Jump to content
II./JG77_Manu*

Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

Recommended Posts

Folks who are more active here in the forum definitely noticed, that i am very positive towards BoS, and i don't share the same concerns like some other people (unlocks, "wobbly planes", stuff like that). I think BoS has by far the best core of all flight sims. Some may still remember my long established, (subjective of course) assessment of the WW2 sims out there. I am still pretty new to flight sims (1,5 years), so i'm still discovering new things, and not all of my opinions in this assessment are still up-to-date. My false claims are mostly corrected in the comments. For everyone who didn't read it, and is interested it is here

 

Reasons why i almost exclusively play BoS - unbiased WW2-sim ranking

 

In the subitem "Flight Models" i already confessed, that DCS has the best, and the one of BoS is let's say "not ideal", worse then DCS's and Clod TF4.312's. Well i definitely still see the same order. But my hope, that the FM's getting fixed hasn't fulfilled so far.

What has changed, is my personal emphasis, on what is important for me.

 

Now we come to the point, why i play(ed) BoS less and less lately, and play DCS (WW2) more and more. 

The more i play DCS, the more i realize, how different you have to approach a fight with different planes. Flying mostly the Dora and the Mustang in multiplayer, because the 109 is still beta-FM (let's rather say broken alpha-model). And you really have to fly them completely different. You can fly every plane to it's unique strengths, you can use the combat flaps with the Mustang, and just outturn the enemy, you can take the Dora, and outscissor or outdive a Mustang...you can fly the 190 how it is supposed to be.

 

Now to BoS.

Let's start with the 190 solely. If i fly this aircraft, it feels kinda right. Roles very fast, very stable flight, good acceleration and very stable in a dive, and you can feel the control stiffness in a dive, but you can "fight" against it and recover very good even over 800kph. Throw this one into DCS, and i think it would be a great addition with the current FM (little bit weak of course).

But then i look at the other 5 fighter planes, and they feel just ridiculous. They all role as fast as the 190 (i know, the Yak has a slightest lower role rate in game, but that really doesn't matter).La5 even roles faster, feels more like a Dassault Mirage 2000 while roling. So you can't use the role rate of the 190 at all, which was regarded by far the biggest achievement of this plane (best role rate of every fighter plane in WW2, and i am not talking about those ridiculous "sustained role" stuff, because no pilot on earth does a 1080° role before pulling the elevator). 

Every German comparison between the 109 and the 190 came to the same conclusion. The 109 (bulged one excluded) turns slightly better at low-to mid speed, but the 190 was leaps and bounds ahead the 109 in role, and was regarded the far more manoeuvrable plane, especially in the defensive you have been far better of with a 190 then a 109. In game it's the other way round. The 109 is slightly (if that) worse then the 190 in role, but hugely superior in turning...even at low alt.

There we come to the next big disappointment in the FMs. The high speed behavior of all fighters but the 190 is just ridiculous. You can dive after a 190 with a wooden Yak or Lagg (La5 anyway). First of all the 190 doesn't outpace those planes in a dive, which shouldn't be the case at all. Second of all, even worse the Russian planes can follow the dive, unharmed (when you don't do abrupt aileron inputs, and are careful), and can also pull out of that dive like the 190 (same goes for 109 of course, which is equally broken)...so you can't even use the diving capability with the 190.

HerrMurf, who exclusively flies the 190 tends to say "it (the plane) feels alright". I definitely agree. But those 5 others don't feel alright, and so the advantages the 190 had historically mean nothing.

That's sad. If the game would not model control forces, and every plane would "over-role" to the same extent, it would be kinda okay. A little arcady, but in the balance. But making one plane right, and don't model the same properties at all the other planes which means taking away the weaknesses of the other planes completely destroys the balance.

As different as the planes feel, when you fly them - you can fly them all in the same manner. Doesn't matter if you fly the Yak or the Lagg, flying high, diving down on enemy planes with 700+kph, and zooming up again, all no problem. The game doesn't force you at all to fly the planes to their unique (historical) strenghts. It feels a little bit like War Thunder Plus, to be honest, where the only two attributes that count are climb rate and turning speed. But there are so many more attributes, that were important to a fighter... in DCS i can feel that, in BoS not so much (DCS has also no control forces, but there at least no plane has it).

