PDA

View Full Version : Request re Fw-190As



Ratsack
02-26-2005, 02:24 PM
Hello all,

Does anybody know if this issue has been raised with Oleg, or if not, what€s the consensus here about it?

Anyway, what I'm hoping for is a load out option for the Fw-190A-4 & A-5, where the outer wing guns are deleted, without the addition of a bomb rack. This was a common variation on both the Eastern and Western fronts, giving the Fw-190A the advantage of lower weight without the drag penalty of a fuselage rack.

It's always bugged me that the lightweight Wurger isn't available to us.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Ratsack
02-26-2005, 02:24 PM
Hello all,

Does anybody know if this issue has been raised with Oleg, or if not, what€s the consensus here about it?

Anyway, what I'm hoping for is a load out option for the Fw-190A-4 & A-5, where the outer wing guns are deleted, without the addition of a bomb rack. This was a common variation on both the Eastern and Western fronts, giving the Fw-190A the advantage of lower weight without the drag penalty of a fuselage rack.

It's always bugged me that the lightweight Wurger isn't available to us.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Hunde_3.JG51
02-26-2005, 02:38 PM
This has been brought up numerous times, but without any luck. I would like to see this and I would think that little work is required to do so, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway, it is Oleg's decision and he has alot going on so you have to respect that.

Ratsack
02-26-2005, 03:50 PM
It just seems to me that it would be a (relatively) simple piece of coding. The weight reduction and firepower models already exist, they just need to be added to the clean model, instead of the one with the rack.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

NorrisMcWhirter
02-26-2005, 06:11 PM
Hi,

If it's "not possible" to swap a piece of code with another that already exists, I doubt anything new will be introduced.

Expect to have to cough up money for BoB in order to get anything sorted from now on; that appears to be the order of the day.

Norris

3.JG51_BigBear
02-26-2005, 06:32 PM
A couple years ago I remember this coming up and I think the explanation given was that the planes that left the factory with only the inner wing guns had the bomb rack attached and that's the way we were going to get the plane, the way it came from the factory.

RedNeckerson
02-26-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
A couple years ago I remember this coming up and I think the explanation given was that the planes that left the factory with only the inner wing guns had the bomb rack attached and that's the way we were going to get the plane, the way it came from the factory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but this is incorrect.

FW190s could come from the factory without outer guns and without the bomb rack.

Check out "Production Line to Frontline" series about FW190 for example.

HeinzBar
02-26-2005, 07:59 PM
Rant On

S!,
Regardless of what the factory may have done, the removal of the bombrack could be take place in an hour. Honestly, what fighter pilot, flying CAP, would want to fly w/ the additional drag and weight that the bomb rack would cause?

With BS like the nerffed 151/20 loadouts and ignorance of applying a bombrack when removing the additional wing cannons, it doesn't amaze me people whisper of bias. For what reason would the developers have in keeping historically incorrect modeling? I don't know, but as the evidence mounts, it gets harder to stomach the glaring inaccuracies.

Rant off

HB

3.JG51_BigBear
02-26-2005, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
A couple years ago I remember this coming up and I think the explanation given was that the planes that left the factory with only the inner wing guns had the bomb rack attached and that's the way we were going to get the plane, the way it came from the factory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but this is incorrect.

FW190s could come from the factory without outer guns and without the bomb rack.

Check out "Production Line to Frontline" series about FW190 for example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I honestly have no idea one way or the other, I just remember reading something to that effect a while back on this forum and the theory made some sense to me. I know it didn't come directly from Oleg but I thought it had come from someone who was "in the know" on these sorts of things.

Ratsack
02-26-2005, 10:16 PM
But seriously, I don't want this to turn into a flame fest, and I definitely don't want it to turn into an anti-Oleg flame fest since I am, after all, asking the gent to do something for me...for free. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On topic, I know that Fw-190A-2s, A-3s, A-4s, A-5s and A-6s were delivered ex-factory this way. In fact, some A-7s were also delivered with the outer MG151s removed, with a cut-down, streamlined rack for a drop tank. These machines were designed for dogfighting.

