PDA

View Full Version : fw190s do 360degree turn in 15 seconds



Danschnell
10-28-2005, 02:38 PM
Hello everyone.

Heres another thread of mine about the fw190.

I have been sea level testing the Fw190. The whole series has a 360degree turn time of about 15-16 seconds at sea level. The historical rate was about 22 seconds.

I see now what is making up for the bad damage model and slightly low speeds. Oleg has made the 190 into a turn fighter instead of a vertical fighter!!!!!

The 190 is a very good plane again in this patch... but it has been turned into the Spitfire. We no longer have a fw190. Instead of being poor turning, fast, and armoured, it turns well, is a little slow, but dies easily.

Such a drastic opposite change from the historical in this patch is making me believe that 4.02 is either a joke patch, or Oleg is getting his revenge for all the whining from the blues about the 190 always being wrong... so he decided to make it more wrong.

SERIOUSLY people. This cannot be a mistake. Someone somewhere is deliberately having a joke with the blues.

Hetzer_II
10-28-2005, 02:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

faustnik
10-28-2005, 02:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

HeinzBar
10-28-2005, 02:55 PM
S!,
I can't honestly say that I've had numbers that come that close. Then again, I've never really thought about testing the turn time of any FW. I just fly it the way it's suppose to be flown..straight and fast! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

With all the changes and mistakes that the Fw190 has been through, the only conclusion about this plane is: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">FuWbar - Focked up Wulf beyond recognition</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HB

Danschnell
10-28-2005, 02:57 PM
Just been testing Spitfire MKIXe 1944. It does a 360 in about 12 seconds. Thats too fast as well. I think all turn times have been greatly reduced.

I think something has been fiddled with the whole virtual environment. Maybe something was messed up when they increased all the roll rates for all the planes. I think somewhere something in the game engine has caused timescales to be reduced, affecting the whole game maybe? Whatever the case, something is seriously seriously wrong with this patch.

No. I wasn't testing on 2x speed.

ImpStarDuece
10-28-2005, 03:06 PM
Is this a SUSTAINED turn?

ie. Did you leave the turn at the same height and speed as you entered it. Otherwise, you are not making a proper test. If you give up either altitude or speed then you are trading off energy for turn time and the results will be much better than a sustained turn.

Danschnell
10-28-2005, 03:10 PM
Ah. I left the turn at the same height, but not the same speed.

Previously, (this was a long time ago) leaving at a different speed never made any difference. Turn times were always correct anyway. I just assumed that the slower you were going, the smaller the turn radius, but not the time it actually took to do the turn.

Am I right people, or is ImpStarDuece right? Speed didn't seem to matter in early versions of the game.

Badsight.
10-28-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
Previously, (this was a long time ago) leaving at a different speed never made any difference. Turn times were always correct anyway. I just assumed that the slower you were going, the smaller the turn radius, but not the time it actually took to do the turn.

Am I right people, or is ImpStarDuece right? Speed didn't seem to matter in early versions of the game. speed loss in a turn helps produce faster turn times than by doing turns where the speed increases thru the turn

doing sustained speed turns gives a more accurate view of turn ability than by turning as hard as possible , because set-ups & plane control authority differ . its true that you can make fast turns , & that you can make very tight low speed turns & that the time can be different between these 2 types

when doing a set of sustained turn test , fly the planes at the same speeds

the more things you make equal between the planes the more you get to the REAL difference between their ability

of course when you turn as hard as possible you do not maintain speed or circle diameter & make the turn happen faster

in no version of FB has it ever been the other way round , tho i suspect you ment speeds that the turn started rather than speed loss thru the turn

EDIT : planes in FB turn better than their RL counterparts , you can hustle a FW-190 thru a 16 second turn on the deck but in a head-on merge at the same speed (say 350kmh) using the same turn method you wont beat a Spitfire Mk9 because the relative ability of the Spit to turn faster & tighter is better , as you have found out . so planes in FB are adjusted relative to one another . . . . . .

. . . . . OR SO IT SEEMS . . . . . . .

rather than to strict historical tests results

bazzaah2
10-28-2005, 04:14 PM
just did a level 360 degree turn at 200m and 400km/h came out iro 22-23 seconds. Presumably would only get worse at faster speeds.

Kuna15
10-28-2005, 05:00 PM
In ww2 combat (footages) we wont see manoeuvring like in FB. Nowhere even close.
Closest to what ww2 dogfight combat (at least as I saw it on clips) look like would be if players jump in bombers and start to dogfight (with only little more speed onto it).

That is kinda joke for itself, not because the planes could not endure it, but because pilot could not endure most of the things that we regularly see in FB offline/online.

Or maybe I am wrong, I can't tell, these days we're all aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
In ww2 combat (footages) we wont see manoeuvring like in FB. Nowhere even close.
Closest to what ww2 dogfight combat (at least as I saw it on clips) look like would be if players jump in bombers and start to dogfight (with only little more speed onto it).