 

That is the reason, i fly much more DCS right now, or other Sims. One could say now "it was like this from the beginning (or even worse), why do you realize it only now?" The reason is, that i read a lot of stuff over the past year about WW2, aerial warfare, planes...single plane types, more and more in depth. And the more i read, the more i realized, how wrong the stuff feels, which i explained above. The proverb "Ignorance is bliss" fits perfect here, i guess..

 

Beside that i still think BoS is by far the best Sim. But next to the absolute basic properties the (historical plausibility of) FMs are by far the most important in a Sim, in my opinion. Otherwise you could also import the planes from Crimson Skies. The Devs prove with the 190, that they are capable of modeling stuff right, even control forces are done superbly at this plane. Now it's their turn to adjust all the other planes...

Until then it's mainly DCS for me i guess, where i can fly my 190 properly...

[This is no further "the 190 is broken"-thread. Rather a "The other fighters are missing some things"-thread...]

Edited by Celestiale
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... "Flight Models" ...

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

Pretty sure he is pointing out that the 190 does not have the historical advantages it had against other bos aircraft.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

 

I expect that they behave like all the historical sources say. And while i don't have to much sources about russian planes, i haven't read a single time about good roling capabilities from russian fighters. Apart that, there are a hundred german comparisons, between the 109 and 190, so its not "how i expect it", it's how it was tested in real life, it's a matter of fact

"Strangely" the FMs in DCS behave like "i expect it to"

Edited by Celestiale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 the 190 is definately far from being the plane one expects. (And on this every simmer i personally know agrees with).

It has only 2 good things. Firepower and levelspeed in certain heights.

Everything else is practically total crap as is.

Edited by VSG1_Winger
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 the 190 is definately far from being the plane one expects. (And on this every simmer i personally know agrees with).

It has only 2 good things. Firepower and levelspeed in certain heights.

Everything else is practically total crap as is.

 

That's not exactly what Celestiale said.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree about the "wooden wings" problem with a diving FW-190..... That's true and ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehm. The 190 sucks compared. Thats what he said. And on that i agree.

The "+1" was misplaced I admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

I'll answer on behalf of Celestiale.

 

A: Because it's you who wants us to buy your products.

 

You may want to finally get grasp of this simple rule. If you disagree with someone find an appropriate way to reply. I'm not going to argue about roll rates and diving capabilities. I'm not here to collect the data. But I'm always amazed by how you 777 devs answer.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I always said... it's the other planes mainly (of course the 190 has it's own bugs - argueably slightly too high elevator pressure forces at high speed and non linear throttle above 1.2 ata and physically terrible implemented ground handling with unlocked tailwheel).

 

Personally my first and most important expectation on a modern flight sim is Flight Models. Simply because I want to feel the planes I'm flying, adopt to their characteristics and to get into them for best tactical use in combat. In BoS planes indeed have their own character but their differences are more technicly than aerodynamicly relevant. That's pretty sad and in some cases (example: 109 G vs Yak climb rate, Fw 190 vs La-5 roll rate) simply wrong.

 

Unfortunately it doesnt seem bug reports about Fms are being taken serious so I just lef it after repeating at least 5 reports over and over again. Maybe this changes in 2015 and we'll hopefully see improved FMs for all planes ingame during the year.

 

Again, dynamic weather simulation in BoS is great and untouched, but FMs are not compareable to other modern sims.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure he is pointing out that the 190 does not have the historical advantages it had against other bos aircraft.

+1

 

You cannot use the 190 to its full extent IMO.

 

IE high speed turning, the sudden departure from flight in a tight turn is correct IMO and as accounts by pilots who have flown the 190.

 

However the sudden departure is  just too severe, IE a spin is like slipping on a banana peel at only a 1/4 pull on the stick where as accounts read say it is more likely at 3/4 deflection.

 

I'm happy with most of the FM in BOS but this seems bye these accounts read,  to be too severe.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer on behalf of Celestiale.

