Fw 190A-3 climb rate

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Still nothing?

 

I've never put as much effort into a report, not only about climb rate, but also for roll inertia.

 

You want to know the reply that Han gave me today ?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18007-did-yak-1-really-perform/?p=284568

 

Still waiting for another reply, and if there's nothing new, i leave this "sim".

 

Do not expect that the situation in online improves in the coming years, that's all i can say.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Sunde]

Thats just shameful.   
Thank you for the effort Hairy.

[Reflected]

Yeah, Hairy, thanks a lot for putting so much effort into trying to make OUR sim better.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

"Han has left the conversation"

 

Ahem...

 

You may be see me ingame for a short time when summer/fall maps will be released, but my vision of BoS as being my "principal" sim for years because of its great potential, has disappear, for sure.

 

Thanks for your support guys, and have a nice day.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

"Han has left the conversation"

 

-snip-

 

Wow...

[TheNotoriousFNG]

"Han has left the conversation"

 

Ahem...

 

You may be see me ingame for a short time when summer/fall maps will be released, but my vision of BoS as being my "principal" sim for years because of its great potential, has disappear, for sure.

 

Thanks for your supports guys, and have a nice day.

 

I'm mostly a lurker on these forums, but I wanted to say don't get too discouraged. I have little time to fly BoS these days and haven't spent a lot of time with the FW190, so I can't comment on it but I appreciate those who do spend the time and have the passion to pursue issues such as these. As frustrating as it can be for your data to seemingly be ignored, it's not the end. The devs are very busy these days and would like to believe they haven't completely ignored your inputs...hopefully they'll investigate and we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

 

I can say it took quite a while for FMs in RoF to finally be, more or less, corrected but that didn't take that much away from the sim - like I've said in threads before, we really are like the fighter pilots of these eras as we have to fly the our aircraft to its strengths while exploiting those weaknesses of our opponents, even if those strengths don't seem to be consistent with reality.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I'm mostly a lurker on these forums, but I wanted to say don't get too discouraged. I have little time to fly BoS these days and haven't spent a lot of time with the FW190, so I can't comment on it but I appreciate those who do spend the time and have the passion to pursue issues such as these. As frustrating as it can be for your data to seemingly be ignored, it's not the end. The devs are very busy these days and would like to believe they haven't completely ignored your inputs...hopefully they'll investigate and we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

 

I can say it took quite a while for FMs in RoF to finally be, more or less, corrected but that didn't take that much away from the sim - like I've said in threads before, we really are like the fighter pilots of these eras as we have to fly the our aircraft to its strengths while exploiting those weaknesses of our opponents, even if those strengths don't seem to be consistent with reality.

 

Only problem there is that Han told him his data is wrong (likely not citing any sources or methods for determining the "inaccuracy" of Hairy's data) and then closed any further opportunity for discussing the matter.

 

Definitely not the first time... Very, very unlikely to be the last.

 

It's those kinds of things that really sour the experience... Not only for myself but for the guys like Hairy that are testing, researching and reporting...

Edited September 16, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[TheNotoriousFNG]

Only problem there is that Han told him his data is wrong (likely not citing any sources or methods for determining the "inaccuracy" of Hairy's data) and then closed any further opportunity for discussing the matter.

 

Definitely not the first time... Very, very unlikely to be the last.

 

It's those kinds of things that really sour the experience... Not only for myself but for the guys like Hairy that are testing, researching and reporting...

 

That would be quite discouraging. Is there any chance that something is perhaps "lost in translation"? I can understand the devs not wanting to be dealing with constant "unscientific" testing, but one would hope enough complaints/concerns leveled would cause them to investigate the issue.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

That would be quite discouraging. Is there any chance that something is perhaps "lost in translation"? I can understand the devs not wanting to be dealing with constant "unscientific" testing, but one would hope enough complaints/concerns leveled would cause them to investigate the issue.

 

Or... "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

 

I'm over it. Like I said, it isn't Han's first time ignoring new data or pretentiously explaining it away... And it is unlikely to be the last.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[NachtJaeger110]

Ze_Hairy, would you consider positing your report on the forum as you sent it to the devs?

