Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[JtD]

All they had to do was keep the last patch FM with the current climb rate fix. I'm no programmer, but how difficult is it to fix one single thing without messing with the whole plane ?

They changed the polar. If you do that, it effects everything - climb, speed, turn, handling. You'd have to very, very carefully tune a polar if you wanted to just change one thing, but when you swap one in for another, you change the entire plane. (The polar is lift-drag-angle of attack relation, for those who're joining late.)

Edited April 20, 2016 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

Yes, that was the info we got but maybe the polar that they got was for a lower Re range as we discussed before? In that case the drag would be higher while the Clmax lower and in that case they may already be planning to fix this. At least that is what I'm hoping for........

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Question remains why the climbrate increased if Cl indeed became lowered? The FM probably has had more than "just" a polar change.

[Turban]

Turn capability is closely coupled with wing loading and the fact is that both the Fw-190A3 and Me-109K4 had a wing loading of around 210 Kg/m^2.  This does not mean that they should have the same stationary turn rate since this is also affected by the power loading and aspect ratio which also explains why they are so different in this respect. However, when it comes to the momemtaneous turn rate this is to a large extent determined by the wing loading and Clmax so they should not be worlds apart here which however is the impression you get when comparing the DCS K4 and BoS A3. In addition, the DCS Fw-190D9 can also produce a pretty decent momentaneous turn when needed even though it has a wing loading of around 233 Kg/m^2 , i.e. even more than the BoS A3.

 

So for those of you who are still sceptical: Why don’t you try the DCS D9 and compare that to the BoS A3? IMHO they are worlds apart in momentaneous turn performance but give it a shot yourselves and see what you think. If you worry about the impact of power then don’t engage MW-50 and limit your boost when you try the turns.

 

I think Il-2 BoS/BoM shines when it comes to the WW2 scenery and environment and the DM is way better than DCS but to be honest the current Fw-190A3 FM really detract from the overall experience and IMHO the current rendition simply does not compute with basic aerodynamics and flight mechanics which is why I lean more towards DCS being right on this one.

 

Hopefully the devs are in the process of evaluation the 1.201 rendition and maybe one can hope for a change. If so it would be much appreciated.

 

K4 and A3 have similar wing loading so they should be similar ? You can't be serious.

 

And the A3 from BoS should be close to the DCS K4 ??

 

I must high as a kite, I'm reading things... 

[JtD]

Question remains why the climbrate increased if Cl indeed became lowered? The FM probably has had more than "just" a polar change.

You don't climb at maximum Cl. Maximum cl is a separate issue. You now have a higher drag at low lift (or cdo), a lower drag at medium lift, and a lower cl max. It's possible. Or they have changed more than "just" the polar...

[hirondo]

Turn capability is closely coupled with wing loading and the fact is that both the Fw-190A3 and Me-109K4 had a wing loading of around 210 Kg/m^2.  This does not mean that they should have the same stationary turn rate since this is also affected by the power loading and aspect ratio which also explains why they are so different in this respect. However, when it comes to the momemtaneous turn rate this is to a large extent determined by the wing loading and Clmax so they should not be worlds apart here which however is the impression you get when comparing the DCS K4 and BoS A3. In addition, the DCS Fw-190D9 can also produce a pretty decent momentaneous turn when needed even though it has a wing loading of around 233 Kg/m^2 , i.e. even more than the BoS A3.

 

So for those of you who are still sceptical: Why don’t you try the DCS D9 and compare that to the BoS A3? IMHO they are worlds apart in momentaneous turn performance but give it a shot yourselves and see what you think. If you worry about the impact of power then don’t engage MW-50 and limit your boost when you try the turns.

 

I think Il-2 BoS/BoM shines when it comes to the WW2 scenery and environment and the DM is way better than DCS but to be honest the current Fw-190A3 FM really detract from the overall experience and IMHO the current rendition simply does not compute with basic aerodynamics and flight mechanics which is why I lean more towards DCS being right on this one.

 

Hopefully the devs are in the process of evaluation the 1.201 rendition and maybe one can hope for a change. If so it would be much appreciated.