Has Oleg expressed an opinion on this recently? If not, how does one (politely) bring this request to his attention?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Bogun
02-27-2005, 12:24 AM
Guys,
I remember, long-long time ago (before FB), when Oleg responded on this question €" he said that when you delete outer guns and get this bombrack €" it is visually present, but it does not add additional drag in the game.

Jazz-Man
02-27-2005, 02:04 AM
Edit:

NM, I see that Bogun has already said what I had to say... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
02-27-2005, 03:46 AM
Interesting, just did some speed tests and indeed the ETC-501 bomb-rack does not cause any drag. I knew this was always the case with the A-8 and A-9 as I believe their data was formed with bomb-racks installed IRL.

But now it seems the A-4/5/6 no longer suffer from ETC-501 bomb-rack drag under any conditions. This was not the case before as I used to speed test, and before the last patch many of us noticed the bug where dropping the bomb resulted in no gain in speed on certain variants. On the non-bugged variants it used to cut your max speed at SL by approx 10-15km/h after bomb release. Now after dropping bombs even with R (filed conversion) loadouts, which retain all four cannons, I can attain the same max speed as if I never took a bomb at all. In short, the A-4/5/6 got a speed boost after bomb release by approx. 10-15km/h when carrying bombs only on centerline. Carrying the bomb itself still induces quite a bit of drag as you would expect. Looks like I am going to load up an SC-500 more often with A-4/5/6/http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

As for the original post, although the drag is not modelled I'm not sure deleting cannons confers any real benefit to climb, acceleration, etc, but it seems to have no effect on speed good or bad.

NN_EnigmuS
02-27-2005, 05:01 AM
and what about the panzerblitz2 on fw190F8 please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Ratsack
02-27-2005, 03:33 PM
That's interesting, thanks for the reply.

I did some tests a little while ago, and noticed that the variant with the drop tank was 5-10 km/h slower than the clean version, after the tank was dropped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifHmmm, I'll go check again.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

BlackStar2000
03-01-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Interesting, just did some speed tests and indeed the ETC-501 bomb-rack does not cause any drag. I knew this was always the case with the A-8 and A-9 as I believe their data was formed with bomb-racks installed IRL.

But now it seems the A-4/5/6 no longer suffer from ETC-501 bomb-rack drag under any conditions. This was not the case before as I used to speed test, and before the last patch many of us noticed the bug where dropping the bomb resulted in no gain in speed on certain variants. On the non-bugged variants it used to cut your max speed at SL by approx 10-15km/h after bomb release. Now after dropping bombs even with R (filed conversion) loadouts, which retain all four cannons, I can attain the same max speed as if I never took a bomb at all. In short, the A-4/5/6 got a speed boost after bomb release by approx. 10-15km/h when carrying bombs only on centerline. Carrying the bomb itself still induces quite a bit of drag as you would expect. Looks like I am going to load up an SC-500 more often with A-4/5/6/http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

As for the original post, although the drag is not modelled I'm not sure deleting cannons confers any real benefit to climb, acceleration, etc, but it seems to have no effect on speed good or bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got that bomb behave with bfs too

Fehler
03-01-2005, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeinzBar:
Rant On

S!,
Regardless of what the factory may have done, the removal of the bombrack could be take place in an hour. Honestly, what fighter pilot, flying CAP, would want to fly w/ the additional drag and weight that the bomb rack would cause?

With BS like the nerffed 151/20 loadouts and ignorance of applying a bombrack when removing the additional wing cannons, it doesn't amaze me people whisper of bias. For what reason would the developers have in keeping historically incorrect modeling? I don't know, but as the evidence mounts, it gets harder to stomach the glaring inaccuracies.

