Request to fix Fw-190 AI and DM

[Bussard_x]

Fw-190 AI is terribly bad, the ace gets beaten by novice LaGG-3 most of the time. Is this still WIP? It's a showstopper flying the 190 for me.

 

The damage model raises also questions, it is supposed to be very strong but in game a few hits and the engine is broken most of the time.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

What?

 

AI i cant't comment on.. But the plane totally rocks... Against the Lagg?????? Err

Edited November 8, 2014 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[dkoor]

AI i cant't comment on.. But the plane totally rocks... Against the Lagg?????? Err

Plane is really ultra fast, I could totally see that even if I haven't conducted some thorought tests.

 

It's quite possibly the best fighter in game overall.

 

About Ai... well I guess some planes are more friendly to Ai and some are not.

 

In Il-2 1946 Ai was better in good maneuvering/agile planes while in less agile ones (no matter the speed or other chars) Ai suffered from bad performance.

 

This may be the case again.

[Elbows]

I have to agree...the AI gets absolutely murdered in the 190.  They start doing really lengthy slow turning fights and are shot down piece-meal by any Russian fighter.  Pretty comical.

[Rjel]

I'd love to see flight sims progress to the point that the AI pilots could be made specific to a given aircraft. Use its strengths and weaknesses differently depending on the aircraft. Also it would be great if they could mimic the tactics of different WWII air forces, such as the Japanese pilots being more aerobatic in their combat verses say the U.S. Navy relying more on teamwork and the brute strength of its airplanes. I know it isn't possible considering todays computers. But someday....  

Edited November 8, 2014 by Rjel

[Finkeren]

On the AI I agree, the Fw 190 is terrible in the hands of the AI.

 

Reminds me of how the AI flew the LaGG back very early in the EA.

 

On the DM: Nope, I think it's fine.

 

The Fw 190 A-3 was not 'very strong' by any means, though it was somewhat better protected than the Bf 109. It was a structurally sound design and had good armour for the pilot and the reinforced ring around the front of the engine, but not much more than that. Its armour was only really effective against small caliber projectiles, so against for instance the LaGG it almost might as well not be there. Most of the rounds that'll kill your aircraft will be 20 - 23mm, which are quite powerful in BoS (as they should be)

 

The Fw 190 is tougher than the Bf 109 and speaking as someone who mostly shoots them down, I can attest to the fact, that it indeed on average takes more hits to bring down a Fw 190 than a 109. Still both are fairly light, single engines fighters, and that means vulnerable. No aircraft has ever been built, that could just shrug off damage done by 20mm autocannon. Aircraft are inherently and invariably vulnerable, and small, single-engined ones even more so.

 

A 'tough' aircraft doesn't mean one that doesn't take damage, they all do quite easily, but one that can continue flying despite sustaining damage, and in that regard the Fw 190 actually is fairly tough.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Finkeren

[gavagai]

Sounds like the Rise of Flight AI Spad 13 and SE5a, which get crushed by the weakest German scouts simply because the German scouts turn better.

Edited November 8, 2014 by gavagai

[Wulf]

On the AI I agree, the Fw 190 is terrible in the hands of the AI.

 

Reminds me of how the AI flew the LaGG back very early in the EA.

 

On the DM: Nope, I think it's fine.

 

The Fw 190 A-3 was not 'very strong' by any means, though it was somewhat better protected than the Bf 109. It was a structurally sound design and had good armour for the pilot and the reinforced ring around the front of the engine, but not much more than that. Its armour was only really effective against small caliber projectiles, so against for instance the LaGG it almost might as well not be there. Most of the rounds that'll kill your aircraft will be 20 - 23mm, which are quite powerful in BoS (as they should be)

 

The Fw 190 is tougher than the Bf 109 and speaking as someone who mostly shoots them down, I can attest to the fact, that it indeed on average takes more hits to bring down a Fw 190 than a 109. Still both are fairly light, single engines fighters, and that means vulnerable. No aircraft has ever been built, that could just shrug off damage done by 20mm autocannon. Aircraft are inherently and invariably vulnerable, and small, single-engined ones even more so.

 

A 'tough' aircraft doesn't mean one that doesn't take damage, they all do quite easily, but one that can continue flying despite sustaining damage, and in that regard the Fw 190 actually is fairly tough.

 

Agreed.  The air cooled radial motor on the 190 was probably the big difference although aspects of the airframe on the 190 were perhaps a little more robust.  

 

There are lots of stories of radial motors (on 190s, P47 and 'forts etc) continuing to function despite some pretty significant battle damage.  But puncture the water jacket or cooling system on an inline engine and it's going to stop functioning in a matter of minutes. 