 

I am happy to see that a group of competent forum members together with the developer team is trying to fix up this poor FW190 FM. Please do not let yourself be misled by confused individuals who don’t even possess this plane and have not flown it neither before nor after the FM-exchange. You give hope to a large fan base that the quality of this Sim is gradually improved.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Llopgris

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You don't climb at maximum Cl. Maximum cl is a separate issue. You now have a higher drag at low lift (or cdo), a lower drag at medium lift, and a lower cl max. It's possible. Or they have changed more than "just" the polar...

I'm pretty sure there were more changes than the polar, too, since both were mentioned in seperate Dev diarys (the fixed climbrateannouncement dates back to mid march I think).

 

If not, I wonder what kind of data legitimated such a radical change to the polar since it would iply that either this or the previous versions have been significantly off.

Edited April 21, 2016 by 5tuka

[Dr_Molem]

There was no positive new in my PM with Han and FM engineer. If this issue is not fixed in the next update then i would not expect it to be fixed before at least one year.

[Kurfurst]

K4 and A3 have similar wing loading so they should be similar ? You can't be serious.

 

And the A3 from BoS should be close to the DCS K4 ??

 

I must high as a kite, I'm reading things... 

 

 

I think its just oddly peddling some basics about instantaneous that has very little to do how people generally perceive and rate turn performance (i.e. the sustained turn performance, the maximum turn rate that could be kept up without loosing speed or altitude), namely that aircraft at the same g-loading at the same speed will indeed have the same turning capabilities albeit only momentarily. Its also true for every aircraft, be it an F-15, a Spitfire or a Fw 190.

 

In practice the equilibrium of course changes the very moment the maneuver is entered into and its no longer true in the next second, because for the drag in accelerated turn will be still different on each plane, depending on the maximum angle of attack/ and éift coefficient aspect ratio etc., therefore one of the planes will still decelerate faster, and also there is difference between the thrust (power and prop efficiency - both changing with speed and altitude!) and thus contracting accelerating force in the plane.

 

So in summary, its basically amounts to saying nothing of material content in a rather complicated way.

[Kurfurst]

I think that's a brilliant plan, the last dev he was trying to convince of one of his unique theories gave him a life time ban. Would be great if it worked the same way here.

 

I cannot help but to notice there are three other members on this board as who curiously turn up on every thread and discussion board the said person engages in discussion with others and invariably these three then engage into a 'discussion' with him - usually what follows is that the thread goes south and gets locked sooner or later.

 

I wonder what the solution to that unfortunate constellation might be, and it would appear that so does our moderation team, for a couple of years by now.

Edited April 22, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst
Personal

[JtD]

Getting back to the lift coefficient or stall speed issue. I've taken the time for some simple yet laboursome testing and evaluation. Imho, it is very important that in game data is matched to each other, that they follow the same philosophy - same testing procedures, same corrections applied. This is already an issue with performance figures, but even more so with aerodynamic data, which comes from a multitude of sources that differ greatly.

 

So, going with relative, what I have done is a comparison between the Yak-1 and the Fw190. I've also looked up the aerodynamic data from their airfoils (Yak-1: ClarkYH, Fw190: NACA23000 series), which unfortunately I did not find in exactly the same source tested under same conditions and with same corrections applied. I did however find plenty of data for the ClarkY airfoil compared to the NACA 23012 airfoil and data for the ClarkY and the ClarkYH compared. Theses cannot be directly compared to what I got from the aircraft, but they show relative performance fairly well.

 

Now, much of the airfoil behaviour depends on the Reynolds number (RN). At the stall speeds, the RN for the Yak-1 is approximately 5.5, for the Fw190 approximately 6.5, owing to the higher speed. With the ClarkY, ClarkYH and NACA23012 clmax increases as the RN goes up.

 

At any rate, what the data showed is that clmax at the RN in question is NACA23012 > ClarkY > ClarkYH. They are close, but that's the trend. I've added the clmax given in NACA report 530 for RN4.500.000 of the NACA23012 and ClarkY. Mind you, there are errors and uncertainties attached to these figures, but the trend of NACA23012 having the higher value is triple conservative. One - RN of the FW at stall is higher than of the Yak-1, giving it a higher clmax increase, two - the higher the RN gets the bigger the advantage of the 23012 anyway and three - the ClarkY has a higher clmax than the ClarkYH. The figures are 1.5 for the 23012 and 1.465 for the ClarkY.