That is kinda joke for itself, not because the planes could not endure it, but because pilot could not endure most of the things that we regularly see in FB offline/online.

Or maybe I am wrong, I can't tell, these days we're all aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I'm not sure how much maneuvering was done in reality, but I would do anything my body could handle if it was my life on the line.

The misleading thing about guncam footage is that it doesnt start until the pilot pulls the trigger, so what you usually see is only the end of the fight.

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 05:12 PM
D..please check your watch...thats not happening, Fw are not doing that...come on peeps lets have history..its the way forward...arcade is yesterday

FritzGryphon
10-28-2005, 08:42 PM
I've been testing sustained turns rates for various planes since IL-2. The FW-190 has always been 23-24 seconds.

Though, there was one version of the game in which the flaps were buggy, and allowed better rates. It was corrected in the next patch.

There really ought to be a sticky explaining what a sustained turn is. You'd think the name would pretty much explain it, but some ppl just don't get it.

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
In ww2 combat (footages) we wont see manoeuvring like in FB. Nowhere even close.
Closest to what ww2 dogfight combat (at least as I saw it on clips) look like would be if players jump in bombers and start to dogfight (with only little more speed onto it).

That is kinda joke for itself, not because the planes could not endure it, but because pilot could not endure most of the things that we regularly see in FB offline/online.

Or maybe I am wrong, I can't tell, these days we're all aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I'm not sure how much maneuvering was done in reality, but I would do anything my body could handle if it was my life on the line.

The misleading thing about guncam footage is that it doesnt start until the pilot pulls the trigger, so what you usually see is only the end of the fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very true!, and guncams are often slowed down to 1/4 speed

TAGERT.
10-29-2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
Hello everyone.

Heres another thread of mine about the fw190.

I have been sea level testing the Fw190. The whole series has a 360degree turn time of about 15-16 seconds at sea level. The historical rate was about 22 seconds.

I see now what is making up for the bad damage model and slightly low speeds. Oleg has made the 190 into a turn fighter instead of a vertical fighter!!!!!

The 190 is a very good plane again in this patch... but it has been turned into the Spitfire. We no longer have a fw190. Instead of being poor turning, fast, and armoured, it turns well, is a little slow, but dies easily.

Such a drastic opposite change from the historical in this patch is making me believe that 4.02 is either a joke patch, or Oleg is getting his revenge for all the whining from the blues about the 190 always being wrong... so he decided to make it more wrong.

SERIOUSLY people. This cannot be a mistake. Someone somewhere is deliberately having a joke with the blues. Got Track?

WWMaxGunz
10-29-2005, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
Hello everyone.

Heres another thread of mine about the fw190.

I have been sea level testing the Fw190. The whole series has a 360degree turn time of about 15-16 seconds at sea level. The historical rate was about 22 seconds.

<And then a bunch more ... snip>


I can see you know your subject well. Historic __which__ turn rate was 22 seconds?
It is obvious that you are an expert of the first degree and the best pilot in history.
People like you should always judge flight sims fro the good of the community.
And developers should jump right up and change everything to meet your expectations.

bazzaah2
10-29-2005, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danschnell:
Hello everyone.

Heres another thread of mine about the fw190.

I have been sea level testing the Fw190. The whole series has a 360degree turn time of about 15-16 seconds at sea level. The historical rate was about 22 seconds.

<And then a bunch more ... snip>


I can see you know your subject well. Historic __which__ turn rate was 22 seconds?
It is obvious that you are an expert of the first degree and the best pilot in history.
People like you should always judge flight sims fro the good of the community.
And developers should jump right up and change everything to meet your expectations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


come on be fair, he did say the entire 190 series. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

robban75
10-29-2005, 03:04 AM
Where does the turntime of 22-23 seconds come from anyways. Is it a russian number? The Russians were obsessed with turntimes. The Germans wasn't. At least, it's not present in any of my books on the 190. I'm not questioning their accuracy, just want to know were the numbers come from. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

bazzaah2
10-29-2005, 04:26 AM
I don't know the specific source. I was looking at the A4 and it says 23-34 secs in game Object Viewer, but I have no idea whether that time is correct.

Danschnell
10-29-2005, 06:31 PM
OK OK people. Stop having a go at me. I know I was wrong. I put my hands up and surrender. Turn times on this game are quite accurate.

Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not. I don't think I'm wrong about Luftwaffe planes being a little too slow or DM of 190 being too fragile... hopefully.

WWMaxGunz
10-29-2005, 07:56 PM
It's not perfect everywhere and only spot on in some places, some planes.
There's just no reason to run in screaming about something based on lack of knowledge
and a quick 'test'.
You want to BE a test pilot then first QUALIFY as a test pilot. There's few if any
here good enough to do that but many who can spot a dumb mistake from miles away.