 

And as Finkeren noted, once aircraft start get hit with 20 mm explosive projectiles (or bigger)  the writing is pretty much on the wall.  There are certainly plenty of example of aircraft that survived despite tremendous battle damage but when you consider the overall numbers of aircraft lost in combat these examples are very much the exception rather than the rule.  You might get lucky and survive a few hits from explosive ordinance here and there but not typically. Even if the structure of the aircraft managed to stay together after being hit, there are very few components inside the aircraft that aren't essential to it's operation.  

[Yakdriver]

sounds to me like someone is not happy and drops a claim disguised as a rant.

[Dakpilot]

There is definitely something not quite right with the way the AI programming interacts with the FW190 FM

 

This has been an issue since it was first introduced and even commented on by the Devs, who said that it will be looked into when they have time.

How it features on the priority list of things they have to attend to is up for speculation,

 

Having quite a bit of experience with Radial engines, the quoted examples of P-47's and the like continuing to function (at a very reduced performance) with missing cylinders, are truly remarkable examples, when you consider how many hours flown with radial engines during WWII the actual amount of these stories related, are simply that, remarkable examples, which become legendary

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

I Wonder if someone, somewhere have ever done a highly detailed 3d model of the Fw 190 or similar single engined fighter from the WW2 era? I mean, one where all the thousands of little parts internally are modelled right down to the nuts and bolts. It might be lots of fun to play around with such a model, to see, how many bullet paths you can draw through the aircraft, that wouldn't hit something vital. My money would be on 'not that many'. Just look at a see-through drawing of the Fw 190 , and point out to me a place on the front half of the fuselage, where a hit wouldn't do significant damage: 

 

[Yakdriver]

the pelxi glass.
entry point anywhere.
exit point anywhere.

but the Bullet must pass right through the pilot's head.

that is no damage done, because he flies for the dark side of the force anyway.
mwahahahahaha

[=LD=Hethwill]

I posted the engineers and ground crew manual a while ago ( http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11676-fw-190-8/ ), so all the pieces and measurements are there if you wish to build such a model. See you in 24 months  at least.

 

TBH the DM is as good ( or as bad ) as any other bird. Actually if you keep a low profile with it you are hell harder to hit than a Yak or a 109.

If you get caught in a cross section vector... you are easier to blow. 

 

Your engine is half your fuselage like it or not, even being radial all the cowling area will get shot up. The wings are almost 2/3 of the plane area, so 60% of the hits you take will be on the wing frames and boy, does the 190 need that high speed that punctured wings can't deliver...

 

So you get left with less that a quarter of your aiframe with not so important but vital as well system... everything behind the pilot seat, and damn if that elevator isn't big enough.

 

Best armour of 190 is indeed its speed and high rate turns ( but watch your distance ). AI is as precise as humans are, the opposite is not true, most humans are really bad shots, but the ace human shots are crack even compared to AI ace level.

[dkoor]

Yeah about that damage... 

Check out Youtube... there are tons of videos of guns in action... and observe what .50cal and above does to STEEL plates.

 

And imagine the projectile impact force if a fighter receives defensive fire shot.

 

ww2 airplanes = gas bombs.

[PantsPilot]

Could it be that early Fw-190's were not as robust as later variants?

[Yakdriver]

why would they not be as robust? It's basically the same plane, from A3 to A8, and then the D.
Okay,, Sturmbock and all... but afaik, none of the components were upgraded to be made of 10mm thicker steel during the construction process.

[Finkeren]

Could it be that early Fw-190's were not as robust as later variants?

The A-8 had some extra armour added I think. But that still wouldn't protect it from a ShVAK.

 

In terms of overall 'robustness' all Fw 190s were pretty much the same, except of course for the Ds that had the added vulnerability of a liquid cooled engine.

 

It's a common misconception, that the move towards fitting fighters with increasingly powerful guns that we see in many aircraft designs from the later half of WW2 was promted by increased armour that made planes more durable and more difficult to shoot down. That is not the case.

 

The adding of more powerful armament was primarily based on two factors:

 

The requirement to effectively deal with the growing number of heavy bombers, that were increasingly well armed.

 

And most importantly:

 

The higher speeds at which air combat took place. Over the course of the war the average fighter top speed grew by about 1/3. The high speeds often left pilots with only fractions of a second on the target, and gun sights generally didn't evolve to cope with the higher speeds by providing increased precision. Therefore there was a demand for guns, that could reliably bring down a fighter with a single hit.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Finkeren

[Yakdriver]

+1 on growing bomber factor

+1 on needting to shoot them down fast factor.

the balistics experts said something along the lines of 8x7.7 not being as lethal as 2x20 because of the weight of the projectiles spewed out every second.