Rant off

HB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftwhiner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
03-01-2005, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Guys,
I remember, long-long time ago (before FB), when Oleg responded on this question €" he said that when you delete outer guns and get this bombrack €" it is visually present, but it does not add additional drag in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Removing the outer guns does not result in any performance increases and the weight of the rack is counted. Here are recent climb tests by Robban (the climb test king).

Fw 190A-4 100% fuel, full power, auto proppitch.

Full armament + ETC

1000 - :59
2000 - 1:58
3000 - 3:05
4000 - 4:09
5000 - 5:16

Outer guns removed + ETC

1000 - :58
2000 - 1:57
3000 - 3:04
4000 - 4:07
5000 - 5:12

No outer guns, no MG17s + ETC

1000 - :56
2000 - 1:53
3000 - 3:00
4000 - 4:02
5000 - 5:05

Full armament no ETC

1000 - :56
2000 - 1:52
3000 - 2:56
4000 - 3:59
5000 - 5:02

mortoma
03-01-2005, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If it's "not possible" to swap a piece of code with another that already exists, I doubt anything new will be introduced.

Expect to have to cough up money for BoB in order to get anything sorted from now on; that appears to be the order of the day.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is all this code stuff about?? I guess some people don't understand much about computer programming. Nothing to do wtih code, all they would have to do is to copy some of the 3-D models of some versions of the FW-190, eliminate the stuff you guys are talking about, and patch the new version of the aircraft into the game. That simple. Whether or not anybody at 1C has the time to do this, is another question entirely.

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 12:31 AM
You have to program a new object with different flight dynamics (ie weight/drag).

Ratsack
03-02-2005, 01:18 PM
Thanks for that, Faustnik.

Those figures tell me that the default 190 performs (marginally) better than those with the ETC, which has been my impression for some time. What I would like to see is a clean 190 without the outer wing guns. This should out perform the others.

My own tests of top speed again show the default bird to be a little faster. I tested an A4 at 5,000 m, 75% fuel, auto prop, the U3 (after dropping tank) was getting to 450 km/h, while the default version managed 460 km/h.

But anyway, how do we ask Oleg to address this?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

faustnik
03-02-2005, 01:38 PM
Ratsack,

I have asked Oleg this a few times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and he replies that he has a lot on his plate (which any of us can see that he does) and that the performance gains are not worth the trouble. I respect that and, while I still hope for it to magically appear in a patch, am not expecting to see it. No big deal, the versions we have kick major a$$ anyway.

I think this variation was asked for 2.7 seconds after the Fw190 was released in IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
03-02-2005, 10:04 PM
If Oleg does work on FW190s...I'd ask for one or two of three things:
1) Fix the fuel tank bug
2) A FW190D-13
3) A FW190F-9 (with panzerblitz)

faustnik
03-02-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If Oleg does work on FW190s...I'd ask for one or two of three things:
1) Fix the fuel tank bug
2) A FW190D-13
3) A FW190F-9 (with panzerblitz) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uuuhhh, let me think...yeah, I'm good with your list Icefire! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack
03-02-2005, 10:41 PM
Yeah, IceFire, I understand the bug request, but for the rest, I don't know. I mean, the D-13 was not very numerous, and I don't think the panzer blitz was, either (this is the downward-firing job mounted in the wing, activated by a photo sensor, I assume http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. Happy to corrected on this).

I'd rather the see the more common canopy on the A-8 and D-9, and drop tank options for the A-8, A-9 and D-9, and a correctly modelled version without MGFFs. All of these were relatively common.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

dadada1
03-03-2005, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If Oleg does work on FW190s...I'd ask for one or two of three things:
1) Fix the fuel tank bug
2) A FW190D-13
3) A FW190F-9 (with panzerblitz) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With you on that Icefire, give me that list now.

NN_EnigmuS
03-03-2005, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yeah, IceFire, I understand the bug request, but for the rest, I don't know. I mean, the D-13 was not very numerous, and I don't think the panzer blitz was, either (this is the downward-firing job mounted in the wing, activated by a photo sensor, I assume http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. Happy to corrected on this).

