Developer Diary, Part 82

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Wrong. The only community remainder about this issue is the "no FM rework has been done since almost forever" leitmotif

Wrong. This is true regardless of anything what has happened. Members are glad to have at least those aeroplanes fixed.

[Mugwump]

Some good data here.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

[Leaf]

So noone have compared Fw190 roll with sources but everyone thinks it's does not match?

 

Personally (completely subjective) the roll rate seems plausible. 

What's annoying me (and many others) is the negative G behaviour of the 190 and 109. It's impossible to perform any kind of reasonable negative G maneuver in them, compared to Russian fighters. But that's another topic.

[Han]

You could maybe give them some time instead of repeating yourself.

There were so many claims on Fw190 roll that I've supposed that everything were tested and compared many times...

 

I'm very surprised that it was not.

[DD_bongodriver]

There were so many claims on Fw190 roll that I've supposed that everything were tested and compared many times...

 

I'm very surprised that it was not.

 

I doubt anybody had the data collated and prepared for this particular reason and probably nobody expected the gauntlet to be thrown down.

[Leaf]

I doubt anybody had the data collated and prepared for this particular reason and probably nobody expected the gauntlet to be thrown down.

 

Bongo, you can't blame Han for being surprised. The amount of threads and complaining (whether right or not) would suggest that there's at least some evidence to back up claims. 

I mean, this isn't rocket science. This is very simple evidence to back up a claim. 

e.g. "According to this data sheet, performance was X; however, in game it is Y"

This is basic stuff. You'd expect anyone to deliver that kind of evidence before any developer asks for it, simply because it is integral to the argument.

[JG4_Widukind]

Han the problem is not allone the

roll rate of the Fw190.

[Hopper64]

Just updated. I couldn't get my guns to work in the QMB at all. I couldn't exit either. Shut down the PC and restarted and went to MP and had no problems. Is the QMB bugged now? Thanks.

[AndyHill]

A very easy way to make the campaign better is to let people play it the way they want (=adjustable difficulty and graphics settings).

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Some good data here.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

This is good base to start.

[Jason_Williams]

I doubt anybody had the data collated and prepared for this particular reason and probably nobody expected the gauntlet to be thrown down.

 

Bongo,

 

Knock it off. Loft, Han and the team has said many, many times the way to communicate FM issues is with properly presented, real data for credible sources. Nothing has changed. We have an entire part of the forum dedicated to suggestions to the developers. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/10-developer-assistance/

 

Jason

[Han]

Han the problem is not allone the

roll rate of the Fw190.

I've some data on my PM box on climb and dive claims, some data on supercharger gear switch possible problem, but nothing on roll rate

[Gort]

 

Personally (completely subjective) the roll rate seems plausible. 

What's annoying me (and many others) is the negative G behaviour of the 190 and 109. It's impossible to perform any kind of reasonable negative G maneuver in them, compared to Russian fighters. But that's another topic.

In all fairness, it's difficult to tell how aggressive we are being without access to the G load (or alpha) during these maneuvers.

 

Would be nice if we had access to the raw data outputs...hint, hint (never gonna happen).

[Leaf]

 

In all fairness, it's difficult to tell how aggressive we are being without access to the G load (or alpha) during these maneuvers.

 

Would be nice if we had access to the raw data outputs...hint, hint (never gonna happen).

 

Sure, that would make it more objective. But right now, we don't need hard data to prove that negative G behaviour is plainly weird. 

[Trinkof]

Some spitfire pilot told in their memories that FW was turning great ... (Clostermann for example ... wich was an ace). This does not mean it was actully turning great.

To the asumption usualy made about FW : it had an awesome rollrate , well what we have ingame is fitting : it has an awesome rollrate

Shall it be XX% better than XX plane ? Who knows exept data ? The 150 hour pilot of a Lagg3 writing after war ? The 190 veteran saying it in his memories, not knowing who was the pilot he shot down ? The manufacturer data wishing to sell his product to a government ? The test from enemy sources wishing to prove they are better ? Post war test with derated plane in bad conditions ? 

Sources are numerous, not all the same, with a lot of contradictions 

Someone posted this earlier : 

 

Some good data here.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

And if you read carefully and convert feet bto meters, you'll see there is a HUGE drop of performance between 2000 et 3000 meters. SO i bet reading this that there is no "supercharger bug" .... but a data behind this behaviour of the FW

Basically what is happening here is people saying : "this plane was awesome, why I am not awesome playing it? .... This is a mistake, developers are cheating on us ..."

