FM Claims respond

[Han]

As I've promised - I'm responding on the Flight Model claims which were provided to my PM box in a compact form and with support of historical sources.

 

=======================================

 

1. Fw 190 A-3 roll speed in game is 1.5..2 times less than it is in NACA and RAE flight test reports

- NACA report shows the roll angular speed of continuous rolling, not intermediate roll speed during 1 roll. So if we perform test on ф continuous rolling in game it will correspond to NACA report with good precision (mistake would be less than 2%).

False claim.

 

2. Fw 190 A-3 climb rate in game is less than it's noted in reports.

- Actually, it's only 5% less than our reference, but we now have a new method of performance adjustment that will allow us to make more precise tuning of this parameter.

Claim is not critical, but corrected allready in updates.

 

3. Fw 190 A-3 have incorrect supercharger automatic gear switch logic.

- Gear switching is ok. When you show us 36 km/h TAS fall from 2000m to 3000m you are performing an incorrect test. You don't need to keep constant ATA boost, but you need to keep constant throttle position. This misunderstanding is coming from little bit tricky notes in historical data sources where are ATA noted but not the throttle position. But actually, these tests were performed on fixed throttle that was set on combat power throttle with medium shoulder.

Actualy, we realy have now 5 kmh IAS falling from 2000m to 3000m but it is less than 1% mistake. So it does not matter. Anyway, even this will be corrected together with item #2.

- Also regarding the ATA in referense. This ATA is just "name of engine operation mode". How to understand this:

At zero-level in standard atmosphere conditions you fly and set this "named ATA". 1.32 for Fw-190 as combat engine mode for example. For this you have used some kind of throttle position (85% for Fw-190). So, you need to MARK this throttle position.

After that you need to perform all tests with this MARKED throttle position at different altitudes. So you should keep MARKED throttle position on all altitudes, not ATA, to have correct flight test.

Why is it so? Because it's some kind of established tradition of naming of engine operation modes - name them by "ATAs at zero-level" but not by "throttle %". While direct relation on different altitudes is not between engine operation mode and ATA but between engine operation mode and throttle position.

- Plus, supercharger switch on 2300m instead of 2600m on 85% on Fw-190 because 2600m is valid for standard atmosphere, but we have -15°C with same 760mmHg, this means that on altitude pressure is less than in standard atmosphere and in our conditions pressure on 2300m is same as on 2600m is standard atmosphere.

False claim.

 

4. Fw-190 and Bf-109 is very easy to be dived to negative stall, this not allows to perform "Hartman's negative G evasive".

- Yes, German planes have more negative controlability reserve, but this just means that they are achieving the same negative G loads with less negative pitch input. I've tested negative G for several planes in very fast and rought tests (can't be used for strict compare and so on) with push dive from level flight on 400 km/h IAS, 100% fuel with standart load, G achieved before stall:

Bf 109 F-4: -4g , after that it's stalls

Bf 109 G-2: -4g , after that it's stalls

Fw 190 A-3: -3g , after that it's stalls

LaGG-3 ser.29: -1g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

La-5 ser.8: -2g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

Yak-1 ser.69: -3g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim

So, no any advantage of soviet fighters in negative G load is presented in the game.

False claim.

 

5. Ju-87 and He-111 should have automatic supercharger mode instead of 2nd manual gear of supercharger

- Automatic supercharger control will be added on Ju-87 and He-111 soon.

Claim confirmed, corrections were done allready in updates.

 

6. Bf 109 F-4 have time limit for extreme RPM, but have not for extreme Boost. So, if I set manual pitch on Bf-109 than I can fly more at greater speed without damaging engine.

- Exteme Boost time limit will be added later

Claim confirmed, corrections were done allready in updates.

 

7. He-111 and Ju-87 take off engine power limited on 30 seconds and after that we can climb only on safe power, so take-off power is near to useless.

We will slightly increase the time limit for take-off power for these two planes.

Claim confirmed, corrections were done allready in updates.

