PDA

View Full Version : Requests for Fw-190 features



Korolov
09-27-2004, 02:54 PM
There are a few things that have been nagging me about the Fw-190A-8 and A-9 lately, and it would be nice (read: not "need", just would like) to have them:

Gunpods on/off currently disable or enable the outer wing guns. Could we change this to enable/disable the cowl MGs instead?

Drop tank - the Fw-190A-8 and A-9 desperately need drop tanks. These things guzzle fuel pretty quickly and it would be nice to have the extra fuel for long flights.

Remove outer wing guns - the outer wing guns are sometimes more trouble than they're worth. It would be nice if we could remove them to save some weight and get a little extra performance.

Kwiatos
09-27-2004, 03:42 PM
PLZ GIVE FOR FW-190 SELF-SEALING FUEL TANKS AT LEAST!!!

BBB_Hyperion
09-27-2004, 04:33 PM
How about 3 different fuel tanks 2 normal and 1 for boost system . So it doesnt leak all fuel when 1 tank is hit.

Also a bomb selector switch would be nice.

gates123
09-27-2004, 04:42 PM
We really need that ammo counter working on the A-6

faustnik
09-27-2004, 05:32 PM
Might as well add panzerblitz rockets for the F8 to the list. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov
09-28-2004, 12:32 PM
Bumpage - I'm with Faustnik - Panzerblitz rockets for the F-8!

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
09-28-2004, 12:45 PM
and Bombs + Droptanks for the D9's...

PraetorHonoris
09-28-2004, 01:46 PM
A correct ammo counter would be enough to make me happy together with the Panzerblitz, because there are no air-to-ground rockets at all for the axis actually.

Zen--
09-28-2004, 01:47 PM
All nice suggestions and I agree. Drop tanks and a better assortment of bombs/ordinance would be excellent.

The biggest thing the 190 (and especially the Ta152) needs right now is a good hard look at the DM. Someone mentioned self sealing fuel tanks...I cannot agree more. In practical terms the 190 is sitting on a worse DM now than ever before and the plane is quite frustrating to fly because of it.

More bombs, more rockets, more fuel tanks yes but PLEASE...less catastrophic fuel leaks or smashed cockpit panels when straffed by MG fire. You'd think the virtual pilot was pulling moves out of the Matrix as the bullets whizzed through the plane, hitting everything but him.

Considering that Germany only produced two major fighter variants during the war, (and the 190 is one of them) I'd say that after so many years now it's justified in asking for more complete loadouts and more historical weapon/fuel/ordinance arrangements.

Real pilots reportedly could control the exact firing of weapons with the M1+2 lever as well as a fuse panel. To be able to turn off the cowl MG's and fire only the 4 MG151/20's on the Antons would be awesome indeed. IL2/FB/AEP has always striven for realism and it would be nice to see things like this implemented.

Just my .02 rupees

<S>

VW-IceFire
09-28-2004, 03:20 PM
Yes to all of these:

1) Panzerblitz rockets
2) Drop tanks for all
3) Bomb loadouts for the D-9
4) Selectable cannon/mg options

I hadn't really thought about the DM recently but yeah I guess thats a little odd. Everything seems capable of puncturing the main tank which sits behind the pilot...it doesn't happen from the bottom...just from the side.

jurinko
09-29-2004, 01:30 AM
and what about a normal forward view and the FM tuned to get a feeling that Fw is "a superb plane, every inch a fighter" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EFG_Zeb
09-29-2004, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Real pilots reportedly could control the exact firing of weapons with the M1+2 lever as well as a fuse panel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1+2 lever is the magneto switch.
But I agree with all the requests.

Regards,

NorrisMcWhirter
09-29-2004, 06:16 AM
bump.

Sort out the FM/DM & fuel leakfirst.
Then the rest of the toys, IMO.

Cheers,
Norris

DarthBane_
09-29-2004, 06:55 PM
Bump, above all for guns select switch.

Korolov
09-29-2004, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
and what about a normal forward view and the FM tuned to get a feeling that Fw is "a superb plane, every inch a fighter" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The view is a dead horse and I won't go into that here. DM adjustments maybe possible, but there are a lot of other things still missing - being able to turn of cowl MGs, for example, or getting Panzerblitz rockets, which would really help the F-8's usefulness.

And I believe the Fw-190 is every inch a fighter. It's certainly one of the top dogs amoung the fighters, capable of a wide variety of tasks and dogfighting capabilities. You know, I've been training a friend lately to fly in FB, and we flew the La-5FN, Yak-9U without him getting any kills at all. He got into a Fw-190A-5 and kicked the butts of 4 La-5FNs. Interesting, no?