They just forget one little thing : Someone in 777, had the job to collect data, and enter them into the game. It took him months if not years.... and this is his job, he probably knows better what he is doing that the sum of all of us 
And this man diserve respect ... and a LOT, because no plane ever felt such alive than in BOS 

 
 

Edited October 11, 2014 by LAL_Trinkof

[Han]

Just updated. I couldn't get my guns to work in the QMB at all. I couldn't exit either. Shut down the PC and restarted and went to MP and had no problems. Is the QMB bugged now? Thanks.

Please contact to Support Service for solution.

[DD_bongodriver]

Bongo,

 

Knock it off. Loft, Han and the team has said many, many times the way to communicate FM issues is with properly presented, real data for credible sources. Nothing has changed. We have an entire part of the forum dedicated to suggestions to the developers. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/10-developer-assistance/

 

Jason

 

Not sure what I have to knock off Jason but I will take it on board, I just though Han only needed to ask for the data once.

[Han]

They just forget one little thing : Someone in 777, had the job to collect data, and enter them into the game. It took him months if not years.... and this is his job, he probably knows better what he is doing that the sum of all of us

And this man diserve respect ... and a LOT, because no plane such alive than in BOS

 

 

Thank you

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Did a quick test against the RAE chart posted here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/ I used speed 350km/h and full fuel load. No outer wing guns, expert mode. 350km/h equals 217mph. I rolled with a stop watch to left and right. RAE test says there is not discernible difference in roll to left and right. So here goes BoS vs RAE, made 5 rolls to each direction to get a solid average. So 350km/h, 1000m, full deflection of stick no rudder.

 

 Roll to left: average 3.45sec making it 104.4deg/s  Roll to right: average 3.31sec making it 108.7deg/s RAE result: 2,48s making it 145deg/s.

 

 Go figure if anything is wrong if the roll rate is about 40deg/s wrong at this speed. Gonna test the peak as well.

Edited October 11, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[Gort]

Some spitfire pilot told in their memories that FW was turning great ... (Clostermann for example ... wich was an ace). This does not mean it was actully turning great.

 

To the asumption usualy made about FW : it had an awesome rollrate , well what we have ingame is fitting : it has an awesome rollrate

 

Shall it be XX% better than XX plane ? Who knows exept data ? The 150 hour pilot of a Lagg3 writing after war ? The 190 veteran saying it in his memories, not knowing who was the pilot he shot down ? The manufacturer data wishing to sell his product to a government ? The test from enemy sources wishing to prove they are better ? Post war plane with derated plane in bad conditions ? 

 

Sources are numerous, not all the same, with a lot of contradictions 

 

Someone posted this earlier : 

 

 

 

And if you read carefully and convert feet bto meters, you'll see there is a HUGE drop of performance between 2000 et 3000 meters. SO i bet reading this that there is no "supercharger bug" .... but a data behind this behaviour of the FW

 

Basically what is happening here is people saying : "this plane was awesome, why I am not awesome playing it? .... This is a mistake, developers are cheating on us ..."

 

They just forget one little thing : Someone in 777, had the job to collect data, and enter them into the game. It took him months if not years.... and this is his job, he probably knows better what he is doing that the sum of all of us 

And this man diserve respect ... and a LOT, because no plane such alive than in BOS 

 

 

 

 

A wise observation.

 

For many decades, you'd hear people gushing over P51 turn performance in the US. The best man in my wedding happened to be a USN Test Pilot who did the out of control flight characteristics of the F18E/F among other tasking. USN TPS grads had access to the two seat P51 "Crazy Horse" during his time as an instructor at Pax River and did reports on the aircraft. The aircraft displayed a lot of handling deficiencies that have been talked about over and over by objective pilots. You say something negative about it on a sim forum and you'll get flamed beyond recognition.

 

The TPS guys also flew a Sea Fury during the same time frame and extolled it's handling over that of the P51.

 

That's part of the reason that until we get an objective test (meaning using modern test methods) much of the data on WWII performance will be murky. There is some good data out there, but difficult to access or sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

This sim is still in development, it's at a critical juncture where the team is trying to get it released before the holiday buying window. It's too early for some of the drama.

[bivalov]

i think this is a big problem.