 

Below the chart from my testing. It shows is clmax for the Fw190 of 1.25 and for the Yak-1 of 1.39. Tested in level flight, idle throttle, minimum rpm, corrected for altitude loss (reduced g load). These figures certainly aren't 100% spot on, but since the method was the same, the relative performance should again be very well matched.

 

The Yak-1 reaches 95% of the reference clmax. The Fw190 reaches 83% of the reference clmax. In my opinion (taking conservatism of figures and some other things not discussed into account), the Yak-1 is where it is supposed to be, whereas the Fw190 falls 15% short of what can be expected.

Edited April 22, 2016 by JtD

[Irgendjemand]

Really intetresting. Thanks for taking the time to make those tests.

Doubt it will change anything but one can hope.

[Kurfurst]

So, going with relative, what I have done is a comparison between the Yak-1 and the Fw190. I've also looked up the aerodynamic data from their airfoils (Yak-1: ClarkYH, Fw190: NACA23000 series), which unfortunately I did not find in exactly the same source tested under same conditions and with same corrections applied. I did however find plenty of data for the ClarkY airfoil compared to the NACA 23012 airfoil and data for the ClarkY and the ClarkYH compared. Theses cannot be directly compared to what I got from the aircraft, but they show relative performance fairly well.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what is the source of data for the airfoils - NACA or the Luftwaffe's own test at the French C-M wind tunnel?

 

Theoretical airfoil figures might not be what can be achieved in real life IMO because there are so many small deviations from the "perfect" airfoil model in practice that may ruin that original 100% efficiency.

Edited April 22, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[MasterBaiter]

 

Fresh news on Fw 190 FM - it's fine and still no one were able to proof opposite, only emotions 

 

Plus - Fw 190 - is offtopic for this thread. Please keep forum rules.

 

From Han:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22132-developer-diary-part-128-discussion/

 

 

it's getting odd... Im not sure I want to spend more time in this sim with devs just ignoring basics stuffs.

 

This is bordering on yet another FM discussion...

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Bearcat

[JtD]

Out of curiosity, what is the source of data for the airfoils - NACA or the Luftwaffe's own test at the French C-M wind tunnel?

 

Theoretical airfoil figures might not be what can be achieved in real life IMO because there are so many small deviations from the "perfect" airfoil model in practice that may ruin that original 100% efficiency.

The airfoil data is taken from NACA comparative tests exclusively.

 

Like I said, I'm aware that wind tunnel airfoil data does not match the full aircraft data. However, relative characteristics should be similar. You don't put a higher drag lower lift airfoil on an aircraft and suddenly it has the opposite effect.

Edited April 22, 2016 by JtD

[Matt]

Would perhaps make sense if people would post here what hasn't been accepted as proof. After further tests, i think that the Cl is off by at least the amount stated by Jtd in flight condition and even more with take-off flaps extended and in landing configuration. But I don't to send the same sources that people already sent to the devs.

[Holtzauge]

I think its just oddly peddling some basics about instantaneous that has very little to do how people generally perceive and rate turn performance (i.e. the sustained turn performance, the maximum turn rate that could be kept up without loosing speed or altitude), namely that aircraft at the same g-loading at the same speed will indeed have the same turning capabilities albeit only momentarily. Its also true for every aircraft, be it an F-15, a Spitfire or a Fw 190.

 

In practice the equilibrium of course changes the very moment the maneuver is entered into and its no longer true in the next second, because for the drag in accelerated turn will be still different on each plane, depending on the maximum angle of attack/ and éift coefficient aspect ratio etc., therefore one of the planes will still decelerate faster, and also there is difference between the thrust (power and prop efficiency - both changing with speed and altitude!) and thus contracting accelerating force in the plane.

 

So in summary, its basically amounts to saying nothing of material content in a rather complicated way.

 

Thanks for sharing your words of wisdom Kurfurst. I’m sure my former colleagues at the military pre-conceptual design department at SAAB would be fascinated to learn that all these things are basic because I know there were different opinions on the importance of momentaneous (aka instantaneous) as compared to sustained turn performance as in should we build a low aspect ratio canard or a swept wing with LEX? Too bad they did not have you to explain things and guide them through the process. Me, I always sided with the swept wing faction so don’t blame me that they build another canard….