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-29-2004, 08:05 PM
bumper

Droptank and Bombs for the D9 would be a dream come trough
but first they need to fix the DM fuel tank leaks and selectable guns.

There is a another thing that should be looked at.
When flying the A5/A6 there is an engine bug when using manual pitch,it doesnt happens often but ive had a few time now ,its just that the engine dies all the sudden without overheat warning and thats under 90% pitch and it can happen at all speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kwiatos
09-30-2004, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
So it doesnt leak all fuel when 1 tank is hit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The worst thing when i fly Fw190 is no weak climb rate, bad visiblity by revi but these is exacly fuel leak. When im hit and i get fuel leak i have about 2 min to all fuel out even if i have 75% fuel. These never happend in other planes which have self-sealing fuel tanks.

VW-IceFire
09-30-2004, 06:51 AM
I've got to agree with Koro on that. The FW190 is every inch a fighter. I've taken a few Spitfire's to town with the FW190 and totally dominated the fight from the start of the fight to the end. It required two passes, the first to knock out his controls, the second to light him on fire and that was it. Less than 30 seconds...the FW190 excells at this sort of slash attack.

I'm told that apparently there is some problems with the FW190 FM that can't be fixed. Apparently the acceleration modeling isn't the way it should be. I don't know if its true or not but I had an hour long argument about it and other things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The person telling it to me believe it was true and from reputable sources so ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even so the FW190 is a darned good fighter. Hope they fix the DM a bit.

For climbing in the FW190 BTW...do it at 400 kph and not below.

BTW: Does anyone have any good climb charts for the FW190. I've just done a test and the A-4 gets to 5000 meters in 6 minutes and 58 seconds. Trying to beat that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-30-2004, 07:35 AM
ofcourse the FW190 is every inch a fighter or i wouldnt fly it so much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
its not even a question ,its how you fight in it
lets take an average skilled spit mkIX on the same alt with about the same speed as your 190 A5 and try to fight it.

what i do is extend extend and extend and make a big fighting circle and no close in dogfighting ,put enough space between you and him to make a wide turn
so you wont bleed to much E in the turn ,and always fire at every angle you can to make hits on him and dont wait for the right shot ,i fire agressive from every good enough angle i never try to safe my best card i rather use it good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .
This goes the same for the D9 vs P51 and never fight below 450kph if there is no clear advantage ,when lower as 400kph all you can do is RUN and hope to survive

JG14_Josf
09-30-2004, 08:37 AM
It would be nice to have the ability to avoid using the cowl machine guns but that would make it possible to avoid having the view obscured by the muzzle flashes.

It would be nice to have drop tanks so that would the FW190s would have range.

It would be nice to have the ability to remove the outer wing guns and make the FW190 better at dog fighting.

Seriously these things must be secondary concerns for the makers of IL2. The FW190 is modeled as a fighter bomber not a fighter. It is a secondary concern.

There is little evidence in the history of the FW190 modeling in this sim to suggest that the FW190 will be modeled as the fighter plane it was in reality.

VW-IceFire wrote:

"The FW190 is every inch a fighter"

In the game the FW190 can employ hit and run tactics like a good figher bomber.

Does this reflect history?

"For climbing in the FW190 BTW...do it at 400 kph and not below."

Again, does this reflect history?

The game is the best on the market for simulating WWII air combat. But at far as modeling the FW190 the game is gamey.

Acceleration is and was a combat advantage in reality. In reality the British tested an FW190A-3 against a Spitfire VB and the FW climbed at a higher rate and a steeper angle than the Spitfire.

A real combat plane with higher acceleration and a higher climb rate has performance advantages that suit energy tactics.

How fast does the game model the Spitfire VB's climb rate to 5000 meters?

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of climb of the Fw190 is considerably steeper."

The British didn't need climb charts to figure out the FW190 climbed better than the Spitfire VB in 1942 they simply flew the two planes side by side in comparison tests.

But then again that FW190 the British tested was being used by the Germans as a fighter plane in reality before it was capture by the British.

jeroen_R90S
09-30-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
..., because there are no air-to-ground rockets at all for the axis actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know whether they were used for it back then, (I'm sure someone can shed a light on it), but the WGr21's make one cool ground attack weapon. Once you get used to their strange flight patch, I use them quite accurately as such regulary, especially on the Bf 110 which has four of them. Don't need a direct hit, they blast so hard a near miss is good enough against most targets.

They're less cumbersome to carry than bombs, so some limited a/a combat is possible as well, especially with the 190.

Before teh flaming starts, that's offline experience...! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jeroen

robban75
09-30-2004, 10:06 AM
R4M rockets for the D-9 would also be a welcome addition.