THIS is REAL problem of this "discussion"... still that ***.

 

meanwhile devs just try do their job.

[Trinkof]

 

That's part of the reason that until we get an objective test (meaning using modern test methods) much of the data on WWII performance will be murky. There is some good data out there, but difficult to access or sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

 And I bet developers are better than us doing this 

[Leaf]

S!

 

 Did a quick test against the RAE chart posted here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/ I used speed 350km/h and full fuel load. No outer wing guns, expert mode. 350km/h equals 217mph. I rolled with a stop watch to left and right. RAE test says there is not discernible difference in roll to left and right. So here goes BoS vs RAE, made 5 rolls to each direction to get a solid average. So 350km/h, 1000m, full deflection of stick no rudder.

 

 Roll to left: average 3.45sec making it 104.4deg/s  Roll to right: average 3.31sec making it 108.7deg/s RAE result: 2,48s making it 145deg/s.

 

 Go figure if anything is wrong if the roll rate is about 40deg/s wrong at this speed. Gonna test the peak as well.

 

PM it to him, that way he'll read it. That's what he wanted, anyway.

[Rama]

This is true regardless of anything what has happened. Members are glad to have at least those aeroplanes fixed.

Only true things are things that can be observed and measured. Everything else is "thoughts".

You can't affirm that members are glad if they don't tell it.... and they don't.

[Hopper64]

Please contact to Support Service for solution.

 

OK. Thanks.

[Han]

THIS is REAL problem of this "discussion"... still that ***.meanwhile devs just try do their job.

Data source selection is allways a challenge. But we have some tricks on it and we sure in our choise.

[Neil]

Thank you dev team, thank you so much!

You are like a dream team!

Best news for me is considering adding Tante Ju, even IA, that is a solid step!

Yepee!

[unreasonable]

It's too early for some of the drama.

More like it's too late for the drama.

 

It is a pity that the thread has been taken over by a FM controversy affecting one plane that many of us will hardly ever fly. Really only a few people care about this, and I cannot see how the roll rate of the Fw190 is likely to affect the success of the launch, which should be the team's sole concern at this point.

 

What is important is the SP campaign, which has been presented as the centerpiece of BoS, and it's interaction with MP.

 

Currently we are getting a stream of incremental bug fixes and improvements, which is good. I am enjoying the missions: there is a lot going on if you take the time to look rather than just flying along in autopilot time acceleration looking at your watch. I particularly hope that we will get a decent finger-four formation and not have control of the flight taken away by "player" commands at the action point.

 

But the underlying discontent still needs to be addressed. I understand that the basic system cannot be changed now even if the team wanted to do it, but possibly the following steps would show some willingness to listen:

 

1) Make MP qualify for xp-unlocks.

 

2) Have the player in SP join as a pilot of specific named unit (as in the original description of the campaign in the Dev Diaries) and record the results for each named pilot in a separate log-book, in addition to the existing aggregate player card. This would give us the bare minimum we need for RP purposes.

[DD_bongodriver]

Only true things are things that can be observed and measured. Everything else is "thoughts".

You can't affirm that members are glad if they don't tell it.... and they don't.

 

With one caveat, there have been multiple instances of measured data that sometimes don't agree, one mans measured data is another mans biased fantasy.

[Caudron431]

There were so many claims on Fw190 roll that I've supposed that everything were tested and compared many times...

 

I'm very surprised that it was not.

So they criticize the FM, but for the moment now, they don't know if they agree with their own "not-made-yet"  tests?

 

Seriously?

Edited October 11, 2014 by RegRag1977

[Han]

S!

 

 Did a quick test against the RAE chart posted here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/ I used speed 350km/h and full fuel load. No outer wing guns, expert mode. 350km/h equals 217mph. I rolled with a stop watch to left and right. RAE test says there is not discernible difference in roll to left and right. So here goes BoS vs RAE, made 5 rolls to each direction to get a solid average. So 350km/h, 1000m, full deflection of stick no rudder.

 

 Roll to left: average 3.45sec making it 104.4deg/s  Roll to right: average 3.31sec making it 108.7deg/s RAE result: 2,48s making it 145deg/s.

 

 Go figure if anything is wrong if the roll rate is about 40deg/s wrong at this speed. Gonna test the peak as well.