 

Also, I’ll be sure to tell a friend of mine who used to fly the J-35 Draken and who used to tell stories of how good a feature the Draken’s momentaneous turn capability was and how it could be used to defeat better sustained turning fighters like the F-5 that he was wrong and that “people” are more concerned with the sustained turn capability.

 

But it’s good to have been set straight by a Hungarian lawyer. I mean what do we know? I’m just an aeronautical engineer with an MSc in flight mechanics, aerodynamics and structural engineering who worked in the industry and my friend a retired SwAF pilot…..

[Hoots]

Dear god, eight pages of people trying to convince other people they are wrong. Isn't it time to stop now?

[WWChunk]

From Han:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22132-developer-diary-part-128-discussion/

 

 

it's getting odd... Im not sure I want to spend more time in this sim with devs just ignoring basics stuffs.

 

 

I just cannot believe the flippant attitude towards the complaints about the 190 FM.  There is obviously a problem with it, and it's almost as if some of the devs now respond to inquiries about with nothing but a mocking tone; backed up by multiple post "likes" from others.  I like this sim, a lot, but this glaring issue with the 190 needs to be remedied.  I don't have data, or anything that can help the case for a fix, but I know from trying to fly it correctly, that it went from decent to hosed in one patch!

Edited April 22, 2016 by WWChunk

[Holtzauge]

Getting back to the lift coefficient or stall speed issue. I've taken the time for some simple yet laboursome testing and evaluation. Imho, it is very important that in game data is matched to each other, that they follow the same philosophy - same testing procedures, same corrections applied. This is already an issue with performance figures, but even more so with aerodynamic data, which comes from a multitude of sources that differ greatly.

 

So, going with relative, what I have done is a comparison between the Yak-1 and the Fw190. I've also looked up the aerodynamic data from their airfoils (Yak-1: ClarkYH, Fw190: NACA23000 series), which unfortunately I did not find in exactly the same source tested under same conditions and with same corrections applied. I did however find plenty of data for the ClarkY airfoil compared to the NACA 23012 airfoil and data for the ClarkY and the ClarkYH compared. Theses cannot be directly compared to what I got from the aircraft, but they show relative performance fairly well.

 

Now, much of the airfoil behaviour depends on the Reynolds number (RN). At the stall speeds, the RN for the Yak-1 is approximately 5.5, for the Fw190 approximately 6.5, owing to the higher speed. With the ClarkY, ClarkYH and NACA23012 clmax increases as the RN goes up.

 

At any rate, what the data showed is that clmax at the RN in question is NACA23012 > ClarkY > ClarkYH. They are close, but that's the trend. I've added the clmax given in NACA report 530 for RN4.500.000 of the NACA23012 and ClarkY. Mind you, there are errors and uncertainties attached to these figures, but the trend of NACA23012 having the higher value is triple conservative. One - RN of the FW at stall is higher than of the Yak-1, giving it a higher clmax increase, two - the higher the RN gets the bigger the advantage of the 23012 anyway and three - the ClarkY has a higher clmax than the ClarkYH. The figures are 1.5 for the 23012 and 1.465 for the ClarkY.

 

Below the chart from my testing. It shows is clmax for the Fw190 of 1.25 and for the Yak-1 of 1.39. Tested in level flight, idle throttle, minimum rpm, corrected for altitude loss (reduced g load). These figures certainly aren't 100% spot on, but since the method was the same, the relative performance should again be very well matched.

 

The Yak-1 reaches 95% of the reference clmax. The Fw190 reaches 83% of the reference clmax. In my opinion (taking conservatism of figures and some other things not discussed into account), the Yak-1 is where it is supposed to be, whereas the Fw190 falls 15% short of what can be expected.

 

Good stuff JtD! I think you are on to something here. Of course there should be a difference between the 2-D wind tunnel data and a complete wing just as your data shows but the percentagewise difference for the Yak and Fw-190 sure looks weird. Also, the complete wing Clmax figure for the Yak looks a bit high. This needs some more pondering though which will have to wait due to other obligations. It is Friday evening after all.