I am very interested to read everything in a well worded manner

 

Thank you very much for your effort

Edited September 16, 2015 by NachtJaeger110

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ze_Hairy, would you consider positing your report on the forum as you sent it to the devs?

I am very interested to read everything in a well worded manner

 

Thank you very much for your effort

 

I add you in the conversation.

[JG4_dingsda]

Thanks for your support guys, and have a nice day.

 

Thank you for your efforts.

 

I'm over it. Like I said, it isn't Han's first time ignoring new data or pretentiously explaining it away... And it is unlikely to be the last.

 

... and seemingly everytime it comes with a loss attached to it.

Edited September 16, 2015 by JG4_dingsda

[Art]

Hm I am so sad. We just want better game.. and developers not appreciate.
Ze_Hairy Did you send Han a message ?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ze_Hairy Did you send Han a message ?

 

You mean opening another PM conversation to try to convince him ?

 

If so... nope.

 

I just lost all hope for this sim, today.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Matt]

Han also pretty much said that before the extreme speed loss when switching to second gear got changed (not fixed, but substantially reduced) in the next update.

 

So there's still hope.

 

What climb times did you have in cold conditions? I noticed that using slower than usual climb speeds (~260 km/h) works better in BoS.

[Willy__]

 

 

What climb times did you have in cold conditions? I noticed that using slower than usual climb speeds (~260 km/h) works better in BoS.

 

That does not work when you have a Yak on your six....   

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Han also pretty much said that before the extreme speed loss when switching to second gear got changed (not fixed, but substantially reduced) in the next update.

 

So there's still hope.

 

What climb times did you have in cold conditions? I noticed that using slower than usual climb speeds (~260 km/h) works better in BoS.

Optimal climb speed of the Fw 190 is 260-270km/h per book so you are quite right, it should have it's best climb rate at that speed.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Optimal climb speed of the Fw 190 is 260-270km/h per book so you are quite right, it should have it's best climb rate at that speed.

 

Yes but it doesn't out climb the Yak at those speeds, a high speed climb at 450ish works a treat though

[Wombat]

Only invested in this game for the FW190 so I haven't wanted to play for months and won't invest more until the FW190 gets some attention.  Thanks for you work Hairy.

[Dakpilot]

Not really surprising  that Devs don't like to interact with people when the precedent is for the  PM's get posted in open forums....Am I the only one who see's that as rather bad form?

 

Surely it would have been better to have posted the report, methods and details for others to see in the FM forum? send secret report and complain publicly when it is rejected? I am not saying your report was wrong, but who knows

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Bert_Foster]

Hairy please put your report up here in the forum so we can all appreciate it

[Bearcat]

I have pruned this thread. Let's keep it on track gentlemen.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

1. Climb rate above 1200m in winter conditions

 

In winter BoS -15°C, the manifold pressure of Fw 190 starts to drop at ~1200m, and above that altitude, the plane underperforms in climb rate, here's a edited quote from an old discussion:

 

"The 190 climb rate is indeed very accurate at all altitudes in ISA conditions (error of 2-3% only).

 

In winter -15°C however, the plane got the same cold boost of +~4m/s as the others planes, but only at the first supercharger speed level (below ~1200m).

 

For example, between 3000 and 4000m, the plane gets a boost of about +1,5m/s only, while all other planes keep their +4m/s at all altitudes.

 

Above ~1200m (when manifold pressure starts to drop, in winter), the plane starts to massively underperform for mysterious reasons."

 

I wonder how it will be in summer...

 

 

2. Roll inertia

 

Notice that i'm not talking about roll rate, but about roll inertia, you know, the thing that is important in aerial combat, the thing that will allow you to start a maneuver quickly, or to change direction during a maneuver !

 

First, look at this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZqjnT_ifwE

 

 

We can see that the roll rate is about the same in both sim, but the roll inertia is MUCH more pronounced in BoS, and since it is especially in the right side that it is noticeable, i made this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lw42-fLtZA

 

 

To show that engine torque "influence" is not an option, sadly.

 

Now let's compare our 190's roll ability with real pilots experiences...

 

 

 

Spitfire Mk.V vs Fw 190A:

 

"When the FW-190 was in a turn and attacked by the Spitfire the superior rate of roll allowed it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction.  The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this maneuver and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the deflection. A dive from this maneuver allowed the Focke Wulf to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack."

