PDA

View Full Version : Oleg. FW 190 DM needs a rework!



XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 02:49 PM
Now it is ridiculous. Some small bullet hits and the FW 190 is going down. It was better in 1.2rc ! Why did you changed it? Did you hear some "strange voices", which whispered you "the truth" about the FW 190 vulnerable structure?

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 02:49 PM
Now it is ridiculous. Some small bullet hits and the FW 190 is going down. It was better in 1.2rc ! Why did you changed it? Did you hear some "strange voices", which whispered you "the truth" about the FW 190 vulnerable structure?

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 04:01 PM
This has been around for awhile about the 190's simplified DM. Glad to see others are noticing how bad it is now. I e-mailed Oleg about this after RC01 but apparently it fell on deaf ears. Maybe someday we will get a good, consistent DM for the 190 but it might be awhile. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

It's just strange to me that this has not been corrected. They should have corrected the 190 when they did the Yak. Oleg has fixed an amazing amount of bugs, some of them very obscure. Yet he lets the DM of one of the most important planes slide? It just doesn't make sense. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 04:15 PM
Yeah, I agree. I've always found it quite amazing how one .50 round in the FW's wing makes it impossible to roll or turn, you just insta-stall. It's weird.

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 04:29 PM
VVS-Manuc wrote:
- Now it is ridiculous. Some small bullet hits and the
- FW 190 is going down. It was better in 1.2rc ! Why
- did you changed it? Did you hear some "strange
- voices", which whispered you "the truth" about the
- FW 190 vulnerable structure?
-
-

As a 190 flyier I haven't really noticed the weakness everyone is talking about, atleast relative to other planes. I think many of the planes have a critical hit sort of modeling. I've seen single hits remove yak wings as well as others. The 190 still seems pretty durable in the engine area. I've worked over by 50 cals and 20mm canon that would have had a 109 or p51 trailing smoke, but my 190 flew on.

DangerForward

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:35 PM
DangerForward wrote:
- As a 190 flyier I haven't really noticed the
- weakness everyone is talking about, atleast relative
- to other planes. I think many of the planes have a
- critical hit sort of modeling. I've seen single hits
- remove yak wings as well as others. The 190 still
- seems pretty durable in the engine area. I've worked
- over by 50 cals and 20mm canon that would have had a
- 109 or p51 trailing smoke, but my 190 flew on.
-
- DangerForward
-
-

No, I don't think most other aircraft have a critical hit type modeling (I assume you mean like in a role-playing where dice are rolled and certain numbers produce a more destructive hit). Take, for example, this image of the 109E-4 internal DM:

http://www.il2sturmovik-fr.com/the_game/screenshots/dm3.jpg


As you can see, the wing spars down the center of the wing are actually modelled. Hits to the spars are one of the ways you see "critical failures" in the aircraft with complex DMs.

In the aircraft with simplified DMs (Fw-190, Lagg, I-16), however, critical damage to the wing (and other major structures) must be based on some sort of random chance system like rolling dice. Since the internal structure of the wing is not modelled, any hit to any part of the wing is given a chance to inflict critical damage, thus "simulating" a hit to a critical component. The problem with such a system is, obviously, that it is not very consistent, sometimes producing realistic results, sometimes producing very improbable results.

This is the only explanation I can see for the behavior we observe in the game. Making the aircraft "weaker" or "stronger" does not solve the problem.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 02:03 AM
It's not so bad when you take it into perspective, remember that all planes are a little weaker now, and it is definitely noticeable (I have been racking up kills like mad online the past couple days, taking wings off, flaming fuel tanks etc. makes MG151/20 seem very strong all of a sudden, have yet to get alot of hits w/o the enemy going down-unlike 1.11 where planes would often take many hits without any noticeable effect).

And the 190 certainly isn't as strong as it was in 1.11, but today it got me home, even though there were 2 LA/Yaks chasing/firing/hitting me all the way (I even got to put in one of my my claasic "you guys out of ammo yet!?" type comments).