[Turban]

 

Sad to see so much aggressivity and so little arguments.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Turban

[Hoots]

I just cannot believe the flippant attitude towards the complaints about the 190 FM.  There is obviously a problem with it, and it's almost as if some of the devs now respond to inquiries about with nothing but a mocking tone; backed up by multiple post "likes" from others.  I like this sim, a lot, but this glaring issue with the 190 needs to be remedied.  I don't have data, or anything that can help the case for a fix, but I know from trying to fly it correctly, that it went from decent to hosed in one patch!

 

And have you, or anyone in this thread, done as the Devs have asked and put it all in a report with the relevant data and evidence? Because from Hans comment it would appear not. And let's be fair to the Devs the recent changes were as a result of new evidence submitted in a report from a user so they do listen.

If you are just posting feelings in a forum such as "I don't have data or anything that can help the case" then it's unlikely to be looked at by them. Which, if we were to be honest, is pretty reasonable behaviour.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

And have you, or anyone in this thread, done as the Devs have asked and put it all in a report with the relevant data and evidence? Because from Hans comment it would appear not. And let's be fair to the Devs the recent changes were as a result of new evidence submitted in a report from a user so they do listen.

If you are just posting feelings in a forum such as "I don't have data or anything that can help the case" then it's unlikely to be looked at by them. Which, if we were to be honest, is pretty reasonable behaviour.

it's always the same in here..the popular case of the sheep and the cabbage head

Case:

They locked in a sheep and a cabbage head in a shed overnight. In the morning the cabbage head was gone, and the sheep's excrement was green. But there was no witness, and no further evidence. So the case was closed and never solved.

[JtD]

Hoots, implementing a polar into an FM is a conscious decision. They cannot not know what the maximum lift coefficients and other characteristics for Yak-1 and Fw190 are in game. They said they are basing their Fw polar on wind tunnel data of a complete plane as tested by the Germans. There is no "proof" in the world that will show that polar to be "wrong", it just doesn't exist.

 

The issues in game come from the use of mixed sources and improper technical interpretation of existing data. In order to get the devs to iron it out, you need to discuss issues with the FM designer on eye level - you say something, and he wants to think it through. As we know from Han we're all just a bunch of emotional idiots, so the necessary discussions are not possible. We'll just be ignored. I'm placing my hopes on Matt, who as a tester at least stands a minimal chance to be listened to. Anyone else in this topic could probably write his doctorate thesis and would still just be ignored. It's just emotions, you know.

[Hoots]

Hoots, implementing a polar into an FM is a conscious decision. They cannot not know what the maximum lift coefficients and other characteristics for Yak-1 and Fw190 are in game. They said they are basing their Fw polar on wind tunnel data of a complete plane as tested by the Germans. There is no "proof" in the world that will show that polar to be "wrong", it just doesn't exist.The issues in game come from the use of mixed sources and improper technical interpretation of existing data. In order to get the devs to iron it out, you need to discuss issues with the FM designer on eye level - you say something, and he wants to think it through. As we know from Han we're all just a bunch of emotional idiots, so the necessary discussions are not possible. We'll just be ignored. I'm placing my hopes on Matt, who as a tester at least stands a minimal chance to be listened to. Anyone else in this topic could probably write his doctorate thesis and would still just be ignored. It's just emotions, you know.

So you haven't?

Have you tried putting the above into a businesslike report in the format requested? Don't get me wrong, the level of technical knowledge is most impressive but until you do as the dev's request it's just a bunch of people arguing on the Internet and if you're running a business it's difficult to take that kind of thing seriously. As I said before there is now 8 pages of people trying to prove each other wrong. Until something concrete is submitted to them things are unlikely to change. If the evidence isn't there then maybe, however much it annoys you, you just have to live with what you've got?

 

manu, yeeeeaaaaah..... Not sure what that had to do with my comment about doing as the Devs requested but a nice story though, thanks.

[Dakpilot]

it's always the same in here..the popular case of the sheep and the cabbage head

Case:

They locked in a sheep and a cabbage head in a shed overnight. In the morning the cabbage head was gone, and the sheep's excrement was green. But there was no witness, and no further evidence. So the case was closed and never solved.

 

typical mis-information....everyone knows that sheep droppings will not be green after eating cabbage sounds like a frame up job to me 

 

*edit* I once worked as a shepherd for a short while

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 23, 2016 by Dakpilot

[JtD]

So you haven't?