These pics were previoulsy posted on the ACWoS forum by FW190fan.

http://donaldgranger.home.att.net/images/190D_W1_RealPhoto_1.JPG

http://donaldgranger.home.att.net/images/190D_W1_RealPhoto_R4M.JPG

NorrisMcWhirter
09-30-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm told that apparently there is some problems with the FW190 FM that can't be fixed. Apparently the acceleration modeling isn't the way it should be. I don't know if its true or not but I had an hour long argument about it and other things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The person telling it to me believe it was true and from reputable sources so ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi m8

Well, I wouldn't have called it an argument http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - more of a discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The guy in question, I won't name on the forum but he said that he had flown with Oleg on quite a few occasions and knew him quite well. It also sounded like he knew what he was on about, even when under pressure from my barracking him about why this, that and the other wasn't correct! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you PM me, I'll give you his name so you can ask him about it yourself when you see him.

Cheers,
Norris

PraetorHonoris
09-30-2004, 11:27 AM
Sorry, Jeroen , but the WGr is not an air-to-ground weapon (that's why they have a "strange" flight path), although it bases on a ground-to-ground weapon.
You can use them, but they do not replace the Panzerblitz!

I mean, there are so many air-to-ground rockets for the allied and not a single typ for the axis...

IIJG69-Niklaus
09-30-2004, 03:42 PM
The most important is the auto sealing fuel tank!!!
Next, better resistance for the cockpit,this evening, in frontal pass a I16type 18 had broken my revi and some gauges... IN FRONTAL,how is it possible?? my engine was clear(? ,as a new),front glass as a new too.

Then...
Unfortunatly,it's too long,but i agree with others.

VW-IceFire
09-30-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm told that apparently there is some problems with the FW190 FM that can't be fixed. Apparently the acceleration modeling isn't the way it should be. I don't know if its true or not but I had an hour long argument about it and other things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The person telling it to me believe it was true and from reputable sources so ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi m8

Well, I wouldn't have called it an argument http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - more of a discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The guy in question, I won't name on the forum but he said that he had flown with Oleg on quite a few occasions and knew him quite well. It also sounded like he knew what he was on about, even when under pressure from my barracking him about why this, that and the other wasn't correct! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you PM me, I'll give you his name so you can ask him about it yourself when you see him.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh it was me and Xeno on UK-Dedicated. And I suppose argument it was not...it was a debate and we had a darned good one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I forget what got us going...anyways...I think he had talked with this guy. I don't want to bug him so nevermind about that.

Korolov
09-30-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
It would be nice to have the ability to avoid using the cowl machine guns but that would make it possible to avoid having the view obscured by the muzzle flashes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can already see this in one of the Fw-190A-5's variants... The one that can mount fuel tanks on the wings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It would be nice to have drop tanks so that would the FW190s would have range.

It would be nice to have the ability to remove the outer wing guns and make the FW190 better at dog fighting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, to tell you the truth... The Fw-190s make a pretty good dogfighting plane, especially the A-6 and earlier models. The late ones are just too heavy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Seriously these things must be secondary concerns for the makers of IL2. The FW190 is modeled as a fighter bomber not a fighter. It is a secondary concern.

There is little evidence in the history of the FW190 modeling in this sim to suggest that the FW190 will be modeled as the fighter plane it was in reality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw-190s are as much a fighter as they are fighter-bombers. Just because they can't turn with a I-16 doesn't mean they suck as a fighter. The whole idea of the Fw-190 is to hit targets before they see you - that is, hit them before they can manuver. That's a very basic concept to understand so it goes well with it's handling and characteristics, making it a VERY good fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
VW-IceFire wrote:

"The FW190 is every inch a fighter"

In the game the FW190 can employ hit and run tactics like a good figher bomber.

Does this reflect history?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf-109s used the same tactics. The Fw-190 was better at it than the 109. So yes, it does reflect history. There are all kinds of stories of how the Fw-190 "outmanuvered my Spitfire" or "Outclimbed my Spitfire." The question is, do we know what the status of the Spitfire was? The status of the Fw-190? How much speed the Fw-190 had initially? The energy state of the Spitfire? The pilot's skill? There are too many factors to really define what made the Fw-190 so good in these scenarios. But remember by outmanuver, they don't mean outturn.

What we have to do is learn what makes our virtual version of the Fw-190 tick, what it can do, what it can't, and learn to turn it into a fighter from there. Exactly what the real pilots had to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"For climbing in the FW190 BTW...do it at 400 kph and not below."

Again, does this reflect history?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does, not to mention the Fw-190's design. You should know this. If the Fw-190 had a thicker, less streamlined wing it's climb speed would be lower. With a razor like wing, it needs speed to get the best out of it's airfoil.