 

8. Bf 109 G-2 Speed Indicator have 15 km/h error

- To be fixed on this week together with several other gauges (mostly RPMs and Boosts), mostly mistakes are minor but we will fix them

IT'S DAMN STRANGE that noone have noted that IAS gauge error on Bf 109 G-2 on max speed was up to 200 km/h

Claim is not critical, but corrected allready in updates.

 

9. Bf 109 G-2 still slower than Bf 109 F-4 on 6000m on equal engine power

- That is not true. We have performed test with manualy closed radiators and G-2 have had 481 km/h IAS while F-4 have had 471 km/h IAS. F-4 engine have to set throttle to 80% to have same power with G-2 on 100%.

False claim.

 

10. Flutter IAS on LaGG-3 is 750 while in manual max IAS is listed as 600 km/h. It's 150 km/h reserve. While Bf-109 have only 70 km/h reserve.

Actualy, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems. So, we have set Flutter start at 750km/h IAS, +50 km/h to fastests known limit.

Bf-109 have data on dive flight test on 900 km/h TAS at 5800m, it is 637 km/h IAS. Also, there is 750 km/h IAS listed as limit for it. So, our Bf-109 have 850km/h IAS as Flutter start speed, +100 km/h to fastest known limit.

False claim.

 

11. Fw 190 A-3 engine is breaking too fast at 1.34 ATA (combat 30 min mode), it can't maintain this mode for 30 minutes but only for 15-20 minutes.

- Our German sources (historical) state that combat 30 min mode for Fw 190 A-3 was not "1.34 ATA" 88% throttle but "1.32 ATA 2400 RPM" 85% throttle. We have re-checked - engine maintains 30 min on 85% even with some time reserve.

False claim.

 

12. Supercharger gear switch can't be seen by Boost ATA indication on descending.

When you climbing switching becomes after ATA becomes to fall from required. So when gear switches - supercharger becomes available to maintain required ATA again.

When you descending switching becomes at lower altitude where 1st gear is able to maintain required ATA. This why you cant see fall off ATA before switch from 2nd to 1st on descending.

Anyway, if you will climb again - you will see the ATA step on 1st to 2nd switch again. This is the sign that it's actualy HAVE switched from 2nd to 1st on descend.

False claim.

 

13. Some planes can perform extremely low speed passes at high AoA, even down to 100km/h.

First: look at HUD airspeed, gauges on some planes shown wrong speed and they're to be corrected.

Second: it's not 100kmh actualy. Speed indicator is VERY depends on Angle of Attack. For example, on 90° AoA it will allways show 0km/h.

Clain is false, but it have shown another issue, corrected allready in updates.

 

=======================================

 

So, it was the last chance before release to make a correct claim of FM. As we see, only 30% of overall claims were confirmed, and no Claims on performance were confirmed. This once again shows how precise we are in Flight Models performance precision and how inprecise claimers could be in their investigation of historical sources and game flight tests. Anyway, thanks to everyone who have provided claims which have been pointed as "not critical but to be corrected" and as "confirmed, to be done". Your input is usefull and appreciated.

[sallee]

Thanks for your work and reply Han.

[Matt]

- Gear switching is ok. When you show us 36 km/h TAS fall from 2000m to 3000m you performing icorrect test. You don't need to keep constant ATA Boost, but you need to keep constant throttle position.

This test was performed with constant throttle position, not constant ATA. I always stuck to 85 % throttle setting when doing this test. Gear then switches to gear 2 at ~2300 meters, causing the performance loss, because it switches to that gear too early. Throttle is still at 85 % at that point.

 

The ATA only served as a reference for when the gear would switch to gear 2, it had nothing to do with the performance difference.

 

I also did not report a speed difference between 2000 and 3000 meters, but 2200 and 2300 meters (which is the point when the 2nd gear kicks in). The difference between 2000 and 3000 meters was correct. Was probably mistaken for a typo, but it wasn't a typo.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Matt

[Brano]

Thanks Han.I agree with most of the points.What is still not sold to me is Fw190 supercharger behaviour,as Matt suggested.