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 02:14 AM
I can remeber IL-2 where the first bullet that hit your Fw-190 almost always PKed your pilot..

Oleg, it would be nice if you could move re-working the Fw-190 damage model into the team's busy schedule.. Along with somehow modeling compression

Thanks

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 04:09 AM
Yes, you are all aware that FW's did NOT EVER break in a dive due to flutter, right?

FW's were built to be able to dive at terminal velocity, and maintain structural stability. It is beyond me as to why this hasn't been modeled.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 05:53 AM
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts...


Oleg and his team already know about the lack of a complex damage model for the 190. They already know that many, many people (including me) see fixing it as a top priority. With all of the information available and in consideration of many project related constraints we are not privy to, it has been prioritized. Continued beating of this dead horse will probably move it farther down the list.

-WhtBoy.

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 12:27 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- Yes, you are all aware that FW's did NOT EVER break
- in a dive due to flutter, right?
-
- FW's were built to be able to dive at terminal
- velocity, and maintain structural stability. It is
- beyond me as to why this hasn't been modeled.
-
-

A Fw 190 in a terminal velocity dive was a handfull to pull out. So instead of modelling this effect the developers apears to have chosen that the plane should rip apart instead. The adjustable tailplane came well in hand during these high speed recoverys.

Btw, has anyone noticed how poorly the Fw 190 turns now? It departs from flight much easier now. It's now definitely the worst turner in FB, by far./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
But other than that, it's great!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 02:32 PM
robban75 wrote:
-
-
- A Fw 190 in a terminal velocity dive was a handfull
- to pull out. So instead of modelling this effect the
- developers apears to have chosen that the plane
- should rip apart instead. The adjustable tailplane
- came well in hand during these high speed recoverys.

To be honest, i don't care if the real a/c's control cables ripped right out of the wings at terminal velocity, i would rather see the plane modeled ACCURATELY, than in such a way as to appease the public. If the FW190's controls at terminal velocity were as you say, i'd rather see that, than the wings ripping off...

- Btw, has anyone noticed how poorly the Fw 190 turns
- now? It departs from flight much easier now. It's
- now definitely the worst turner in FB, by far-

Actually I haven't: If you are experiencing this, it's most likely because you are trying to dogfight in the FW, which would mean you're flying it incorrectly.

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 03:56 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-
- robban75 wrote:
- To be honest, i don't care if the real a/c's
- control cables ripped right out of the wings at
- terminal velocity, i would rather see the plane
- modeled ACCURATELY, than in such a way as to appease
- the public. If the FW190's controls at terminal
- velocity were as you say, i'd rather see that, than
- the wings ripping off...
-
I hear you, and I agree!
-
-- Btw, has anyone noticed how poorly the Fw 190 turns
-- now? It departs from flight much easier now. It's
-- now definitely the worst turner in FB, by far-
-
- Actually I haven't: If you are experiencing this,
- it's most likely because you are trying to dogfight
- in the FW, which would mean you're flying it
- incorrectly.
-
-
I'm not turnfighting in it, not online anyways. Although during free flights in the QMB I do alot of aerobatics aswell as trying out new tactics against the AI, and it feels to me as if the already poor turning 190 is even worse now. Which is sad cause it really didn't need that. Perhaps the 190 is correct I don't know, however I do believe some of the other "high wingloading" planes should suffer aswell.


<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 04:12 AM
As far as the 190 turning worse I would say the A-4 and A-5 turn/handle pretty well, but the A-8, A-9, and the Dora seem to have taken a small hit as far as handling goes. When I say turning I am also including energy retention. I really don't mind this though, I just wish other planes had more "character" like the 190 and P-47.

As I said in another post, when performing vertical maneuvers try decreasing throttle at appropriate times, it can significantly improve your handling as the newly modelled torque can have a negative effect on your planes stability. That is, if you are not doing this already.

This is also a bump for giving the 190 a complex DM. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.