The Fw-190s climb pretty well at 300kmh and higher, and I beat a Bf-109K to 5500m in my Fw-190A-9 by climbing at this speed, while he climbed at something less.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The game is the best on the market for simulating WWII air combat. But at far as modeling the FW190 the game is gamey.

yadda yadda yadda, I can't fly the Fw-190 very well, yadda yadda yadda
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw-190 is THE ride for BnZ flight or team tactics. The earlier A-4 and A-5 models are more than ideal to mix it up with just about anything, moreso in packs. It's easy to grasp, understand, and fly. It is, in a word, the ultimate newbie plane, because it's remarkably simple to understand how you fly it and what you can and can't do with it. From there on, the pilot can only get better.

JG14_Josf
09-30-2004, 05:38 PM
Korolov,

If you quote my words please make sure they are my words and not yours.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Fw-190 is THE ride for BnZ flight or team tactics. Since I suck really bad flying alone in the Fw-190 and I suck even worse when trying to fight one on one on equal terms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note how I used your words and then added my own made up words.

Someone reading that quote above might think you said the made up words when in fact you did not.

As to your opinion of what tactics the FW190 pilots used in history; your opinions are not the same as Eric Browns. Since Eric Brown was around in WWII and he flew the real FW190 I am going to value his opinon more than yours unless you can come up with something to back up your opinion.

For example:

Your opinion concerning the Fw-190's design that I "should know" sounds like you expect me to know something obvious that is not at all obvious.

In fact my understanding is that the Spitfire has a relatively thin wing compared to the Fw-190. If you can prove your point concerning this relative design feature and the effect it has on relative climb speed and climb rate then please do so now.

Example:

"In general, for a wing of a given size and shape, the greater the lift produced under given conditions, the greater the induced drag will be. Although this relationship is important for any aircraft, it is especially critical for fighters, since their mission often involves high-load factors requireing a great amount of lift. Induced drag is minimized by designing wings of large area with long, thin planforms. For subsonic flight an elliptical planform, made famous by the Spitfire fighter of World War II, is theoretically optimum. Other shapes, however, may be nearly as efficient from an induced-drag standpoint and have other overriding advnatages." (Fighter Combat, Robert Shaw, page 397)

virtualpilots/109myths (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Claim:
"Spitfire has eliptical wings. That means that the lift is spread elipticaly over the wings... Therefore it is THE MOST EFFICENT WING CONFIGURATION POSSIBLE".

Answer:
The elliptical planform has very small theoretical advantage, but only theoretical, and only valid if the planform is truely elliptical. Spitfire's planform is only approximating elliptical, and what is left has been sold out by the aerodynamic twist it's wing has.
It has effect on just one of several factors of wing efficiency, causing a whopping 0.05 improvement in comparison to a trapezoidal planform used in for example Bf 109, that is, IF Spit's wing were truely elliptical...
You also have to take into account the fact that the profile thicknes ratio of Spit's wing is VERY thin, both in maximum and in average. This in turn leads to the small coefficient of lift. This pretty much takes away the advantage of the large wing area. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
09-30-2004, 06:48 PM
190 has a lower lift wing, but less drag...
also small wing area

its effecientcy performance window is at a higher speed than most...
at other end u got tb3, hurri http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
09-30-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Sorry, Jeroen , but the WGr is not an air-to-ground weapon (that's why they have a "strange" flight path), although it bases on a ground-to-ground weapon.
You can use them, but they do not replace the Panzerblitz!

I mean, there are so many air-to-ground rockets for the allied and not a single typ for the axis... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr 21 was used against trains from g6 in italy not a ground weapon ?

The Mounting is for a 1000 m range with 30 degrees up when i remember right.

The explosive to drop this tube dragger in flight is missing tho.

BBB_Hyperion
09-30-2004, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Korolov wrote:
The Fw-190s climb pretty well at 300kmh and higher, and I beat a Bf-109K to 5500m in my Fw-190A-9 by climbing at this speed, while he climbed at something less.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe Koro must be kind of dumb BF pilot that isnt able to follow a fwa9 in climb special over 2k. When the BF climbed at something less it climbs faster . The Best roc is around 350 km/h for FW .
Try to 3 minutes to 5 k with A9 not possible !

Korolov
09-30-2004, 09:25 PM
Actually Hyperion, he beat me to about 4k, then I started to gain a advantage over him... Got more speed and more power. Supercharger maybe?
This was also before AEP too... So it's probably not the case now.

Josf, I think it's a lot easier to shorten up what you said rather than post the same over and over again. And quite frankly, I must admit that most complaints about a lot of planes resides in the fact that people don't fly them right. Hence the comment.

