PDA

View Full Version : The 190A gains a bombrack when outboard cannon removed? Why?



gx-warspite
02-13-2006, 10:54 PM
I just noticed that when I remove either MG/FF or outside MG151/20 from the 190s that have this option available, a bombrack is tacked on even though I'm not carrying a bomb. This seems to rather defeat the purpose of losing the extra weight and drag by removing the guns in the first place.

FritzGryphon
02-13-2006, 11:22 PM
I think that, though the bomb rack model appears, the drag and weight is not added. It was not possible to remove the bombrack model from that loadout.

Have to check to be sure, though.

Edit: NVM, the weight and drag is there. It reduces top speed by 20km/h. I dunno why it's like this.

Badsight.
02-13-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
I just noticed that when I remove either MG/FF or outside MG151/20 from the 190s that have this option available, a bombrack is tacked on even though I'm not carrying a bomb. This seems to rather defeat the purpose of losing the extra weight and drag by removing the guns in the first place. yes , & it really sucks

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 11:54 PM
Yep, the R1 with drop tank costs 30 km/h, and 20 km/h after you've dropped the tank. Terrific, innit?

Ratsack

Grey_Mouser67
02-14-2006, 08:31 PM
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

FritzGryphon
02-14-2006, 08:38 PM
I remember that post too, but the performance hit is most definitely there. 580 on the deck without rack, 560 with (A5 1943).

faustnik
02-14-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

The rack is definately modeled in terms of performance.

Ratsack
02-14-2006, 10:23 PM
Most definitely. Be sure. I tested this the same day I loaded up 4.03. There is no doubt about it on the A-6. I haven’t tested the other variants.

Ratsack

luftluuver
02-15-2006, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yep, the R1 with drop tank costs 30 km/h, and 20 km/h after you've dropped the tank. Terrific, innit?

Ratsack From Fw data dated 20.1.44

G3 speed losses
2 x 300l > 90kph
2 x SC250 > 85kph
ruckflug only > 30kph

G8 speed losses
2 x 300l > 82kph
2 x SC250 > 75kph
ruckflug only > 18kph

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 01:54 AM
bacause we already have doras. that was the answer before we got the doras i think :P

LeVola
02-15-2006, 02:13 AM
I think Oleg said A8 rack is only visual.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 04:09 AM
is it same with A4 and A5? its not, you can feel the rack there even if its only visual, it felt earlier at least like 250-500kg bomb, without outer guns. was it time of FB or such, thats last time it was on issue in here. no tests were needed to do to notice its affects on plane weight.

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

Be sure, he is wrong about that. That is first thign I test in EVERY patch. And take an A4 defautl and one with gund removed( same for A5).

Then go to max speed at sea level or acceleration test. You loose >20 km/h with the rack. IT is NOT VISUAL ONLY.

Willey
02-15-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

A-8 & A-9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 05:17 AM
The A8 & A9 effectively don't have bomb racks at all. You can take an SC500, drop it and then you'll get the full book performance out of the aircraft again.

It seems a bit silly to me...

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

Be sure, he is wrong about that. That is first thign I test in EVERY patch. And take an A4 defautl and one with gund removed( same for A5).

Then go to max speed at sea level or acceleration test. You loose >20 km/h with the rack. IT is NOT VISUAL ONLY. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets say Oleg isnt wrong about it, he knows it but doesnt want to admit it in public because he think that way he only would lose his face.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:07 AM
its the bug which has been followed the game since from start. no enought democratic Whine about it, it means, no actions made for it. because its seen as lesser problem thats why.

Cant you people still not see, that how these things work just because you believe that they work way you think.

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

Be sure, he is wrong about that. That is first thign I test in EVERY patch. And take an A4 defautl and one with gund removed( same for A5).

Then go to max speed at sea level or acceleration test. You loose >20 km/h with the rack. IT is NOT VISUAL ONLY. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets say Oleg isnt wrong about it, he knows it but doesnt want to admit it in public because he think that way he only would lose his face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Don't think is that. It was corrected in 3.01 version. But in 4.01 version this issue was back, and since them it seems they never went look it again.

AustinPowers_
02-15-2006, 06:26 AM
Yes its annoying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Will have to just live with the two outboard MGFF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'm going back a ways, but I definitely remember reading from Oleg that the rack is not modelled in terms of performance...it is visual only. I suspect most planes are like that except where adding ordinance adds bomb racks.

Be sure, he is wrong about that. That is first thign I test in EVERY patch. And take an A4 defautl and one with gund removed( same for A5).

Then go to max speed at sea level or acceleration test. You loose >20 km/h with the rack. IT is NOT VISUAL ONLY. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets say Oleg isnt wrong about it, he knows it but doesnt want to admit it in public because he think that way he only would lose his face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Don't think is that. It was corrected in 3.01 version. But in 4.01 version this issue was back, and since them it seems they never went look it again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

can be, but the reason why there again is whine is because it is back, not because i didnt notice it was gone for some of the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
02-15-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Willey:
A-8 & A-9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


A8 and A9?

1.We are searchin for a way to gain performance on the A4 and A5,not those.

2.A8 nor A9 don`t have the "MGFF removed" option.



As far as my memory goes,everytime someone asked Oleg answered there is no rack.
What I mean is that for Oleg the problem doesn`t exist at all.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 07:49 AM
he doesnt feel that his "favorite" plane has problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif why he claims it as his favorite? just because he realised thow ****ty forward view "his" code and rules gave for the well known FW. was it all brainwashing for us to believe that its fantastic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2006, 07:58 AM
there is a missunderstanding , the Fw190 series is the favorite plane of Oleg Maddox from the point of an engenieer ! that does not mean it should have the best perfromance .......
"just" Kurt Tank had some very interesting ideas while constructing this plane.

2. i believe Willy just wanted to remember that Oleg is always saying the the Bombracks of the A8/9 are only visible, that they have no influence on the performance when using no bombarmament.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
there is a missunderstanding , the Fw190 series is the favorite plane of Oleg Maddox from the point of an engenieer ! that does not mean it should have the best perfromance .......
"just" Kurt Tank had some very interesting ideas while constructing this plane.

2. i believe Willy just wanted to remember that Oleg is always saying the the Bombracks of the A8/9 are only visible, that they have no influence on the performance when using no bombarmament.

hmm, cant remember oleg answers to this issue earlier, but if it was fixed, like oldman says, it should have been stayed like that?