Dr_Molenbeek Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Hi everyone. So in the past, on the forum, i've often read things like "yak-1 outclimb my 190" or even "lagg-3 can catch my 190 in climb". Since the 190 climb rate was "fixed" back in October, my reaction was like "are they that bad, to get killed by a LaGG-3 ?". People were saying "fw 190 climb rate is porked", even JtD has posted a chart that shows that the 190 climb rate is underperforming, months ago. So i decided to do something, and after weeks of testing (do not have a lot of times unfortunately, no chart), i know now what i wanted to know... First in ISA conditions --> All fighters in BoS are climbing correctly (by correctly i mean that any error would be less than 2-3%), even the 190. The problem is in winter. So it seems that every planes get a cold boost that adds ~+4m/s to climb rate, at all altitudes. Every planes yes, but not the 190, that gets that boost only at the first supercharger speed level. The plane climbs correctly below 1200m (altitude where the manifold pressure starts to drop in winter), then it becomes underperforming gradually, until kommandogerät has past to the second supercharger speed (around 2600m in winter), and here is where the plane really becomes underperforming, lacking about 2,5m/s at both combat AND full power. Above 2600m, the Yak-1 at full power and radiators open, climbs better than the Fw 190A-3 at full power ! Above 2600m, the LaGG-3 at full power and radiators open, climbs as good as the Fw 190A-3 at full power ! The answer i got from devs is that something could have to do with 190 radiators, because you know, it's the only plane ingame that has no controllable radiators but cooling gills only. If so, i asked why the problem starts only at the second supercharger speed and not from the beginning, from the ground, where all is fine ? No reply since 4 days now. 13
MK_RED13 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Good job.. Ze_Hairy !!! Thank you for your time!!! And now I wonder who refutes this argument ... PS: I think..One of the counterproposals - you tested the wrong angle of climb Ed.
Saurer Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Maybe send this to the server admins, see if they would run the missions then in ISA conditions in MP As a quick temporary solution of course Edited July 31, 2015 by Saurer
Dr_Molenbeek Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 Maybe send this to the server admins, see if they would run the missions then in ISA conditions in MP As a quick temporary solution of course If we run the servers in ISA conditions, we will have another problem. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15231-isa-speed-testing-all-fighters-game/?p=242790
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Great job! Hairy. You are my hero. Fw190 definitely needs dev team to take care of.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Thanks guys. If i have an advice to all Fw 190 fighter pilots (since i'm a jabo pilot and i'm below 2000m 90% of time, this issue does not really affect me)... Do not enter in any fight above 2500m (i rounded) ! Edited July 31, 2015 by Ze_Hairy
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Thanks guys. If i have an advice to all Fw 190 fighter pilots (since i'm a jabo pilot and i'm below 2000m 90% of time, this issue does not really affect me)... Do not enter in any fight above 2500m (i rounded) ! I fly the 190 higher than the 109 or at least as high. Firstly it does seem to out perform the Yak above 7k but also the amazing high speed handling makes it far better for B&Z than the 109.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 I fly the 190 higher than the 109 or at least as high. Firstly it does seem to out perform the Yak above 7k but also the amazing high speed handling makes it far better for B&Z than the 109. Have you done any test..?
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 No but I've fought several yaks alone and found they couldn't get up to me and I felt that I was much faster and could extend away easily. The bizarre thing is that on the few times I have met La5s at that altitude they gave me a much harder time yet according to the tests the La5 performs worse above 6k than the Yak which I find hard to believe. I'm afraid this is just my feeling and I have no hard data to prove anything but my main point is that although the 190 has it's sweet spot at a lower altitude I would prefer to start my engagement with a bigger altitude advantage than if I were in a 109.