But that's numbers and stats and i hate stats :D

[Finkeren]

the balistics experts said something along the lines of 8x7.7 not being as lethal as 2x20 because of the weight of the projectiles spewed out every second.

That's true. If you compare a 20mm cannon to a .30cal gun with the same rate of fire and muzzle velocity, one single 20mm has the same weight of fire as twelve (12!) .30cal guns.

 

This is due to simple geometry. If you double the dimensions of a projectile (that is: double the length and diameter) while leaving the shape and materials the same, you don't double the volume (and hence the weight) you don't quadruple it, you octople it (make it 8 times heavier).

 

Larger autocannon have the drawbacks of being heavier, delivering more powerful recoil, being able to carry less ammunition and sometimes (but not always) having lower rate of fire. But they are many, many times more powerful than LMGs.

[SYN_Ricky]

Sounds like the Rise of Flight AI Spad 13 and SE5a, which get crushed by the weakest German scouts simply because the German scouts turn better.

 

I remember that the original AI would fly the SPAD XIII as a boom'n'zoomer, but many complained it was boring to fight against, and the AI was changed so that now the SPADXIII try to turn fight...

The AI in the original IL-2 also would get murdered in the FW-190, as they too would try to turn fight with Yaks, La-5s and Spits...

Edited November 12, 2014 by SYN_Ricky

[Yakdriver]

That's true. If you compare a 20mm cannon to a .30cal gun with the same rate of fire and muzzle velocity, one single 20mm has the same weight of fire as twelve (12!) .30cal guns.

 

This is due to simple geometry. If you double the dimensions of a projectile (that is: double the length and diameter) while leaving the shape and materials the same, you don't double the volume (and hence the weight) you don't quadruple it, you octople it (make it 8 times heavier).

 

Larger autocannon have the drawbacks of being heavier, delivering more powerful recoil, being able to carry less ammunition and sometimes (but not always) having lower rate of fire. But they are many, many times more powerful than LMGs.

I understand, and have followed these types of discussions in the past. They tend to get mathematical and theoretical, while i focus on the user side of things.

 

The 20mm is in general my favorite cannon (except the MG-FF for shafty fire rate and early hispanos for small ammo count) although i appreciate the fire rate and projectile weight/ballistics performance of other Guns too.

 

If anything, on a time axis from 1935 to 1945, our Fighter planes, and the 190 too, become weaker, not stronger.

Take the 190A in its early days of october 1939 2x7.7 and 2x13mm and in its later stages of 1945 2x20,2x30  and 2x13mm. and on the D and ta152 models that changed again.

The ballistics and firepower Guys will tell us that the late armament way X times more lethal than the early armament.

So i could make the point that despite structural "changes" and few, if any major structural "upgrades via armor and material strength" that the late 190 was much more vulnerable against another late 190.

 

step by step...

and if this evolution happened with the 190, we also see it happen with any other fighter, from any involved side.

 

And therefor i would very much emphasize that the thought of PilotPants , that in a later fighter you are better protected is very very dangerous.

Armor plates and self sealing fuel tanks, okay.

But in 1945, nobody would shoot at you from close range, and using a "shotgun" style hail of 7.7 ammunition.

By 1945, the Pilots were playing in Hardcore mode, using Cannons of 20 and 30, 37 and even 45 mm.

Or, on the american side, not ONE12.7mm like the P-36 in the beginning of the war, but SIX of them on the P-40.

(not cannons, but still Heavy machine gun s that are still considered good enough today.)

 

Overall, a fighter was more fragile in 45.

not tougher. nono, very dangerous thought!

 

just my simplified way of seeing things, boiled down to my own conclusions.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[PantsPilot]

The A-8 had some extra armour added I think. But that still wouldn't protect it from a ShVAK.

 

In terms of overall 'robustness' all Fw 190s were pretty much the same, except of course for the Ds that had the added vulnerability of a liquid cooled engine.

 

It's a common misconception, that the move towards fitting fighters with increasingly powerful guns that we see in many aircraft designs from the later half of WW2 was promted by increased armour that made planes more durable and more difficult to shoot down. That is not the case.

 

The adding of more powerful armament was primarily based on two factors:

 

The requirement to effectively deal with the growing number of heavy bombers, that were increasingly well armed.