Have you tried putting the above into a businesslike report in the format requested? Don't get me wrong, the level of technical knowledge is most impressive but until you do as the dev's request it's just a bunch of people arguing on the Internet and if you're running a business it's difficult to take that kind of thing seriously. As I said before there is now 8 pages of people trying to prove each other wrong. Until something concrete is submitted to them things are unlikely to change. If the evidence isn't there then maybe, however much it annoys you, you just have to live with what you've got?

As I have said before, I don't see a point in sending a report. Whatever we find out about the stall speed - they already know. It's impossible for them to not know, it's a figure or a set of figures someone with good knowledge of FM's typed into the code. What would they learn from a report showing them roughly something they know they typed into the code? If you feel different and see the necessity to send a report, feel free to do so. No statement in this topic is copyrighted.

 

On a more general note, I don't communicate with Han out of self-preservation. I prefer spending my gaming time with other games and have no problem with them completely botching up any FM (or other, more important things). I just don't buy their stuff. FM discussions, otoh, I do for fun. Hard to believe, but that's how it is.

Edited April 23, 2016 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

So you haven't?

Have you tried putting the above into a businesslike report in the format requested? Don't get me wrong, the level of technical knowledge is most impressive but until you do as the dev's request it's just a bunch of people arguing on the Internet and if you're running a business it's difficult to take that kind of thing seriously. As I said before there is now 8 pages of people trying to prove each other wrong. Until something concrete is submitted to them things are unlikely to change. If the evidence isn't there then maybe, however much it annoys you, you just have to live with what you've got?

 

manu, yeeeeaaaaah..... Not sure what that had to do with my comment about doing as the Devs requested but a nice story though, thanks.

 

I’m glad you bring up the subject of doing business since the time of plan economy is long gone and “if you don’t like it then you can take a hike” no longer works because in a market economy someone else will always see to the customer needs and people will simply vote with their feet and wallets. So if you are alienating and brushing off a large part of your customer base you are just doing the competition a favour. So surely, looking at this from a business perspective does it not makes sense to listen and interact with your customers? Especially seeing many of them are either professional pilots, engineers or autodidacts who have spent years going through archives and built up an impressive level of knowledge? Evidence that a two-way communication on technical matters with the forum community can be fruitful and serve a mutual interest can be found in another flight sim forum, namely the DCS forum and I think Il-2 Bos/BoM would greatly benefit from a similar approach even if we limit ourselves to a purely business perspective because if you lose customers you lose money……..

[Mac_Messer]

So you haven't?

Have you tried putting the above into a businesslike report in the format requested? Don't get me wrong, the level of technical knowledge is most impressive but until you do as the dev's request it's just a bunch of people arguing on the Internet and if you're running a business it's difficult to take that kind of thing seriously.

It is allso a matter of attitude. There is no need to be an [Edited] to somebody who is trying really hard to provide a genuine case.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bearcat
Language

[Stig]

 Especially seeing many of them are either professional pilots, engineers or autodidacts who have spent years going through archives and built up an impressive level of knowledge?

 

One would think that FM problems then would be solved relatively fast and easily. Yet long threads arguing FM models are the norm across all flightsims, at least the ones that I know of.             

 

Yes .. and somehow 8 out of 10 times the arguments are centered around German aircaraft.. I guess they were so amazingly engineered that no developer can model them correctly.

[Holtzauge]

One would think that FM problems then would be solved relatively fast and easily. Yet long threads arguing FM models are the norm across all flightsims, at least the ones that I know of.             

 And that is of course the nature of the game but that does not change the fact that there are examples of flight sim developers that listen and interact with their customer base and those that don't. Who do you think will last the longest and make most money?

[Stig]

It's not that they don't listen, though. They don't always agree with what they hear, but that's not the same thing.

[Turban]

It's not that they don't listen, though. They don't always agree with what they hear, but that's not the same thing.

 

Pretty much this. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Turban

[Hoots]

It is allso a matter of attitude. There is no need to be an asshole to somebody who is trying really hard to provide a genuine case.

Nice, in a comment decrying a perceived "attitude" you call me an asshole. Top quality.

[Holtzauge]

It's not that they don't listen, though. They don't always agree with what they hear, but that's not the same thing.