Point A) THIS IS NOT WW2. This is a game. That was real life, got it? There are limits in the game - for one, a flat screen. Eric Brown may have been there and flown this or that, but I also recall he said that you needed to tweak joystick settings in the game to actually get a remotely historical control set. Every player would have to use those settings and reconfigure for each different plane they were going to fly. Then you might see something related to historical capabilities, but we also have to remember that is one pilot's take on things.

If Erich Hartmann came by and said that the Bf-109 is overmodeled and needs to be toned down, I think it would be safe to say that he would be flawed in his assumptions, no?

If you want to argue his combat experience and his flight experience, thats fine with me, but remember that what we're discussing is a computer game and is only slightly related to historical events.

Now, onto the meat...

The Spitfire *does* have a thicker wing than the Fw-190, at some points and places. However the main thing is it has more area than the Fw-190 does. This means of course it's not going to perform as well at high speed over the Fw-190. It does however lend the Spitfire to better low speed performance over the Fw-190, which is a bad place for the Fw-190 to be anyways.

Lets look at it this way:

Flying 1942 Fw-190A-4 against a Spitfire Mk.Vb, I am almost absolutely confident that the Fw-190 can win, one on one. The Fw-190 holds the advantage in headons and durability, speed and control harmony. The Fw-190 won't be able to turn with it, but it can generally follow it around for a short while, long enough to get a shot.

HOWEVER, make this 1943 with a IX vs a A-5 or A-6, and I'll say it's a toss-up. But some folks say that the IX is overmodeled - whatever, doesn't matter to me - so this might not be a fair comparison.

You're hitting your head against a wall, Josf - what few things we can change with the game will do nothing to change the actual thrill of fighter combat simulated by the game; to me, learning what the planes can and can't do is a big part of that thrill. We would all like it to be as realistic as possible, but there comes a time when you can't push it any farther.

JG14_Josf
09-30-2004, 10:48 PM
Korolov,

Thanks for answering my original question.

It is a game. It is more of a game with respect to the FW190 since that plane is modeled like a cartoon.

Who is hitting their head against a wall?
My post is intended to point out what is or is not accurate. I have a whole lot of fun with the game. I like to think of the IL2 FW190 as a worn out fighter bomber. Kind of like Hermann Buchner's plane only worse.

I do alright. Thanks.



As to the relative climb speed of the FW190 compared to the Spitfire:
Reality is not even close to the game according to a significant source. That is all I want to point out. When people claim the FW190 in the game is such and such; I like to point out that it wasn't such and such in reality.

As to the relative thickness of the Spitfire and Fw-190 wing I see no information that proves this one way or another, my sources posted suggest otherwise.

If you are convinced that wing thickness or wing area are significant factors in determining how a plane handles relative to speed then please feel comfortable with your opinion. I know that there is a whole lot more involved.

The fact that the FW190 climbs better than the
Spitfire in the game at high speed is your baby. I just want to point out that this is a gamey plaything. It does not resemble history.

It is customary to start a combat test fight by having the two planes meet at the same altitude and same speed in a head-on merge with the guns off on the first pass.
As the two planes merge and pass each other the fight starts. One plane and pilot is then fighting on equal terms with the other plane and pilot.

The Spitfire has many options. The FW190 has few.
The Spitfire can turn around quicker and start chasing the Fw190 or the Spitfire can climb after the merge and it will reach a higher altutude with more energy. Either way the Spitfire will be able to make up angles on the FW190 and for every degree of turn that the Spitfire makes the Fw190 will lose more relative energy (speed and or altitude).
The Spitfire owns the Fw190.

Better climb rate. Better turn rate.

The Fw190 has the option of running. The Fw190 pilot should run for awhile or hope the Spitfire pilot is not too smart. Then when the Fw190 pilot has plenty of separation the Fw190 pilot can turn around.

Even if the Spitfire pilot is stupid enough to follow in the dive (fastest way to gain separation) or stupid enough to follow the level speed run (takes a longer time to gain separation) or even if the Spitfire pilot is stupid enough to follow the same climb angle (takes a real long time for the Fw190 pilot to gain enough separation to turn around) then all the Spitfire pilot has to do is avoid the head-on (if he doesn't want to roll the dice: note that the Spitfire is equal in firepower in the game to the Fw190) with a lead turn.

If the Spitfire pilot is smart he climbs as the Fw190 runs.
Now the Fw190 has lost the fight by default. The Fw190 cannot ever gain energy on the Spitfire. The Spitire can beat any move made by the Fw190.

This is why, in the game, Fw190 pilots fly with wingmen, or use the surprise attack. Hit and run.

Note the above does not sound anything like Eric Brown's description of combat between Spitfires and Fw190s in 1942.