 

May I have one question? Did you do smtg with LaGG3 flaps effectivnes and generally behaviour during landing? Yesterday I made almost perfect landing.It felt like flaps are now really much more effective to slow down plane when approaching landing strip and also longitudal stability when touched down and breaking to stop was much better,without that infamous final pirouette.

So either it is +1 for you....or +1 for improving my pilot skills

 

EDIT: Just to add to your points,it is possible to perform Hartmans evasive maneuver.I prooved that in one of the threads with corresponding video.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Brano

[Han]

This test was performed with constant throttle position, not constant ATA. I always stuck to 85 % throttle setting when doing this test. Gear then switches to gear 2 at ~2300 meters, causing the performance loss, because it switches to that gear too early. Throttle is still at 85 % at that point.

 

The ATA only served as a reference for when the gear would switch to gear 2, it had nothing to do with the performance difference.

 

I also did not report a speed difference between 2000 and 3000 meters, but 2200 and 2300 meters (which is the point when the 2nd gear kicks in). The difference between 2000 and 3000 meters was correct. Was probably mistaken for a typo, but it wasn't a typo.

 

I meant this wrong game test:

 

[LLv24_Zami]

Thanks Han for looking into these matters and a very informative answer! Maybe now we all can move on...

[Matt]

The difference between 2000 and 3000 meters was correct.

Ignore that please, the speed difference was not correct.

 

 

 

@Han: Now i know what you mean, but even that graph (which i didn't send via PM, only released it on these forums), the test was performed with 100% throttle position, not connected to ATA and even in that test, you can see a speed drop of 40 km/h. This test was done some time ago (if i would've send it to you by PM, i would've made a new one, because again, this is some months old), but i will redo the test today with the current version and report if the 40 km/h speed difference still exists.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Matt

[Han]

PLUS

supercharger switch on 2300m instead of 2600m on 85% on Fw-190 because 2600m it's in standart atmosphere, but we have -15°C with same 760mmHg, this means that on altitude pressure is less than in standart atmosphere and in our conditions pressure on 2300m is same as on 2600m is standart atmosphere.

 

Only problem - that is not affect altitude indicator, it will in future.

[SYN_Mike77]

Well, so much for the "they never listen to us" meme. Even if you don't agree with all of their findings we can now see where they are coming from.

 

Very interesting and informative!

[Leaf]

Thanks so much Han! Really appreciated!
Regarding the negative G business, that makes a lot of sense, and I never thought of it, so thanks for clearing that up!

[Requiem]

Thanks very much to all involved who took the time to supply what data/test results they could, and to Han as well of course for addressing them in detail. Although I never understood why people went on about #4 as it was always possible (I suspected they weren't flying coordinated), but it's good to know G-limit at which the negative stall occurs in those cases anyway as we can't determine that in-game without dev tools. Great post.

[lennycutler]

It is a good sign when the development team responds quickly to key issues.

 

But....would someone please respond to a different key issue...that is the way aircraft renders against clouds...with such poor visuals....anti-aliasing...doesn't impact the zaggies...and clouds...stutter by when your real close to them.

 

This has been mentioned many times before...but no developers have said what is being done about it.

[Trinkof]

Very nice answer . Thank you for your time answeringthis with explaination

[SR-F_Winger]

So the russian planes are all better engineered when it comes to negative G-Behavior?

[DD_bongodriver]

aircraft stall when they reach the stalling angle of attack, not sure why we have g limits.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Since the weight force ( G ) is higher or lower during the manoeuvring, the lift must also be increased/decreased to keep the plane under control.

In order for this to occur at any particular speed, the Angle of Attack must generate the required lift to overcome the increased weight, basically watch your pitch a lot.

 

I think this is why AoA and G work together in BoS.