 

Yes, that they don't don't agree was made abundantly clear here but I can't say I find this sort of communication very helpful. I'm not opposed to the concept of lodging FM queries via some sort of form either but doing that and waiting a few weeks to get a reply like the one we just got on the Fw-190 A3 FM is a poor substitute for a dialogue based on mutual respect.

[Stig]

I interpret Han's answer as he is not convinced by the arguments he has recieved. Should he react because the community is unhappy, and make changes to the FM on that background alone?

[Art]

I interpret Han's answer as he is not convinced by the arguments he has recieved. Should he react because the community is unhappy, and make changes to the FM on that background alone?

Yes  and no. No if Fm is correctly. But Fm isnt ...

[ZachariasX]

It seems the way communication between devs and the community/people writing here is more of a problem that the 190's in-game behaviour.

 

There's a lot of people here with a great wealth of knowledge and that take their hobby very serious as well as most others with just an oppinion. Dealing with that requires a lot of communication skill, not the first requrement for a good programmer.

 

What I don't understand that in this difficult situation, devs choose not to be completely open about how the plane is wired up FM whise. So there's discussions of how that may or may not look like (feuds are sometimes started here at this point already), and then how it should look like (here it gets even worse). Saying "This is our data and this is what we can do for the money we have" sounds different than "all fine". Even for the same predicament.

 

What's so secret about the data that is used for creating the current plane set's FM? Preventing the competition from taking these data "and quickly write up a cometing sim"?

 

Why don't show us how dev's think the plane should look like, how it does look like, and what is within financial reason for a $10 plane to make it fit the published data?

 

The worst you can do is not taking people serious. Even if they are illiterate and stupid. Han's comment in this sense was not helpful, be it "correct" or not. After all, he didn't mention what qualifies the FM to be "not fine". So I assume he is correct, at least in his own way.

 

All scientific progress can only happen if data is collected in the open and in a transparent way. Being mum about what one is doing and just discreetly patching together one's own truth does nothing but limiting the qualitiy of what you can deliver. The upside is, no-one is disturbing you while you are doing it.

 

 

Z

[Gump]

I interpret Han's answer as he is not convinced by the arguments he has recieved. Should he react because the community is unhappy, and make changes to the FM on that background alone?

IMHO, speaking from a non-technical POV, it was mentioned before that the "community", including many that are voicing opinions, consists of experienced and educated pilots (of various sorts). in other words, notable discussion (as is evident regarding the new 190 FM) by such a community is not something that should be dismissed lightly. statistically, odds are that such discourse among such community is revealing something that deserves attention. it requires no technical consideration to deduce this. the odds against this widely voiced strong dissatisfaction about something by such a community being merely "emotional" are large.

actually, this community's opinion, given its construction, is a very large asset to any team/person attempting such an endeavour. it should, therefore, be considered valuable and considered carefully.

[Grancesc]

As I have said before, I don't see a point in sending a report. Whatever we find out about the stall speed - they already know. It's impossible for them to not know, it's a figure or a set of figures someone with good knowledge of FM's typed into the code. What would they learn from a report showing them roughly something they know they typed into the code? If you feel different and see the necessity to send a report, feel free to do so. No statement in this topic is copyrighted.

 

On a more general note, I don't communicate with Han out of self-preservation. I prefer spending my gaming time with other games and have no problem with them completely botching up any FM (or other, more important things). I just don't buy their stuff. FM discussions, otoh, I do for fun. Hard to believe, but that's how it is.

 

Suppose our community (SP and MP as a whole) is divided into 50% VVS and 50% LW flyers. With yesterday's response to the FM claims Han has upset 50% of his customer base. Maybe even more, because I fly mostly VVS planes and I am now very angered. You don't screwed-up a legend plane like the Fw190, known in the literature as one of the best fighters of its time, in this way. Imagine you would have done that with the Il-2 or the Spitfire. Perhaps 1C/777 does not realize what a commercial and image damage is done that way. We want that one day all CoD, DCS and the mature WT-pilots fly with us. But they will be wary when they find out what 1C/777 has done to the jewels of aviation.

If Han is the man who makes the FM-decisions and he does not proceed according to market mechanisms, then we have to convince him with technical arguments. For that we need all aerodynamically savvy  members in this forum.

JtD stay with us.