This historical data have been taken:

 

1. From single roll or from continues roll?

 

2. With rudder support or without it?

 

3. On idle power or on military power?

 

4. With gun pods or without it?

 

5. Left or right roll?

 

 

At least 1st question should be cleared before compare attempt.

[DD_bongodriver]

By request of another member (who is on a temporary holiday), I did not do this test:

 

 

"I did a few quick tests this morning and things are moving in the right direction at least it seems. Roll rates at higher speeds have definitely been slowed down.

Height 3k / Speed: 500kmh / 70% Fuel / Standard Loadout / Roll Left / Roll Right

Yak-1: 4.4s / 4.2s
La-5: 3.4s / 3.6s
Lagg-3: 3.4s / 3.6s

109 F-4: 4.4s / 4.0s
190: 3.6s / 3.5s

I also tried rolling the FW190 at lower speeds which are supposed to be it's peak roll rate. The NACA report had the FW190 rolling at 160 deg/sec at 250mph TAS = 347kmh IAS at 3k. in BOS it rolls in ~2.7s = 133.33 deg/sec. At higher speeds the La-5 might slightly out-roll the FW190 but at lower speeds it seems like it'll be slightly the other way around. But the differences are basically nil between the two as far as I can see.

The 109 looks to tie in more closely with the DVL data now as well across the range of speeds.

If you're in a 109 or Yak-1 you'll now be comprehensively out-rolled in the lower speed ranges. At 400kmh the 109 / Yak-1 will roll in ~4.4s while the Lagg-3 / La-5 / FW190 will roll in ~2.9s at that speed.

I'd honestly have some pretty big suspicions that the Lagg-3 rolled as well as a FW190 so would like to see some proper data but overall it's been a positive change to roll rates in general as far as I can see. "

 

 

Looks that someone did these test some time ago

[Han]

So they criticize the FM, but for the moment now, they don't know if they agree with their own "not-made-yet"  tests?

 

Seriously?

It's sopposed to be like this.

 

Anyway, only thing I'm requesting to them - post to my PM clear and compact compares of BoS and your sources. And we will check.

 

This was the rule from the beginning.

[dburne]

More like it's too late for the drama.

 

It is a pity that the thread has been taken over by a FM controversy affecting one plane that many of us will hardly ever fly. Really only a few people care about this, and I cannot see how the roll rate of the Fw190 is likely to affect the success of the launch, which should be the team's sole concern at this point.

 

What is important is the SP campaign, which has been presented as the centerpiece of BoS, and it's interaction with MP.

 

1) Make MP qualify for xp-unlocks.

 

2) Have the player in SP join as a pilot of specific named unit (as in the original description of the campaign in the Dev Diaries) and record the results for each named pilot in a separate log-book, in addition to the existing aggregate player card. This would give us the bare minimum we need for RP purposes.

 

Agree with this.

[CUJO_1970]

I've some data on my PM box on climb and dive claims, some data on supercharger gear switch possible problem, but nothing on roll rate

I will send NACA Report 868 which shows FW-190 roll velocity at an altitude of 10,000 feet for speed range from 160-390 mph.

I have already calculated rate of roll with corresponding speed, for example at 10,000 ft FW-190 rolls at 160 degrees per second at 250 mph. Etc.

 

I will send corresponding in-game performance as soon as possible, please be patient.

[CUJO_1970]

This historical data have been taken:

1. From single roll or from continues roll?

2. With rudder support or without it?

3. On idle power or on military power?

4. With gun pods or without it?

5. Left or right roll?

At least 1st question should be cleared before compare attempt.

5 rolls each direction

Stick moved to deflection that maximum roll rate occurs

Rudder is neutral

[Caudron431]

I will send NACA Report 868 which shows FW-190 roll velocity at an altitude of 10,000 feet for speed range from 160-390 mph.

I have already calculated rate of roll with corresponding speed, for example at 10,000 ft FW-190 rolls at 160 degrees per second at 250 mph. Etc.

 

I will send corresponding in-game performance as soon as possible, please be patient.

Cool, thanks Cujo!

[CUJO_1970]

See here naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf

[Han]

5 rolls each direction

Stick moved to deflection that maximum roll rate occurs

Rudder is neutral

I don't meant how you hawe tested. I've asked how was tested real plane in your data?

[dragon76]

I don't meant how you hawe tested. I've asked how was tested real plane in your data?

How was tested real plane in your data?

Edited October 11, 2014 by dragon76