 

Here's a comment made by Eric Brown during his test observations of the Fw 190, from "Fw 190 in Combat" by Alfred Price:

 

"Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made."

 

Now, a quote from "Focke-Wulf Fw 190A. An illustrated history of the Luftwaffe's legendary fighter aircraft" by Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz and Eberhald Weber:

 

 

 

And from "Flying to the Limit" by Peter Caygill, page 109:

 

"In terms of manoeuverability, the Fw 190 was superior in all respects, except that of turning circles. However, when it was attacked, even this deficiency could be overcome to an extent by using the Fw 190's better rate of roll. Its large ailerons allowed very quick turn reversals that a Spitfire had great difficulty in following and if this was followed by a dive, the Focke-Wulf's excellent acceleration often allowed it to increase range to the point where the Spitfire was forced to break off."

 

From "Le Fana de l'Aviation hors-série n°54", page 74

 

 

 

Also, this interesting post, from bivalov: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2786-obrashenie-jaws2002-fw-190-high-speed-handling/?p=329102

 

.....

 

Oh, btw, just two things, for those guys who will say "but most of these tests are comparison against Spitfire... russian planes were better roller !"...

 

1. LaGG-3 and La-5 roll rate are overperforming, and not a little... but i left this to the russian community, as i said, because they can read russian.

 

2. Yak-1 was not far better roller than Spitfire, as some people would think... but it was definitely stronger than La-5 s.8 and our LaGG-3 in this domain.

 

One more thing... this report was not a way to say to devs "FIX THIS", but more like "Is this enough to push you to check ?", what they haven't even done, of course.

[MK_RED13]

Ze_Hairy... thank you for your fenomenal work!!!

[Maxyman]

The report doesn’t analyse and compare the following subjects:

1. The reference and BoS test objects (Fw-190A3).

2. The reference and BoS test methods. E.g., how were control stick forces measured?

 

The numbers in the claim are relative, no absolute values are presented. If the report is just an enquiry, the overall flame around it is a bit harsh.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

The numbers in the claim are relative, no absolute values are presented.

 

Because the report that devs have used to fix high speed handling back in March was about values, maybe ?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2786-obrashenie-jaws2002-fw-190-high-speed-handling/

 

References only, as mine.

 

When Eric Brown say "It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made.", and you see that ingame the plane does it WORSE than all others because of this unbelievable inertia, it's enough to push to check the FM.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Do other aircraft experience the same amount of inertia when reversing rolls?

Edited September 18, 2015 by JG5_Emil

[Maxyman]

Because the report that devs have used to fix high speed handling back in March was about values, maybe ?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2786-obrashenie-jaws2002-fw-190-high-speed-handling/

 

References only, as mine.

 

When Eric Brown say "It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made.", and you see that ingame the plane does it WORSE than all others because of this unbelievable inertia, it's enough to push to check the FM.

Jaws2002 proved the FM incorrect:

• In game: “Elevators are not responding at 600kmh”
• Reference: “Elevators are still responding at 934kmh”

Your case is much more complicated. How to convert incredible speed to rad/s? What's the actual value?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

• In game: “Elevators are not responding at 600kmh”
• Reference: “Elevators are still responding at 934kmh”

 

Wow... So devs have fixed high speed handling only according to an "Reference: "Elevators are still responding at 934km/h" ?

 

Elevators WERE responding above 600km/h, but RIDICULOUSLY, and as being opposed to all references.

 

Here, in BoS, the roll rate/inertia is ridiculous and opposed to all references that talk about combat advantages, how quickly the plane could change direction.

 

Stops playing the sword of 1CGS Maxyman, you already lost your credibility by calling me a biased "Western" person in Russian forum, because you fear to see this plane fixed, and you failed.

[Maxyman]

 

Wow... So devs have fixed high speed handling only according to an "Reference: "Elevators are still responding at 934km/h" ?

 

Elevators WERE responding above 600km/h, but RIDICULOUSLY, and as being opposed to all references.

 

Here, in BoS, the roll rate/inertia is ridiculous and opposed to all references that talk about combat advantages, how quickly the plane could change direction.