 

Personally I tend to used rudder + pitch a lot more than aileron rolls, especially with the Yak and Lagg. Tends to keep the speed and thus overcoming the G limit and retaining some form of good control under sudden AoA changes.

 

 

I am no aviator nor physics expert though. Just a general idea of how I perceive things together with what little knowledge I have about airframes and flight.

Edited October 14, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Reflected]

aircraft stall when they reach the stalling angle of attack, not sure why we have g limits.

 

Precisely.

[DD_bongodriver]

aircraft do not stall at fixed g limits

[JG4_Sputnik]

Thank you Han :salute:

[Dakpilot]

aircraft do not stall at fixed g limits

 

It was not said that they stall at a fixed G-limit merely that the g was recorded at stall to show that at departure, the axis a/c are pulling a higher negative g

 

If you think the issue has not been resolved/explained correctly why not just come out and say it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[PeterZvan]

aircraft do not stall at fixed g limits

 

They dont - what Han wrote is what the g was when the stall comenced - stall comenced because of the FM not something fixed and scripted.

Fact is that Lagg, La and Yak simply dont have the stick movement to get the AoA needed to stall. And the 109 and 190 both can get to the AoA to stall - and while doing this they achieve a higher g before stalling than the russian planes can achieve at all.

Problem is that people fly too roughly and uncoordinated and dont use the advantage properly - that is not the FM fault, but its the players fault.

 

And thank you to Hand and all the people involved in this.

[FZG_Merlin]

Actualy, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems.

Source ?

 

1. Fw 190 A-3 roll speed in game is 1.5..2 times less than it is in NACA and RAE flight test reports

- NACA report shows the roll angular speed of continues rolling, not intermediate roll speed during 1 roll. So if we will perform test on continues rolling in game it will correspond to NACA report with good precision (mistake less than 2%).

False claim.

 

How do you explain the slow roll start compared to other planes ?

Assuming the sustained roll correspond to the NACA report, how do you explain that the allies thought the roll rate of the fw-190 was great advantage in combat..? (As much as to modifying airplanes to counter it) Sustained and continues rolling is no real advantage in combat. Only the intermediate and instantaneous roll really is.

 

 

Thank you for your time

Edited October 14, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[FTC_Karaya]

 

9. Bf 109 G-2 still slower than Bf 109 F-4 on 6000m on equal engine power

- That is not true. We have performed test with manualy closed radiators and G-2 have had 481 km/h IAS while F-4 have had 471 km/h IAS. F-4 engine have to set throttle to 80% to have same power with G-2 on 100%.

Flase claim.

 

DB601E @ 1.42ata & 2700rpm delivers 1350hp, DB605A @ 1.3ata & 2600rpm delivers 1310hp

 

What is up with this 80 & 100% stuff!? Both should run at comparable power levels when the throttle is at 100% and rpm at the quoted values.

[Dakpilot]

DB601E @ 1.42ata & 2700rpm delivers 1350hp, DB605A @ 1.3ata & 2600rpm delivers 1310hp

 

What is up with this 80 & 100% stuff!? Both should run at comparable power levels when the throttle is at 100% and rpm at the quoted values.

 

Check your history on DB605A at the time of Stalingrad

 

Cheers Daklpilot

[Bullets]

Wait so is the 190 still slower and the climb worse than the lagg?... 

[Han]

aircraft stall when they reach the stalling angle of attack, not sure why we have g limits.

 

Offcourse. If you will read my post cearfully - you will se the answer. Russian planes just can't reach AoA limit on full stick deflection forward on this test speed. Once again - before tell something smart - please re-check youself.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Check your history on DB605A at the time of Stalingrad

 

Cheers Daklpilot

And what do you intend?

[Han]

They dont - what Han wrote is what the g was when the stall comenced - stall comenced because of the FM not something fixed and scripted.

Fact is that Lagg, La and Yak simply dont have the stick movement to get the AoA needed to stall. And the 109 and 190 both can get to the AoA to stall - and while doing this they achieve a higher g before stalling than the russian planes can achieve at all.