 

And most importantly:

 

The higher speeds at which air combat took place. Over the course of the war the average fighter top speed grew by about 1/3. The high speeds often left pilots with only fractions of a second on the target, and gun sights generally didn't evolve to cope with the higher speeds by providing increased precision. Therefore there was a demand for guns, that could reliably bring down a fighter with a single hit.

 

 

 

There is little doubt that as models evolved engine, armour protection/fuel tank protection and armament were the most likely upgrades, that was why we got new variant numbers basically, and even sometimes there were variations in the same model, for example the early Hurricane 1's didn't even have head armour! There were Hurricane 1's without protective armour behind the pilot in other words. That would make a heck of a difference to the survivability of each respective fighter even though on the face of it they were both the same model. Surely early Fw-190's were a lot easier to down for Spitfire V's than the later models would have been, it was like a kind of evolution in progress. It may have even come down to the quality of the armour rather than the diameter; things improve bloody quickly in times of war!  

Edited November 12, 2014 by PantsPilot

[PantsPilot]

I understand, and have followed these types of discussions in the past. They tend to get mathematical and theoretical, while i focus on the user side of things.

 

The 20mm is in general my favorite cannon (except the MG-FF for shafty fire rate and early hispanos for small ammo count) although i appreciate the fire rate and projectile weight/ballistics performance of other Guns too.

 

If anything, on a time axis from 1935 to 1945, our Fighter planes, and the 190 too, become weaker, not stronger.

Take the 190A in its early days of october 1939 2x7.7 and 2x13mm and in its later stages of 1945 2x20,2x30  and 2x13mm. and on the D and ta152 models that changed again.

The ballistics and firepower Guys will tell us that the late armament way X times more lethal than the early armament.

So i could make the point that despite structural "changes" and few, if any major structural "upgrades via armor and material strength" that the late 190 was much more vulnerable against another late 190.

 

step by step...

and if this evolution happened with the 190, we also see it happen with any other fighter, from any involved side.

 

And therefor i would very much emphasize that the thought of PilotPants , that in a later fighter you are better protected is very very dangerous.

Armor plates and self sealing fuel tanks, okay.

But in 1945, nobody would shoot at you from close range, and using a "shotgun" style hail of 7.7 ammunition.

By 1945, the Pilots were playing in Hardcore mode, using Cannons of 20 and 30, 37 and even 45 mm.

Or, on the american side, not ONE12.7mm like the P-36 in the beginning of the war, but SIX of them on the P-40.

(not cannons, but still Heavy machine gun s that are still considered good enough today.)

 

Overall, a fighter was more fragile in 45.

not tougher. nono, very dangerous thought!

 

just my simplified way of seeing things, boiled down to my own conclusions.

What you're basically trying to say is that any improvements in late war fighters armour/fuel tank protection were offset by bigger guns on the other side then?

 

I think we have to remember that the vast majority of late war fighters were actually armed with 12.7mm/.50 mg's/ 20mm cannon or a combination of both. Frontline fighters mounting bigger guns were comparatively rare. Those high calibre guns were more likely to be seen on specialist aircraft like ground attack or anti-shipping variants. Many fighters in the early war period (RAF being the obvious exception) still carried 20mm cannon and even heavy mg's too. When you think that lack of self sealing fuel tanks and pilot protection was not uncommon in the early war years then I think you have to come to the conclusion that on balance pilots were better protected in late war fighters, though not to the point of being immune obviously! One shining example being Japanese pilots; try telling them they were better protected in their early war years in their 1 shot ronson lighters.............

 

Edited November 12, 2014 by PantsPilot

[Yakdriver]

ah! i completely excluded the pacific warfare from my thoughts when i wrote that. Good point.
yea obviously... the Japs understood the evolution and provided some proper protection for their mid- to late war fighters.

 

But yea, it is my impression that improvements in armored headrests and self-sealing fuel tanks etc were offset my heavier weaponry and deadlier munition types.
Thinking of a fighter that was sturdier built in late war opposed to the earlier production series? i can not recall any significant structural upgrades introduced to any of them.

I exclude structural upgrades like the reinforcements on the Typhoon tail.

 

maybe you know a plane type that became a lot tougher to shoot down as the war went on?

 

Of course, that remains my impression- i claim  no complete knowledge.

[sturmkraehe]

"Japs" is to my understanding a derogatory term... 

 

I cannot say a word on the 190 AI but the DM seems fine to me. The only question wrt the 190 I have is if the stiffness of the elevator at high speed is correctly depicted. It quickly gets really stiff imho. I heard about stiffness issues for the 109 elevator at high speed but can't remember of a similar issue for th 190.

Edited November 12, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Willy__]

The FM and DM of the 190 is fine. That is not a problem of fm/dm, just ai problem, learn the difference before starting bashing the game on forums.