A: Because it's you who wants us to buy your products.

You may want to finally get grasp of this simple rule. If you disagree with someone find an appropriate way to reply. I'm not going to argue about roll rates and diving capabilities. I'm not here to collect the data. But I'm always amazed by how you 777 devs answer.

I haven't said a word about buying anything.

I'm asking because maybe there's anyone here on the forum who knows about planes more than our engineers - this question I find absolutely appropriate. Also the only appropriate way to object against the FM in BOS is to provide actual documents and calculations.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure if BOS Fw 190 is right now.

 

I think it has some problems which shouldnt has or rather not in such degree:

 

- trim -   Fw 190 was known as a plane which dont need trim in wide speed range.  The same like initial dive and pull out of dive.  In BOS Fw 190 to fly effective and corretly need constantly changing trim.   RL German test proved that reversal trim in dive didn't happend below 0.7 Mach - at these speed pilot at constant trim settings +2 deg start to pull stick to keep dive angle.  In BOS it happend much earlier.     Also BOS Fw 190 A-3 got wrong trim settings -    "0" postion in guage IRL mean +2 deg of horizontal stabilizer.  In BOS "0" mean 0 degree.

 

For comparsion all other planes in BOS  ( Yak, 109 or Lagg)  dont need change trim in wide speed range.  It should be opposite.

 

-  climb rate -  A-3 in BOS dont have any benefis in climb rate due to cold air.  All planes got better climb rates in winter condtions  but Fw 190 A-3 got the same climb rate like in ISA ( standart wheather conditions).

 

-  prone to spin   -   actually A-3 crazy with spins. It want to spin in every occasion.  I think before 1.08 update it was not so creazy.  A-3 was also prone to spin but it was not overdone. 

 

For comparision Lagg 3  ( which was known from nasty spin characterstic) was suprisely changed in spin charactersitic.  Now is more like Yak-1.  Before was more prone to spin.  It was possible to make nice flick rolls -  now it make it not likely.    I dunno why it was change?

 

Of course roll rates planes like La5 and Lagg-3 is very suspect in BOS. Both planes was known from slugish controls moreover LA5 got even heavy force stick on lateraly axis.  It was not changed before LA5 F version - which got improved controls.

 

As i remember Yak-1 and 109 was in Early Acces corrected in roll rate but for some reason  La5 and Lagg3 stayed not touched.   For remember all planes in Early Acces rolled too good.

 

Russian planes got also very doubt maximum dive speed.   In Russian manulas these speeds were very restricted -   LAgg -3  600 IAS kph ,  LA-5 -  625 IAS,  Yak-1 650 IAS.  Lagg3 had the biggest problems - pilots reported heavy vibration at speeds 600 kph IAS.  I doubt that in 1942 Lagg3 could dive with speed 750 IAS like now in BOS. 

 

All German planes also was too slow at high alts. 109 G-2 is the most hurted plane - both at low level but also at high alts.

 

So Celestiale has some right but i dont think that Fw 190 A-3 in BOS is actually right.

 

 

 

BTW as a real life pilot i think that the best modeled plane in BOS is actually Yak-1.   Maby dive speed is little to high but i like other things, handlings, stall and spins characterstic and i think its performacne is quite accurate done.  I think it is the best modeled prop plane in any sims i have played.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehm. The 190 sucks compared. Thats what he said. And on that i agree.

The "+1" was misplaced I admit.

 

 

No he didnt say that, he said the FM on the 190 was modelled somewhat correct and all the other aircraft's FM's are historically inaccurate. Something I completely agree with, it almost feels like they all have 1 FM they all share.

I never play the game anymore, I havent since long before Christmas. For me its this subject but also that the gameplay feels bland and the environment empty.

 

 

I'll answer on behalf of Celestiale.

 

A: Because it's you who wants us to buy your products.

 

You may want to finally get grasp of this simple rule. If you disagree with someone find an appropriate way to reply. I'm not going to argue about roll rates and diving capabilities. I'm not here to collect the data. But I'm always amazed by how you 777 devs answer.