Problem is that people fly too roughly and uncoordinated and dont use the advantage properly - that is not the FM fault, but its the players fault.

 

And thank you to Hand and all the people involved in this.

 

Right.

[BraveSirRobin]

What charm school did you attend?

 

Same one as you, apparently.

[FTC_Karaya]

Check your history on DB605A at the time of Stalingrad

 

Cheers Daklpilot

 

What are you hinting at!? 1.3ata is the restricted boost, unrestricted the DB605A would achieve 1475hp @ 1.42ata & 2800rpm. I think you need to check yours...

Edited October 14, 2014 by JG4_Karaya

[FZG_Merlin]

Source ?

How do you explain the slow roll start compared to other planes ?

Assuming the sustained roll correspond to the NACA report, how do you explain that the allies thought the roll rate of the fw-190 was great advantage in combat..? (As much as to modifying airplanes to counter it) Sustained and continues rolling is no real advantage in combat. Only the intermediate and instantaneous roll really is.

Thank you for your time

Shameless bump

[Han]

Source ?

 

How do you explain the slow roll start compared to other planes ?

 

It's not slow. This was rechecked too. Compare with La-5 was provided in Diary 82 discussion.

 

La-5 have near-to-same airofoil and greater relative aeliron surface and greater aeliron deflection angle.

 

This is the reason why La-5 have better roll on low speeds. And this is the reason why Fw-190 have better roll at high speeds (because aeliron control gear ratio is less when aeliron angle is greater).

 

Later La-5 (after our one) have had the same aeliron deflection angle as Fw-190 have, so they're near to same.

 

Also, Fw-190 have greater moment of inertia in roll, this why it have less roll acceleration too.

 

We have direct flight test data on later La-5 (with reduced aelirons angle), it is enought to make correct adjustments on early one (with greater angle of aelirons deflection).

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

It's not slow. This was rechecked too. Compare with La-5 was provided in Diary 82 discussion. It's not my fault that you have not read this.

Do you take into account that the FW-190 had more or less clipped wings in relation to the LA-5? The airfoile is a lot different from the La-5 to the FW-190 and the FW-190 is not as round on the ends of the wings like the La-5. And as we all now, as sharper the ends of the wing the faster the roll, like it was with the clipped wings with the Spitfire.

[Han]

DB601E @ 1.42ata & 2700rpm delivers 1350hp, DB605A @ 1.3ata & 2600rpm delivers 1310hp

 

What is up with this 80 & 100% stuff!? Both should run at comparable power levels when the throttle is at 100% and rpm at the quoted values.

 

Because G-2 have no extreme engine mode, and F-4 have. But both have combat mode. And in combat mode they have same power.

Combat mode for G-2 - 100% throttle

Combat mode for F-4 - 80% throttle

Do you take into account that the FW-190 had more or less clipped wings in relation to the LA-5?

 

Yes

[FZG_Merlin]

I have read this answer already. This does not explain nor answer my question.

 

The fw-190 was known for his superior roll response in combat. It allowed it to evade enemies. To the point that allies created or modified airplanes to counter it.

 

Your plane in BoS might have a fast (if not superior) continuous roll rate. But it's instantaneous roll (the start of the roll, what you need for scissors or split S) rate is weak, and weaker than other planes. And that instantaneous roll rate is what makes a difference in combat. Yes. The instantaneous roll rate, or start of the roll is indeed slow, compared to others.

 

Anyway, I'm ready to accept that the plane in BoS is just what it is. I'm just wondering how do you explain the fact that a known advantage of this plane IRL isn't one in your flight sim.

 

 

 

 

What about the source of the lagg-3 diving easy at 700kmh IAS. What source/test do you have for that ? Is it possible to post a copy of it. That's very interesting and new to me. Then again, we didn't have much info on Russian warbirds for a long time.

Edited October 14, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[Han]

Guys, I have no time for DISCUSSION. I've responded on exact claims. Every questions here - looks like a sign of distrust to our FM engeneers.