Just in case someone reading this thread has not read Wings of the Luftwaffe by Capt. Eric Brown then here is his take on the situation:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zen--
09-30-2004, 11:11 PM
Best climb speed in real life for 190 is 280kph IIRC.

In game if you have to climb at 400kph to get the most out of the 190, but the real life speed was 280, then something about the sim is not historical obviously. I wouldn't say this is a critical issue to be honest, but it should be a clear example of where the sim doesn't simulate.

In real life the forward view was supposedly very good in the 190 but because we have a 2D monitor in game its not. In game if the 190 has a poor forward view, then the game is not doing its job...it is not simulating an important feature of the aircraft.

In real life the 190 had the highest roll rate of any production fighter that I've heard of...only the P47 supposedly had a roll rate near the 190's. In game if we have a high roll rate but so many other planes have roll rates high enough to nullify the advantage, then the game is not simulating another important attribute of the 190.

In real life the 190 had a great diving ability, so did the P47. In game if most other aircraft dive as well or nearly as well as the 190, then the game is not simulating a very important advantage that 190 had.

(Yes the P47 apparently does outdive other planes, but the difference is very small as far as I can see. The 190 doesn't appear to have any advantage in diving except for acceleration. This means the Dora does ok, the Anton's not so good.)

In real life the 190 was noted to be a very durable aircraft that could often withstand heavy damage and return to base, it was considered a rugged aircraft. In game with the current DM the plane is anything but durable. Take a light peppering from MG fire and you can count on smashed cockpit, terrible fuel leaks and loss of controls. While this is hopefully just a 2.04 issue that will be corrected at some point, it does show again where the game apparently does not simulate a serious attribute that the 190 had in real life.

In real life the 190 was equipped with an innovative and remarkable device called Kommandogerat which automated many functions of the plane and eased the pilot's workload. Because of the way CEM is modelled in game planes without this device fly best at 100% prop pitch and never need to change during dives or climbs, in effect making them hands off for maximum performance. In contrast the 190 loses 200-300 rpm on automatic pitch (because he is using Kommandogerat) and presumably loses a corresponding amount of performance as well...while to get the maximum rpm out of the engine, the pilot must fiddle with manual pitch and must constantly be hands on to get his desired rpm settings. If the game can't simulate this and in fact appears to do the opposite by making it worse for the 190, then it seems to me the 190 is losing an advantage of some degree that it had in real life.

Since we can't all hop in real planes and zoom around playing war in the real 190 or other planes, we simulate it on a computer. If the computer simulation can't recreate the conditions of it's subject, if it can't produce similar results, if it can't recreate or replay specific situations from the war, if real life attributes cannot be used to gain advantage as they did in history...then the game is not really simulating in my opinion.



For the record, yes the 190 in game can be a very effective weapon ...but only in a rather limited set of circumstances. Fact is most planes can be just as effective or better than the 190 using the same tactics, so all the arguments about stay high, stay fast...yes indeed, thats true of just about every plane in the game. But this is the advice handed out for the 190 as though that makes all of it's issues go away and as though that is a secret just for the 190 itself, as if no other plane can reap the same benefits.



This game is supposed to to be a simulator isn't it? If so, how do we explain the descrepancies that the 190 has in game ... are we to discount history? Are all the pilots who flew it just plain wrong?

Hunde_3.JG51
10-01-2004, 12:42 AM
I haven't posted on the forum in a long time, but I just had to say well done and well said to Zen. These are all contradictory to what I have read, and I have read quite a bit on the FW-190A, yet this is what we have in-game:

-FW-190A was restricted to hit and run tactics, energy tactics (dive/zoom) were useless.
-FW-190A had poor forward visibility in flight.
-FW-190A had excellent roll but it was not really much of an advantage.
-FW-190A accelerated the same as most planes initially in dive and in level flight.
-FW-190 was the worst turning aircraft at low speed of all the fighters in FB, and is very easily out-turned by P-51.
-Kommandogerat was a hinderance to FW-190 pilots, its use resulted in poor performance.
-FW-190 climbed best at a very shallow angle (in Eric Brown's test the FW-190A3 used a steep angle for best climb).
-FW-190 had average to poor zoom climb.
-When hit, the FW-190 always leaked fuel at such a rapid rate that you only had a minute or so until you ran out of fuel. Self-sealing tanks were useless.
-Never try to outdive a Spitfire, you have no dive or zoom advantage.

I can find quotes to contradict everything I have said above, but not one to support what is stated above and what we have in-game.