 

+1

 

Zak if you had meant :

 

"I'm asking because maybe there's anyone here on the forum who knows about planes more than our engineers", why didnt you say that?

 

What you said was:

 

"One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?"

 

Maybe I'm reading into it but to me that seems like a bad attitude creeping through in your comment.

 

For the record, I dont feel the OP deserved that type of response, he was polite and respectful, wrote a detailed argument for why he feels the way he does, and you responded with what seems to be unwarranted bad emotions towards him.

All the more reason why I personally wont buy anymore from your company as this isnt the first time ive seen this type of rude attitude to paying customers.

Edited by BigPickle
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the same story again, again, again, endless ........ :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes: :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :dry:  :dry:  :dry:  :dry:  :dry:  :dry:  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't said a word about buying anything.

I'm asking because maybe there's anyone here on the forum who knows about planes more than our engineers - this question I find absolutely appropriate. Also the only appropriate way to object against the FM in BOS is to provide actual documents and calculations.

i think if your engineers don't know that a 190 roles much faster then a 109, then over 80% in this forum know more about planes then your engineers.

To those documents and calculations. Did that before. There's always gonna be an alibi, like "the role rate in this test is sustained and not instantaneous", and "those sources are just anecdotal, we only take hard data" and "the cold air buffs this engine so much, but this engine not so much". You can manipulate sources like you want it to be, newspapers do this, companies do this, even whole nations do this. I am done providing data. If you can't get your FMs right without the community, and are reluctant towards any data provided by the community, never admitting that anything in this game could possibly be wrong - i still remember Han saying the 190 is "100% alright, like it is supposed to be" back then when it was really badly broken. After really many data from different people it got fixed to a certain extent, but of course it was "perfect" before.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zak if you had meant :

"I'm asking because maybe there's anyone here on the forum who knows about planes more than our engineers", why didnt you say that?

What you said was:

"One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?"

Maybe I'm reading into it but to me that seems like a bad attitude creeping through in your comment.

Okay, thanks for explaining, and I'm sincerely sorry if I seemed rude I didn't mean to be at all.

Still the questions stays. Having emotions about some plane's behavior is just not enough for a bug report. I personally don't like La-5, but I'm not saying it is wrong cause I got nothing to prove that with. That's what I mean by asking about player's expectations.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zak you may want to start with citing your sources. You do not have to publish the sources. But citing sources is a good way to start (or end) the discussion. I find the argument "who knows better than our engineers?" blunt. No one is arguing about your engineers. We all here understand they are very good if not the best in the world. So why do you keep silence about the sources. Why don't you publish detailed change logs? There is no way to stop FM debates. It's a hot topic and it'll stay hot. But that doesn't mean you shall keep the performance goals secret. We can observe the outcome anyways. In my eyes you fail in this kind of openess. I also believe that most of us would understand if you said that the planes received some boost to be competitive. So to make it short. You shall never ask your custommers in the way you did (and Celestiale is a loyal one). If you feel like answering try to say something like "We did this, we simulated that, we have this data, we have estimated something we have no sources for .... our conclusion is what you see in the game".

BTW we are here because we love the game.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure I´m not an ace, but I disagree with Celestiale about the comparison between 109 and 190 role rate.

 

In my experience the 190 roles much faster than 109, I mean in BoS.

 

Just a humble opinion.

 

I have nothing to say about russian planes, because I flight them seldom.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zak you may want to start with citing your sources. You do not have to publish the sources. But citing sources is a good way to start (or end) the discussion. I find the argument "who knows better than our engineers?" blunt. No one is arguing about your engineers. We all here understand they are very good if not the best in the world. So why do you keep silence about the sources. Why don't you publish detailed change logs? There is no way to stop FM debates. It's a hot topic and it'll stay hot. But that doesn't mean you shall keep the performance goals secret. We can observe the outcome anyways. In my eyes you fail in this kind of openess. I also believe that most of us would understand if you said that the planes received some boost to be competitive. So to make it short. You shall never ask your custommers in the way you did (and Celestiale is a loyal one). If you feel like answering try to say something like "We did this, we simulated that, we have this data, we have estimated something we have no sources for .... our conclusion is what you see in the game".