I'd rather the see the more common canopy on the A-8 and D-9, and drop tank options for the A-8, A-9 and D-9, and a correctly modelled version without MGFFs. All of these were relatively common.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hum about panzerblitz you must read a bit it was very used on the eastern front during 1945 by Fw190F8/9 just read all attack made by them against russian in docavia N15 and how russian AAA was effective too lol and about fw190D13 why not it isn't as marginal as yak3p or la7 with 3x20mm,or yak9UT etc...

VW-IceFire
03-03-2005, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yeah, IceFire, I understand the bug request, but for the rest, I don't know. I mean, the D-13 was not very numerous, and I don't think the panzer blitz was, either (this is the downward-firing job mounted in the wing, activated by a photo sensor, I assume http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. Happy to corrected on this).

I'd rather the see the more common canopy on the A-8 and D-9, and drop tank options for the A-8, A-9 and D-9, and a correctly modelled version without MGFFs. All of these were relatively common.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Panzerblitz was the equivalent to the various allied rockets. As I understand it, they are R4M rockets but with a armor piercing warhead designed for busting up tanks. Used late 1944 to 1945...more often than not on the Eastern Front. Manual control like all other types of rockets...nothing fancy.

D-13 was only a few in number but then so was the Ta-152H, the Yak-3P, the Yak-9UT, the La-7 3xB20, and a variety of other aircraft that were marginal in number. It did fly, it did see combat...that'll do it for me...its not all that different than a D-9 in terms of overall design so the modification would be relatively small.

This is soley a what-if list. I'd love to see all of it happen but I'm not holding my breath.

dadada1
03-03-2005, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yeah, IceFire, I understand the bug request, but for the rest, I don't know. I mean, the D-13 was not very numerous, and I don't think the panzer blitz was, either (this is the downward-firing job mounted in the wing, activated by a photo sensor, I assume http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. Happy to corrected on this).

I'd rather the see the more common canopy on the A-8 and D-9, and drop tank options for the A-8, A-9 and D-9, and a correctly modelled version without MGFFs. All of these were relatively common.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Panzerblitz was the equivalent to the various allied rockets. As I understand it, they are R4M rockets but with a armor piercing warhead designed for busting up tanks. Used late 1944 to 1945...more often than not on the Eastern Front. Manual control like all other types of rockets...nothing fancy.

D-13 was only a few in number but then so was the Ta-152H, the Yak-3P, the Yak-9UT, the La-7 3xB20, and a variety of other aircraft that were marginal in number. It did fly, it did see combat...that'll do it for me...its not all that different than a D-9 in terms of overall design so the modification would be relatively small.

This is soley a what-if list. I'd love to see all of it happen but I'm not holding my breath. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The flight model would need adjustment for D 13, and as you know there was a mock combat after the war between D13 and Tempest V. D13 came out victor on the day. I'd love to do this.

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2005, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
....................Panzerblitz was the equivalent to the various allied rockets. As I understand it, they are R4M rockets but with a armor piercing warhead designed for busting up tanks. Used late 1944 to 1945...more often than not on the Eastern Front. Manual control like all other types of rockets...nothing fancy............. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, the Panzerblitz 2 was in general a R4M rocket with an other warhead.
it was able to penetrate 180mm of armour.
biggest proplem:
the Fw190 had to fly very close and low to the enemy and not faster than 500km/H !

about their numbers:
too little too late, as a lot in the LW , fortunatly!

Vipez-
03-03-2005, 09:38 AM
franky i believe those numbers were for panzerblitz mark 1... what about mark two? anyone have info on their armor penetration and ranges ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ratsack
03-03-2005, 07:54 PM
Thanks for the info on the Panzerblitz, I didn't realise it was just an R4M. I had it mixed up with an experimental thing.

But for the other stuff, it is marginal. I agree, Icefire, that there are other marginal planes in this sim (and you named a few), and that is the exact reason I'd like to see some mundane issues dealt with as a higher priority.