TP_Jacko Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Hello Ze_Hairy, I took a look at the data in the old IL2 compare app to see the differences between the FW ,Yak & LaGG so no idea how they are applied to BoS but I assume the same data sources At sea level the rate of climb for the FW is 17.7 m/s 15.44m/s for the LaGG and 14 m/s for Yak 1 Thats at sea level !! The altitude vs ROC shows a different story. The Yak can out climb the FW from 2,000 to 5,000m The LaGG can out climb the FW with WEP from around 1,000m to 4,000m. Without WEP the FW is better above 3,000m and below 1,000m Which I think is what you are showing Having said that the FW is way faster at any altitude so once at altitude it should blow them away at co alt co energy
Dakpilot Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Hi everyone. , i asked why the problem starts only at the second supercharger speed and not from the beginning, from the ground, where all is fine ? No reply since 4 days now. It is holiday season in Moscow at the moment and many of the staff are on their annual vacation, as has been said in other threads, I would not read too much into the lack of 'action' it is in reality a very small team Cheers Dakpilot
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 1, 2015 Author Posted August 1, 2015 No but I've fought several yaks alone and found they couldn't get up to me and I felt that I was much faster and could extend away easily. The bizarre thing is that on the few times I have met La5s at that altitude they gave me a much harder time yet according to the tests the La5 performs worse above 6k than the Yak which I find hard to believe. I'm afraid this is just my feeling and I have no hard data to prove anything but my main point is that although the 190 has it's sweet spot at a lower altitude I would prefer to start my engagement with a bigger altitude advantage than if I were in a 109. Sure, nobody said the 190 is slower at high alt, it is not (even if Yak-1 and 109F-4 are overperforming up there, the 190 is still faster than the Yak). The problem is once you will try to engage a co-energy fighter above 2600m, you will get ass kicked if you don't extend or dive away, which is not the case at low altitude where you outperform anything without problem. I think you know what 2,5m/s represent, dear Emil. Hello Ze_Hairy, I took a look at the data in the old IL2 compare app to see the differences between the FW ,Yak & LaGG so no idea how they are applied to BoS but I assume the same data sources At sea level the rate of climb for the FW is 17.7 m/s 15.44m/s for the LaGG and 14 m/s for Yak 1 Thats at sea level !! The altitude vs ROC shows a different story. The Yak can out climb the FW from 2,000 to 5,000m The LaGG can out climb the FW with WEP from around 1,000m to 4,000m. Without WEP the FW is better above 3,000m and below 1,000m Which I think is what you are showing Having said that the FW is way faster at any altitude so once at altitude it should blow them away at co alt co energy Hi Jacko, I use IL-2 compare sometimes and if there's one thing that i'm very careful about is climb rate (some planes have wrong numbers, as LaGG-3 or early La-5). The LaGG-3 s.29 does not climbs better than the Yak-1 or the Fw 190A-3 (especially at full power), at any altitude. It use the same engine as the Yak-1 but is much heavier. It is holiday season in Moscow at the moment and many of the staff are on their annual vacation, as has been said in other threads, I would not read too much into the lack of 'action' it is in reality a very small team Cheers Dakpilot Indeed, i read that yesterday. I've decided to report this issue at a really bad moment... 1
Reflected Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Hairy, thanks for these tests. I really appreciate that someone is taking the time to build up fact based/ numerical arguments to help the devs polish this sim. Edited August 1, 2015 by Reflected
Y-29.Silky Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Having said that the FW is way faster at any altitude so once at altitude it should blow them away at co alt co energy On paper, or in the game? Four days and no response, this FW supercharger complaint has been going on for a year now. This game needs TacView so people can get a clear picture of what's going on.
Willy__ Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 On paper, or in the game? Four days and no response, this FW supercharger complaint has been going on for a year now. This game needs TacView so people can get a clear picture of what's going on. Some of the devs are on vacation. I wouldnt wait a quick response.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) I fly the 190 higher than the 109 or at least as high. Firstly it does seem to out perform the Yak above 7k but also the amazing high speed handling makes it far better for B&Z than the 109. I agree. A better proposal is probably do not turn fight with a yak at co-E. I have little problem fighting Yaks in the 190, regardless of altitude, but I'm pretty conservative. I find most dogfights are lower than 7k even in the expert servers. I don't turn fight and I disengage earlier than most. I can usually out climb at will unless I've done something wrong at the merge. Edited August 2, 2015 by [WSB]HerrMurf
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) Yes sure, because engaging a plane at co-energy necessarily means "turnfighting"... guys... If you think doing Hit & Run only, is the "right way" to fly the 190, it's not my problem. Edited August 2, 2015 by Ze_Hairy 1
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Don't mind it Hairy. People will always try to discredit tests with competetivify discussions and useless blaming. Maybe the FM section could use some more heavily moderation to allow discussions their intendet course. 3