BTW we are here because we love the game.

 

Yea well said.

 

You want suorces from community but you know that there is lack of source about Russian planes expecially about roll rates ( there are some Russian pilots reports or opinion).  Han said that 777 dont have also detailed suorce for some planes e.x. La5 roll rate   and it need to be calcuted from later series ( LA5 F). Most known here that La5 F got much better control response that LA5 or Lagg3 casue it got many improvement in these area. But looking at La5 or Lagg3 roll rate in BOS it actually feel like it was improved controls from LA5 F?

 

From all pilots reports it is known that Yak-1 had the best control harmony comparing to LAgg3 or La5 in 1942. It was changed later in the war but not until 1943. Looking from original Russian manuals Yak-1 got also the maximum safe dive speed comparing to Lagg3 and La5.   How it is modeled in BOS we actually all know.

 

I think in such key debates about flight model 777 could put some RL data about Russian planes - e.x. max dive speeds or roll rates Lagg3 or La5 to end these neverending debates.

 

Regarding German planes i think community put a lot good historical data here ( German test, charts etc.)    Why You could do the same to make some things clear for all?

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Celestiale has some right but i dont think that Fw 190 A-3 in BOS is actually right.

 

+1

 

My evidence is anecdotal as read from experienced pilots such as Eric Brown at test pilot of extreme experience on many different types.

I am not sure if it still stands at time of writing but he holds the record of flying the most types of aircraft anywhere.

 

If you are familiar with his accounts of the 190 he rates it as in his top three aircraft of WWII. 

He mentions the wing tip stall, spin, sudden departure as easy to avoid when wing buffet is felt and only occurs at near or at maximum deflection of the elevator.

 

I think some people see these comments about the 190 as a severe criticism, as I have said many times on many different forums concerning the FM , in particular the 190 it just needs a tweak, it is not broken IMO.

 

I know that the 190 FM is a contentious subject in this game and will probably never be approved by all.

I only go by what pilots who have actually flown this aircraft and how it feels in comparison to their descriptions.

 

On that note the severe spin characteristics are wrong by his recollections.

 

I hold a pilots licence IRL, I have never flown or likely to fly a 190 I just go by what feels right by what pilots say about said aircraft who actually flew it.

 

To close I think everything has been said on this subject by many peoples on this thread and many other threads.

It would be a shame if the 190 was left as is and I couldn't give it a full recommendation for it, If I was asked.

 

I probably will no comment any further on the 190 FM, I just hope for a tweak.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys,

I cant follow the sense of the FM discussion at this point tbh.

First, Han gave the chance to start claims with correct data sheets, just fair imho.

Second, the FM are far from not being belivable. Only coz you know several different games/sims in which u think the FM was done better or is more to your liking, it doesent mean sth is incorrect, however point one keeps valid over all.

At the end the game needs much more attention at other belongs than the FM.

It is not the FM which prevents the communoity to create content or establish squadron live.

 

In a more neutral pov, which I think I got after leaving things besides since months, I got the opinion that they did a fairly great job, presenting a WW2 combat sim within 2 years without major bugs. I am pretty sure one or another dev would had wished another third year to develop but money rules the buisness I guess.

 

For such a small team ,in such a short time, they did a honorable job.

Some decfisions were not of my favour, but I am not the middle of everything however,.... although I should of course.

Edited by 1./JG42Nephris
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also bugs not requiring a proof ( or are even unproofable with real refferences). I know of sby PM a dev about the G-2's non linear throttle bug and the answer to him the (openly admitted) G-2'S non linear throttle was known, fine and not planed to change.

 

Or the ground behaviour of the 190 with unlocked tailwheel...how do you proofe it? Is their a document recording the N needed to push it into a full groundspin like it always happens in BoS once it's unlocked? At least I know about none.

 

Another point is that players, unlike devs, take those FMs into combat practise for houndrets of hours and can extensively test stall behaviour, aerodynamics and performance. It's not bad to have a FM with issues after all as long as it's open for fixes as players report issues.