 

Stops playing the sword of 1CGS Maxyman, you already lost your credibility by calling me a biased "Western" person in Russian forum, because you fear to see this plane fixed, and you failed.

 

Personal insults again instead of discussing the subject.

[LLv24_Zami]

Maxyman, did you really call him a biased western?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zami

[Maxyman]

Maxyman, did you really call him a biased western?

I called one of Ze_Hairy's posts biased - http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17974-la-5-vs-fw-190a-3-roll-rate-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=282779

I'd avoid discussing personalities here.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I see no bias in the post you linked. Stick forces are irrelevant as they can't be measured (only by devs who can read their FM data) by testers.

 

Also he said he made a "look, this might be wrong" and not a "this is broken fix it!" post, which does not ultimately require lots of data but a plausible demonstration of the issue.

 

Assuming he only used ailerouns for the roll test conditions seem obvious. No need to explain a lot there either.

[LLv24_Zami]

Well made report Ze_Hairy!

 

I think you have a point there. Devs should check and double check those issues and give some feedback other than just saying `you are wrong`.

[NachtJaeger110]

Well made report Ze_Hairy!

 

I think you have a point there. Devs should check and double check those issues and give some feedback other than just saying `you are wrong`.

Sry but it is just not the complete truth that Han just replied with "you are wrong". He gave a lot of interesting info (at least for me) and he was polite.

 

The following is what Han replied to Ze_Hairys report:

 

 

You leave in free country where democracy is very high. So you're free to do anything that you sure is right.

 

We don't tune winter performance, we don't tune roll inertia. Winter performance is consequent to atmosphere chenges in winter and calculating automatically. Same with roll inertia - we tune roll rate (by adjusting specific aerodynamics of control surfaces) and set plane parts masses as they're listed in sources. Inertia is consecuent to these adjustments and it's value is appear automatically in FM.

Also, your argumentation is very "flexible". Too thin matters discussed with too rough termins.

 

No reason to expect any changes here.

 

Best regards.

 

For example this tells us that it might just not be possible to tune roll inertia or performance on a certain altitude, because the game uses a system that calculates these values automatically.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Yep, then i replied to this, and he has read my reply, AND he left the conversation.

 

Not a "You're wrong", but a "You're wrong and i don't want to know anything else, our FMs are perfect (just confirmed by Jason yesterday, btw)".

 

85€... testing, researching, and reporting... and that's how they talk to their customers that want this sim to become better, while my report was about the same as the one that served to fix high speed handling -> more than enough to check the points

 

He could have replied "Let me alone, i don't want to check", i would have had more respect, honestly...

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[BraveSirRobin]

i would have had more respect, honestly...

 

I assume this means that you'll be developing your own flight sim?  You know, because you don't have any respect for the people who are actually still producing games like this.

[Finkeren]

Sorry to hear that Ze_Hairy

 

I could understand if the devs don't have time to tinker with the old FMs right now, but they definately shouldn't cut off people who do their very best to document the grievances they have and offer substantial testing of the performance of the models in the sim.

 

Hope you'll poke your head in here from time to time still.

I assume this means that you'll be developing your own flight sim? You know, because you don't have any respect for the people who are actually still producing games like this.

If Ze_Hairy had no respect for the devs, why on Earth would he have made such an effort to present his case to them and advocate improvements to their work? Up until now he has been nothing but respectful and stuck vigorously to the point without ranting.

 

I don't blame him if he's ranting now.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I assume this means that you'll be developing your own flight sim?  You know, because you don't have any respect for the people who are actually still producing games like this.

 

Have "more respect" for someone after an event, does not mean that you had "none", do not take your case to a generality, thank you.

[LLv24_Zami]

Sry but it is just not the complete truth that Han just replied with "you are wrong". He gave a lot of interesting info (at least for me) and he was polite.

 

The following is what Han replied to Ze_Hairys report:

 

 

 

 

For example this tells us that it might just not be possible to tune roll inertia or performance on a certain altitude, because the game uses a system that calculates these values automatically.

 

Okay, that is more understandable answer. Thanks for bringing this up. These things should be public to avoid unnecessary speculation of why something is not done.

But this doesn`t necessarily mean Ze_Hairy is totally wrong with his report.