For me, the Fw-190A4/A5 holds its own pretty well up to 1944, but I'd like to see a lightweight version of these types that was - historically speaking - very common indeed. Pulling those two MGFFs out must reduce the weight by a significant amount.

Ratsack

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 06:48 AM
Well...we can pull out the MG-FF, we just add a bombrack. It was very strange when Oleg decided to do that. Oh well.

What about the A-6...I was under the impression it was a bit ligher than the A-5 even with the MG151/20 in the outboard positions. I find this to be a superb plane...you can even dogfight for a bit in the A-6.

Bremspropeller
03-04-2005, 08:08 AM
Ratsack, the thingy you meant was the 77mm "F¶rstersonde" downward gun (without recoil).

Ratsack
03-06-2005, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Well...we can pull out the MG-FF, we just add a bombrack. It was very strange when Oleg decided to do that. Oh well.

What about the A-6...I was under the impression it was a bit ligher than the A-5 even with the MG151/20 in the outboard positions. I find this to be a superb plane...you can even dogfight for a bit in the A-6. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fly the A-6 much. You're right, it's a nice plane, though. Regarding dogfighting, I find the A-4 very useful close in. It seems (feels?) lighter than the A-5.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

OldMan____
03-06-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Interesting, just did some speed tests and indeed the ETC-501 bomb-rack does not cause any drag. I knew this was always the case with the A-8 and A-9 as I believe their data was formed with bomb-racks installed IRL.

But now it seems the A-4/5/6 no longer suffer from ETC-501 bomb-rack drag under any conditions. This was not the case before as I used to speed test, and before the last patch many of us noticed the bug where dropping the bomb resulted in no gain in speed on certain variants. On the non-bugged variants it used to cut your max speed at SL by approx 10-15km/h after bomb release. Now after dropping bombs even with R (filed conversion) loadouts, which retain all four cannons, I can attain the same max speed as if I never took a bomb at all. In short, the A-4/5/6 got a speed boost after bomb release by approx. 10-15km/h when carrying bombs only on centerline. Carrying the bomb itself still induces quite a bit of drag as you would expect. Looks like I am going to load up an SC-500 more often with A-4/5/6/http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

As for the original post, although the drag is not modelled I'm not sure deleting cannons confers any real benefit to climb, acceleration, etc, but it seems to have no effect on speed good or bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I told that long time ago. Since PF the A4 and A5 dont loose 12 kph anymore with bombrack.

It is just a pitty MG151 is not good enough to just use 2 of them... A4 is fantastik wiht only 2 cannons.

OldMan____
03-06-2005, 06:45 AM
Also my tests show me that the weight reduction is there. FW190A5 without outer guns climbs better (dont have the exact numbers anymore).. and most importatn.. it can keep climbing at slightly slower speeds. A4 also improves quite well (but is damm strange not having MG.. when firing).

Flying a lot A4 with only 2 cannons I discovered I missed most my 20 mm shots.. and alost all my hits were rifle caliber ones. Practice with this A4 variant to improve gunnery..

Hunde_3.JG51
03-06-2005, 10:12 AM
My tests showed something different, but then after PF release I rarely flew. But I was definitely getting lower top speeds with bomb-rack on A-4/5/6 variants. Not sure when I tested though and sent bug report to Oleg concerning some of the U variants and not getting speed back after bomb release. Possibly it was before PF release as you said, I've been out of the loop for awhile.

OldMan____
03-07-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
My tests showed something different, but then after PF release I rarely flew. But I was definitely getting lower top speeds with bomb-rack on A-4/5/6 variants. Not sure when I tested though and sent bug report to Oleg concerning some of the U variants and not getting speed back after bomb release. Possibly it was before PF release as you said, I've been out of the loop for awhile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeap I remember the bug. But it happened when you got a bomb and dropped it... you would not recover speed. With only racks from beggining of flight.. no problem.


The performance difference is not big.. but the diminished weight improves stall behavior at slow speeds enough to be usefull when fighting fighters solely.