And I couldn't agree more with Zen, I myself have written extensive tactics on how to fly the FW-190A in-game effectively but that doesn't mean that real problems don't exist with the 190 (relative to other aircraft). Against another fighter you will always be out-turned except at very high speeds, you will almost always be out-climbed in a sustained climb at all but the shallowest of angles (which is more like running than climbing), you will bleed energy faster than just about any other fighter, and your roll advantage doesn't mean much as almost every plane in FB rolls very well. What this adds up to is that the FW-190 is restricted to hit and run tactics which IMO is historically incorrect. The 190 shouldn't really be a good dogfighter IMO but energy tactics should yield results. I think it is more of a dive/zoom/energy bleed thing than anything else, as energy tactics in a 190 simply do not work. But as I have said in the past, I think it is more of a case of what other planes are capable of, rather than what the 190 is not (but not in all cases).

I hope BoB will be different. Still, having said all of this FB is still the best thing going and is/was a huge leap in WWII aviation simulation.

P.S., I also agree about the fuel leak bug being a major issue with the FW-190 right now.

jeroen_R90S
10-01-2004, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Sorry, Jeroen , but the WGr is not an air-to-ground weapon (that's why they have a "strange" flight path), although it bases on a ground-to-ground weapon.
You can use them, but they do not replace the Panzerblitz!

I mean, there are so many air-to-ground rockets for the allied and not a single typ for the axis... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, should have been clearer...! I wasn't sure whether they were used for a/g combat, hence my question.

Now for the clear part: I ALSO WANT PANZERBLITZ FOR FW 190F-8!! Or something like that... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jeroen

NN_EnigmuS
10-01-2004, 07:06 AM
and droptank for fwF8 too

NorrisMcWhirter
10-01-2004, 07:18 AM
Hi,

Just skimming through and I concur with Korolov/Zen; it's just a game and is very far from a simulation in many areas.

The proof in the pudding of Zen/Korolov's statement is that you are better off looking at Il-2 compare to determine what your best tactics are with a particular aircraft than using real life test data...because it frequently won't match.
As I posted in another forum, this equates to having something along the lines of an arcadey:

190A5
Speed *****
Turn *
Firepower ***
Shields **

La5FN
Speed *****
Turn ****
Firepower ***
Shields ****

Spitfire Vb
Speed ***
Turn ****
Firepower ***
Shields **

OK, so I'm exaggerating but you get the idea.

So, generalised tactics (spiral climb in G2, bnz in 190) apply to the real life planes but not all real life tactics will apply. An example? We know that you can BNZ the Spitfire Vb in the 190A4 (tick, for correctness) but that you are going to struggle to outclimb it (incorrect, see me after class).

Unfortunately, I'm come around to viewing FB as an upmarket Crimson Skies with 3D shapes that resemble WW2 aircraft. Each has their own characteristics which, more often than not, don't match up to historical information. Worse still is the fact that some don't match up 'relative' to each other (i.e. it might be ok if the 190A4 climb was not identical to one of the numerous data sources just so long as it climbed better than plane x and climbed worse than plane y).

The game might be the best thing we have but perhaps it's best to think of it as U-571 as opposed to das Boot.

Cheers,
Norris

p1ngu666
10-01-2004, 08:42 AM
i think the f8 zooms well, i can regain my alt, after i dive bomb (power dive, in auto) not my speed, but iirec u shouldnt get to same height anyways, with the same speed.
also u shouldnt zoom verticaly, then your just using prop, momentum, if u climb at 45 degree, angle, u use wings lift aswell. verticaly your wings are making drag, and u maybe using elivators for even more drag keeping it where u wanna go.

id say 190 one of the best bnz planes, with 10whine,p38,yaks etc u haveto keep your speed in a window, otherwise controls are too stiff and your stuck. 190 u have good control, thats really its advantage, good highspeed control

Korolov
10-01-2004, 02:25 PM
I agree with Zen and Hunde, there are flaws, and non-historical ones at that, but I think you're missing my point.

IL-2 is what, 3? 4? years old now. 1C is already moving on to future titles, and it's been proven in the past that no matter how much whining we do for this or that, the changes rarely, if ever, affect the core of the game. To expect them to change X plane's turn radius to ZZ degrees is foolhardy, and similar to yelling at a brick wall. They just won't do it.

That's not what my point is, though - my point lies in the fact that we're not simulating a aircraft's historical performance, but rather simulating air combat itself. I remember when I first tried the Fw-190, I tried to TnB and got my *** handed to me all the time doing that. It's simply not in the plane's capabilities IN THE GAME, to do that.

What I'm saying is that, no matter what Eric Brown or Gunther Rall said, the game can only go so far to program the capabilities of the planes. This leaves us, the players, to figure out on our own what works and what doesn't for certain planes. This is the core of what IL-2 is trying to simulate - not the individual plane's parameters. That will probably be BOB's job.

