Jump to content
Han

FM Claims respond

Recommended Posts

- 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 by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Brano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

post-3376-0-78036600-1409248222.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by FZG_Immel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by JG4_Karaya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by FZG_Immel
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by FZG_Immel
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by dragon76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...