 

My reason with this respond on claims was to show you that you MAY trust our engeneers. If it's not enought - I've no chance to make you trust.

 

I've no time to solve EACH your single distrust to our FM. I've tryed to make a common solution - show you that you may trust to our FM in common. IF your game is in endless suspicions to FM and endless claiming - supported by "your understanding" of historical sources or only by "your vision" - no, we don't sell SUCH game in our store. Sorry.

We sell game which is good described in Developers diary, not more, not less.

I cant support your demand on endless TALKS on FM. Sorry.

 

So, while my attempt have failed - I'll not respond anymore. It's useless.

[SYN_Ricky]

The fw-190 was known for his superior roll response in combat. It allowed it to evade enemies. To the point that allies created or modified airplanes to counter it.

 

I think that most numerous accounts we have come from british and american pilots, what about russian pilots? Sure it seems from numbers, pilot reports and from the western allied response (clipped-wing Spitfires as an example) that FW-190 has a very fast roll compared to western fighters. I haven't had the opportunity to read russian pilots reports of their fights against the FW-190. Do they talk a lot about its very superior roll rate? At least the russian didn't think necessary to develop special versions of their fighters to counter the FW-190 roll rate. It's also true that the FW fighters numbers were always quite low, and from mid-1943 on most FW there were ground attack planes. The russian pilots always seemed to fear the 109 much more.

 

I'm playing a bit the devil's advocate here, I'm sure the FW-190 is one of the fastest rolling WWII planes, but does this statement come mainly from its comparison with british and american planes?

[FZG_Merlin]

Guys, I have no time for DISCUSSION. I've responded on exact claims. Every questions here - looks like a sign of distrust to our FM engeneers.

 

My reason with this respond on claims was to show you that you MAY trust our engeneers. If it's not enought - I've no chance to make you trust.

 

I've no time to solve EACH your single distrust to our FM. I've tryed to make a common solution - show you that you may trust to our FM in common. IF your game is in endless suspicions to FM and endless claiming - supported by "your understanding" of historical sources or only by "your vision" - no, we don't sell SUCH game in our store. Sorry.

We sell game which is good described in Developers diary, not more, not less.

I cant support your demand on endless TALKS on FM. Sorry.

 

So, while my attempt have failed - I'll not respond anymore. It's useless.

Well. Sorry, but a few days ago you asked us to back our claims with facts and data, and then you come here claiming you have a flight test/source telling that the lagg-3 was able to dive at 700kmh IAS without problems..

 

As I have never seen anything like that, I was genuinely wondering what source/test you had, and I would have gladly studied it. Is it a official flight test ? Is it an anecdotal reference ? On par with what we have about the Fw-190 roll abilities ?

 

 

Apparently. On one side saying 'I have a test/source' is enough to validate a claim ?

Edited October 14, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[dragon76]

Guys, I have no time for DISCUSSION. I've responded on exact claims. Every questions here - looks like a sign of distrust to our FM engeneers.

 

My reason with this respond on claims was to show you that you MAY trust our engeneers. If it's not enought - I've no chance to make you trust.

 

I've no time to solve EACH your single distrust to our FM. I've tryed to make a common solution - show you that you may trust to our FM in common. IF your game is in endless suspicions to FM and endless claiming - supported by "your understanding" of historical sources or only by "your vision" - no, we don't sell SUCH game in our store. Sorry.

We sell game which is good described in Developers diary, not more, not less.

I cant support your demand on endless TALKS on FM. Sorry.

 

So, while my attempt have failed - I'll not respond anymore. It's useless.

Will your engineer Petro fix ROF FMs?. It was mentioned once before it will be fixes, before the abandon the ship started..please...I love ROF. I mean, since your done with fine tuning the BOS FMs.

Edited October 14, 2014 by dragon76

[FlatSpinMan]

Okay, looks like the party is over. Han made a big effort to address some concerns, but he has other things to do than get pulled into discussion right now.