You can argue all kinds of evidence as much as you want, but remember you've got to fight the O man for this or that... Plus all the additional limitations of the engine.

Don't forget to have fun.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-01-2004, 03:50 PM
To post once more and then I am out of here;

Ultimatley I agree with Korolov, IL-2/FB is aging and it definitely succeeded in giving us a "core" simulation to work with, as I said above it is the best thing going and it was a leap forward a few years back. Hopefully BoB will represent a further significant advance in flight sims, and from what I am hearing it sounds like it will be incredible.

Still, I can't help but think that a few of the things mentioned above couldn't be fixed rather simply.......but like Korolov said, its all about having a good time.

Good Hunting to all, see you around.

DarthBane_
10-01-2004, 05:03 PM
Until we get BOB, how about guns select switch?

Korolov
10-01-2004, 05:06 PM
Simply doesn't mean that 1C wants to or is willing to. That's my point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So, before we go too far off topic, bump for:

*Panzerblitz rockets
*Cowl MG toggle over outer cannon toggle
*Drop tanks for A-8, A-9, D-9's
*Option to remove outer wing guns w/o adding bomb rack

faustnik
10-01-2004, 05:11 PM
Looks good Korolov! Please send the list to Ivan for immediate forwarding to 1C.

(if we any one of those I'll be really happy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

PraetorHonoris
10-01-2004, 08:10 PM
Eight weeks ago Oleg said on the German Board that the modelling of the PB is "too hard for now" - hopefully he changed his oppinion since that time.

@ Hyperion concerning WGr21

There was some limited use of the WGr as air-to-ground rockets too as there were no other rockets, but they were intended for scattering allied bomber formations and and primary used in that role.

as far as I know

NN_EnigmuS
10-02-2004, 03:37 AM
when a fw190a8 will be capable in fighter config to take a mustang in dogfight below 3000m,will be happy(like it is said in docavia N?15 in pure dogfight mustang is clearly outclassed by 190a8 below 3000m,between 3000 and 5000m both are equal and up to 5000m the a8 is clearly outclassed by mustang)

late war anton wasn't not that heavy vs the a4 it's about 450kg more(empty or fully loaded),for example it is like a g2 and a g6 or a spit mk5 and a spit mk9

perhaps we had some sturmbock in aep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif anyway i m all for what it is said here(to bad the forward view will never be corrected)and hope muzzle flash will be corrected as oleg said(muzzle flash+revi ****!!!!)

BBB_Hyperion
10-02-2004, 06:51 AM
You forgot the bomb selector Koro .)

JG301_nils
10-02-2004, 03:48 PM
I dont want to join the howling choir of wining, but as I saw this picture, I (finally) realized that many of you actually are very right in you statements about the pilot wiev from the 190. Look at how much of the nose part that is visible from the pilots eye.
This image must be taken from the pilot´s wiev angle, I mean in those days you simply lifted the camera to your eye and clicked. No fancy LCD panel so you could lift the camera higher that your eye (probably it´s even from a slightly lower angle, becuase those cameras had the lens lower that your eye if one should be picky)
Image "borrowed" from http://www.dora9.de for illustration.
http://www.dora9.de/D9pic_31w.jpg

jeroen_R90S
10-03-2004, 10:12 AM
Looking at the other pictures on that page, I'm not convinced if it's authentic.

It DOES look cool, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen

k5054
10-03-2004, 10:40 AM
Authentic? Well, let's say it must have been the day they sent nine B-24s instead of the usual 900.

JG301_nils
10-03-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Looking at the other pictures on that page, I'm not convinced if it's authentic.

It DOES look cool, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm I cannot guarantee if it´s authentic or not, but that aside, it was really the wiev I focused on. But I am thinking maybe I was a bit too fast posting it, I wonder maybe, if that is not the nose itself you see through the windscreen but rather the "bulge" covering the left nose MG. I think it is. Do we also see those in FB? I think not.

p1ngu666
10-03-2004, 11:47 AM
cool but none authentic pic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-04-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Authentic? Well, let's say it must have been the day they sent nine B-24s instead of the usual 900. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to be pedantic(!) but they may have been attacking the last nine of the bomber stream http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, why do people think it's not authentic...apart from you'd be mad to try to shoot down a bomber in a D9, especially if it had v2.04 20mm cannons?

cheers,
Norris

faustnik
10-04-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

So, why do people think it's not authentic...apart from you'd be mad to try to shoot down a bomber in a D9, especially if it had v2.04 20mm cannons?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you go to the site, it discusses the creation of pictures using models.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-04-2004, 12:03 PM
Hi,

Sorry; I'd been to the site and established that but I should have put a wink (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) on the end of that post cos I was being sarcastic about the sorry state of the 20mms.

Cheers,
Norris