then it becomes a real pain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed though that on the FS9 190 screenshot the sight is taller and the reticle itself is smaller... maybe that's why it appears to be a better view, or maybe the camera sits higher on their pit.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2006, 05:59 AM
Baron, I wasnt specifically targeting your argument, but its that I have seen this type of argument all over the boards every single time FS9 is brought up.

Rereading your post, I do get your message, but its just that I feel that there are too many misconceptions and whatnot regarding Combat vs Flight only sims.

I should have used the term 'lame' instead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BaronUnderpants
09-17-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Skunk241981:
Baron, I wasnt specifically targeting your argument, but its that I have seen this type of argument all over the boards every single time FS9 is brought up.

Rereading your post, I do get your message, but its just that I feel that there are too many misconceptions and whatnot regarding Combat vs Flight only sims.

I should have used the term 'lame' instead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Well, i guess i could get behind all this "making it as close to real as possible" IF there where help and tuturials in game that mached it. As it stands, my wiews derrives from what we have now, wich is pretty much no help what so ever in game.

Extreme complexity + no detailed manual = bad idea.

To be completly honest though, i still think a overly complex combat sim would do more harm than good.

Bremspropeller
09-17-2006, 06:29 AM
That pic over here shows an a/c which is equipped with 50mm of armor glass on each side of the canopy.
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/46.jpg

http://www.elknet.pl/dartym/fw190/fw190_3.jpg http://members.aol.com/kaczmarek190/ungercockpit.jpg

EDIT: Those 50mm armor-sets were regarded unnecessary and the majority of Sturmgruppen removed those thingys from their planes since they produced a high amount of drag.
Interestingly, the last pic also shows armor-kits that were placed onto the triangle-shaped side-panels of the canopy.
Those armor-glass mods were referred to as "Scheuklappen" (blinkers) by the pilots, since they were hampering visibility a lot.
The mods for the triangle-glass part of the canopy however can be seen quite frequently on pics of 190s in '44 at the western front (at least among units that had the bombers as main targets; eg. JG26 and JG2 did not have their planes eqipped with "blinkers" IIRC).