 

So there definetly are cases where player's impressions of FMs are important. Even more if they read alot bout specific planes and pilot reports to learn more about their handling. I hope BoS reaches his kind of openness for player feedback some day so we can see more improvements in that area.

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always reporting about such serious suggestion threads like the one about FW 190, and I know that the right guys have read it. If any action is taken due to the forum discussion, I'll let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So there definetly are cases where player's impressions of FMs are important. Even more if they read alot bout specific planes and pilot reports to learn more about their handling. I hope BoS reaches his kind of openness for player feedback some day so we can see more improvements in that area.

+1

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always reporting about such serious suggestion threads like the one about FW 190, and I know that the right guys have read it. If any action is taken due to the forum discussion, I'll let you know.

Thanks Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so certain that your flight models are infallible?

Well, I see men here who write endless formulas and dig through kilograms of scanned documents to create these FMs. The same people made some FMs for DCS, and for ROF, of course, which is another reason for me to trust in their skill. I also knew people who worked at FMs for old IL-2 games and for War Thunder - and this is one more reason for me to trust our engineers here.

And I don't see people of comparable skill here on the forum posting their calculations about FMs. Maybe they are not talking much. Maybe I don't know them but I'm definitely not stopping anyone from expressing their point of view. Still, if one wants an FM element changed, such change needs to be properly explained - like it has been done in the Han's FM revision thread. He's always ready to listen to anyone who comes not emptyhanded.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always reporting about such serious suggestion threads like the one about FW 190, and I know that the right guys have read it. If any action is taken due to the forum discussion, I'll let you know.

Thank you very much Zak for the response, I think this is exactly the communication that so many people are craving. That is a completely honest answer that addresses a key issue being actively discussed on the forum. It can give many people hope that what is being discussed here is being taken seriously and could potentially be used to further improve the game. Despite how many people conduct themselves, I believe most people who post here have a common goal of wanting to see the game succeed and continue to improve. It is great to know that information and feedback presented in the forum can reach the people making the decisions about the future of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of words about the Fw 190 topic which we've mention here. It is good, but enough yet. I know that discussion help to find out the truth. But is it completely applicable to maths? So what I suggest is that it should become a tradition to make bug reports. That's the form that the development manager can use to set a task for deep investigation - of an FM for instance. Assemble a bug report, make sure it has been noted, wait for feedback. AND PMing to Han is okay, he loves to repeat that.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I belive zak and the developers.

If you doubt the FM,  SHOW the Data you have. 

We cannot say it is wrong just because it cannot fly as we expect.

Edited by 4pg_inferno
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After months of absence from these forums, it seems nothing has really changed. That good ole' 190 FM thread will simply never die...

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14031-does-anyone-have-clue-fw-190-performance-again/?hl=%20fw190%20%20flight%20%20model

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9828-will-sims-flight-model-ever-be-good-enough-motivate-bying-it/?hl=%2Bfw190+%2Bflight+%2Bmodel&do=findComment&comment=152239

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11831-fw-190-whats-verdict/page-3?hl=%2Bfw190+%2Bflight+%2Bmodel&do=findComment&comment=184918

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11185-my-biggest-concern-fw190-a3/page-6?hl=%2Bfw190+%2Bflight+%2Bmodel&do=findComment&comment=178818

 

I did read Celestiale's post carefully. As an aerospace engineer I always say the same thing: if you want to talk about FM, bring cold, hard, factual evidence. Bring data. Bring numbers. Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion, which is worthless in the merciless world of aircraft performance. Saying things like "The 109 (bulged one excluded) turns slightly better at low-to mid speed, but the 190 was leaps and bounds" is meaningless unless you come up with your airspeed, altitude, AoA, banking angle and turn rates. Define "low speed". Define "mid-speed". Define "leaps and bounds".

 

If you guys recall correctly Han was perfectly open to fix the 190 FM as long as people brought data to support their claims. There was only 1 (or 2) guys who came up with actual numbers. Do your math, make charts and compare the in-game data with official performance test data. THEN you'll be able to have a meaningful, intelligent, technical discussion. Otherwise it's just another thread about "I think you do not know how to do your job properly, and I think you should re-check all your code because I think it's fun."