[Finkeren]

The only question wrt the 190 I have is if the stiffness of the elevator at high speed is correctly depicted. It quickly gets really stiff imho. I heard about stiffness issues for the 109 elevator at high speed but can't remember of a similar issue for th 190.

I'm not a pilot myself, but I've read accounts if the controls stiffening up in dives on so many planes from that era.

 

I actually think the Fw 190 is the only plane that is correct in this regard. In fact all the planes should have it to some extent, especially the 109.

[dkoor]

Bf-109 and especially the P-38 were ridiculous regarding elevator stiffness and compressability in IL-2 1946.

 

Something that very little of others were suffering from that extremely.

 

Not saying that they weren't prone to it, but were certainly unfairly handicapped vs rest of the old IL-2 planes.

About cannons vs aircraft issue...

 

At the risk of being boring, I cannot but to raise my eyebrows when I see a comments like 20mm cannon and ww2 fighter resilience in the same sentence...

 

I know comparisons are mostly unfair thing, but it sounds just like human belly vs steel knife to me.

 

Massive damage is the only outcome.

[Finkeren]

At the risk of being boring, I cannot but to raise my eyebrows when I see a comments like 20mm cannon and ww2 fighter resilience in the same sentence...

 

I know comparisons are mostly unfair thing, but it sounds just like human belly vs steel knife to me.

 

Massive damage is the only outcome.

If you're refering to my post, that was kind of my point. I specifically said, that the increase in firepower throughout WW2 had nothing to do with increased fighter survivability, it was mainly the increased speeds giving very short time on the target that led to a demand for weapons that would almost invariably down a fighter with one hit. 20mm autocannon will do massive damage yes, but they are not guaranteed to kill in one shot.

[Pringliano]

My biggest problem with the Fw190, and actually any of the prop singles in BOS, is looking at the AI taking the aircraft from the parking to the rw, and taking off, then leveling....

 

The prop effects are, IMHO, completely overdone, and irrealistic, on ground - accounting for the overly tricky taxiing of these aircraft - and up in the air where the flick-rolls are still plaguing the Bf109 and the Fw190, together with that wobbling effect specially when perturbing the yaw axis.

 

Either the AI is a complete mess, which I really don't think is the case, or the prop effects are overdone.

 

Just look at the hysterical use of rudder the AI is forced to do to taxi the aircraft into the rw, and this with 0m/s wind set!

 

Also, pitch trim adjustment is still too coarse, as well as aileron and rudder trim, IMO.

Edited November 13, 2014 by jcomm

[dkoor]

If you're refering to my post, that was kind of my point. I specifically said, that the increase in firepower throughout WW2 had nothing to do with increased fighter survivability, it was mainly the increased speeds giving very short time on the target that led to a demand for weapons that would almost invariably down a fighter with one hit. 20mm autocannon will do massive damage yes, but they are not guaranteed to kill in one shot.

I wasn't referring to your post, but more in general.

 

Nothing is guaranteed 100% kill, I was just saying that hitting an WW2 fighter with 20mm cannon is extreme overkill, it isn't any sort of an contest.

 

Sometimes when I read some opinions I just get the feeling that WW2 aircraft weapons weren't regarded as lethal as they should among some gamers and others.

 

There was this debate long time ago on old UBIsoft IL-2 forums, where many people, driven by the real ineffectiveness of LMG weapon in that game were derivating completely wrong conclusions regarding .50cal HMG not to mention 7,62mm... they were implying how aircraft armour actually could stop shots from dead six, ricochets etc. - I just stop reading when I saw aircraft armour, survivability and machine guns in the same sentence.

 

Sure thing some lucky guys got away from a good burst here and there and some of that armours actually worked but in all honesty people were dying like a flies up there and it just isn't fair to compare a few lottery winners to a common mortal masses.

 

Furthermore, air combat in real thing is nothing like what we do in our games.

Some things may share some resemblance but in general... no.

There is just too many more variables out there... someone real from ww2 combats once said "if you die, you will most likely die from an enemy you never saw", I stopped there and started to think just how many times that happened to me... gotta say very, very little.

I usually see E/A prior to engagement at equal or a bit better position and it is only my gaming the game air ace mentality that kicks in sometimes and I stay and fight back.

Most situations one can actually judge good, after getting some experience ofc, but here and there you will die if you really push it.

 

Else in real life I'd just flee 10/10 times if I don't have total superiority over enemy. You guys that want see your grandchildren would too, no doubt about it.

And certainly wouldn't think how your armoured glass would protect you if you run out of other options...