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 Don't mind it Hairy. People will always try to discredit tests with competetivify discussions and useless blaming. Maybe the FM section could use some more heavily moderation to allow discussions their intendet course. And they are the first to say "nice job devs ! you go in the right direction !!" when they read FM fixes in patch notes.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) Never said the FM was, "right." Only stated that my experience does not necessarily jibe with ALL of your conclusions. An important component of any thesis is challenge and defense of that thesis. I, in fact, agree the AC FM is not correct and can stand another tweak or two. I wonder if all aircraft will lose their cold weather boost on summer maps of if the Fw will continue to be handicapped? If it had the cold weather boost now, would it account for the relative performance deficit? Thank you for your testing. Edited August 2, 2015 by [WSB]HerrMurf
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I hope no one is talking about my comments here. I just said how it seems best to fly the plane in game and in the past I have pointed out how it is weird you have to fly it in a way that isn't historic to get the best results, never said a word about tests being wrong or anything else.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 Just look at your posts, guys. It seems that you guys are flying the 190 in a limited way (Hit & Run only), don't know why, but it's not my problem as i said above. It just explain why it seems you don't see the seriousness of the issue (lack of ~2,5m/s), because you never engage..? (with what i read, in your mind, dogfight = turnfight, don't know why), i hope i'm wrong, but if i'm, then i don't see the point of your posts. "I wonder if all aircraft will lose their cold weather boost on summer maps of if the Fw will continue to be handicapped?" A total mystery.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 My posts are not ambiguous, you obviously didn't read them correctly.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 -Do not engage above 2600m, Yak-1 will outperforms you ! -But i have no problem to BnZ them, 190 is faster anyway, don't turnfight and everything will be fine. ..?
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I didn't mention turn fighting. I was saying that IN GAME it's better to fight this way even though historically the 190 was flown much lower which suggests there is something wrong. Firstly The Yak 1 and F4 are too fast as has been pointed out already and additionally the Yak's climb rate is too good at higher altitudes.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 I was saying that IN GAME it's better to fight this way even though historically the 190 was flown much lower which suggests there is something wrong. As a Jabo pilot i don't share your opinion sorry. Never heard about Yak-1 climbing too good at high alt though. 1
[GOAT]Spoutpout Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 The topic is not about how the Fw-190 should be flown in game to not being shot down, but only about the performances of this plane. 2
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 much reading comprehension fail in this thread
JtD Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 much reading comprehension fail in this threadI agree. It would help if you all tried to understand each other, not to misunderstand each other. On the opening post - I'd love to see a chart.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I agree. It would help if you all tried to understand each other, not to misunderstand each other. On the opening post - I'd love to see a chart. which is what I did......
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Maybe I missed the mark but judging from my expirience comments stating how good A or B performs "usually" or "always" do not serve too well in a FM topic about numerical test data. The last issue I reported (FW 190 tailwheel) people also claimed how they had "no issues at all" and "taxi all fine" while asking the complaining faction to just "train more and stop crying". Well after the devs changed it the ones defending the issue called those pleased with the change "crybabies" and blamed the devs for "dumbing down" their sim.... That's the kind of reaction I expect when reading statements like that. Anyway it's interesting to know about Fw-190 undererformance at 2600+m. Next question that comes to my mind is how it looks speed wise at high altitudes if climb rate sufers such a great drop? Edited August 3, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka 1
L3Pl4K Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Hi Guys, here the climb rate charts of fw 190 a3 and yak 1 ser.69. Looks like fw 190 a3(at 2400u/min) has from ~2500->3600m a little better or equal climb performance as yak 1 ser.69 with maxium 1050 mm Hg Mainfold perssure. So it must be an optical illusion when yak and lagg outclimb fw 190. Or you have extra Weapons, more fuel which decrease climb performance.........or something need a fix. 1 ser.69 Edited August 3, 2015 by Leplak 1
Maxyman Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Hello Ze_Hairy, What are the A3 climb rates in your test? Are you going to post the chart?
Brano Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The LaGG-3 s.29 does not climbs better than the Yak-1 or the Fw 190A-3 (especially at full power), at any altitude. It use the same engine as the Yak-1 but is much heavier. LaGG-3 s.29-34 was not "much heavier" then Yak-1 s.69-99. Take of weight and max take of weight were +/- the same (radio is/is not).They also used different ViSh props (61P,105SV,150SV) with different diameter and performance.
NachtJaeger110 Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 If so, i asked why the problem starts only at the second supercharger speed and not from the beginning, from the ground, where all is fine ? No reply since 4 days now. I suppose you never got an answer to this question, right?
Dr_Molenbeek Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 I suppose you never got an answer to this question, right? Han recently told me that Viks is on vacation until September 15.
Art Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Han recently told me that Viks is on vacation until September 15. Still nothing?
Recommended Posts