 

Sorry for the small rant, but I really had to get this off my chest.

Edited by 71st_AH_Chuck
  • Upvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I belive zak and the developers.

If you doubt the FM,  SHOW the Data you have. 

We cannot say it is wrong just because it cannot fly as we expect.

 

What if we don't have any data about LaGG-3 and La-5 roll rate, for example..?

 

We ask them to show us their data since a while, but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow iam proud about all inhere, as i read the first post i thought that might turn into a mess like most of the time. But everybody was nice and fair. Thats how it should be!  A more procedural approach is always better, applied to all claims about improvements and changes. The more operational the better it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bug:   Density Altitude in the game are acting like Density Altitude effects on Indicated Altitude instead of how Density effects the airplane.

 

In this Post Han makes the following statement.

 

 

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.

 

http://forum.il2stur...spond/?p=179346

 

While Density Altitude effects on Indicated Altitude will make Indicated altitude read lower than true altitude, the airplane only sees density.  Flight tested performance is gathered and evaluated at pressure altitude.

 

Our atmospheric pressure in the game is 760mmHg therefore Indicated Altitude = Pressure altitude and we can evaluate aircraft performance properly.

 

Pressure altitude is standard because 760mmHg = 29.92 inches of Mercury 

 

Therefore, Pressure ratio or delta = 29.92/29.92 = 1

 

Temperature is 30 degree lower than standard; Temperature = -15C = 5F

 

(5 deg F + 460) deg R/ (460 +59 deg F) deg R =  465 deg R / 519 deg R = Temperature ratio or theta .895954

 

sigma or density ratio = delta / theta =  1/.895954 = 1.1161

 

Now let's use the Density Altitude Formula to figure out our Density Altitude in the Game.

 

 

Density Altitude = [288.16*(1.1161)^1/4.2561-288.16]/-.0019812 = -3803.44 feet

 

So, when your airplane is setting on the runway at sea level it thinks and acts like it is 3803.44 feet  or 1159.288 meters below sea level.

 

FW190A3 Speed under the games atmosphere should be: 565kph = 305Knots SMOE = 1/SQRT Density Ratio = 1/SQRT 1.1161 = .946561 TAS = EAS at sea level = 305 KTAS = 305KEAS EAS * SMOE = TAS at altitude 305KEAS * .946561 SMOE at -3803.44 feet = 288.7KTAS = 534.57kph TAS

 

1.      Currently it appears that at low altitude, True Airspeed is faster than Indicated Airspeed.  On a cold day, a pilot is happy looking at IAS but sad when he sees the ground speed on a winds calm day.  Ground speed = TAS + Wind Velocity

 

2.      At high altitude, the airspeeds tested agree with standard curves at a lower pressure altitude than standard pointing to the atmosphere being less dense than a standard day.

 

3.      The engine just like the airplane only reacts and feels density altitude.  Critical Altitude in an engine is a density altitude not a pressure altitude.

 

a.      If the supercharger on a standard day changes gear at 2600m then your airplane must climb 1159.288 meters higher in the games atmosphere to reach the same conditions.  In other words, it should change supercharger gear at (2600 meters + 1159.288 meters) = 3759.29 meters True Altitude under the games atmospheric conditions when the density altitude equals the same conditions on a standard day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is Han has been PMed about the non linear throttle of the G-2 for example. There are no numbers, calculation whatsoever backign this claim up since this issue has not even existed in reality. Hes said it's confirmed and fine, no changes planed. That's those issues I feel need to be more taken into account moer seriously.

 

I also was involved in FM buisness for some time and have a pretty decent insght in what those guys have to accomplish. It's great work and the results are highly respectable, although some things need adjustments.

 

I'll take your word, Zak, and probably PM Han some reports. There is quite a few stuff worth fixing that doesn't require knowledge of an aeronautic engineer or weeks of digging into data but common physical knowledge.

 

Here are some of mine: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=191179

 

Btw, If anybody knows where to get airfoil data on russian planes (especially Yak-1) I'd be thankfull if he could link it.

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...