Fw 190A-3 climb rate

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Than there is an issue with either their weight values or the automated calculation process itself. Either way they claimed the "inertia" as "stick force modeling" back in beta and explictibly mentioned it was introduced for all aircraft apart from the the La-5 (and consequently the Lagg-3, which was not mentioned).

 

They have been presented other evidence that speaks against their FM and still refused making changes which is sad and very unfortunate for the people spending their time in ressearching and investigating into the issue. I know how time consuming this is and therefore have high respect for Hairys efforts.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

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...

 

 

When you posted in the forum that the only reply  you got is "you are wrong" you are giving a very different spin on the real events, why would you "lie" or misrepresent the feedback you got?

 

Where do the Dev's or Jason say the FM's are perfect? again you are spinning the feedback, this is not a productive way of getting any further on this subject, or increasing  your credibility

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited September 19, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Dr_Molenbeek]

When you posted in the forum that the only reply  you got is "you are wrong" you are giving a very different spin on the real events, why would you "lie" or misrepresent the feedback you got?

 

Where do the Dev's or Jason say the FM's are perfect? again you are spinning the feedback, this is not a productive way of getting any further on this subject, or increasing  your credibility

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Seems like you have a problem with the word "CHECK".

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18341-developer-diary-part-108-discussion/?p=287418

 

What does this mean for you ?

 

I'll help you... it means that they will never make FM revisions by themselves, NEVER.

 

And when people report FM issues, you get a "You're wrong", yes, because Han's reply is an "You're wrong", whatever you would like to think. I have not even mentioned his "You leave in free country where democracy is very high. So you're free to do anything that you sure is right." AND "Best regards." that were there only to be provocative against me, but sure, you have to read the old FM discussions i had with him to understand why... guess why he left the discussion ?

 

1CGS's bodyguards, the firsts to critique FM reports, but also the firsts to say "nice work devs !!!!" when they read FM corrections in patchnote.

 

Forgive me a moment, i have to go throw up.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Senilix]

To me it seems that the dev's are defending their fort because they don't have time (it's not put on the list of present tasks) to go back and do changes in the model for automated calculations when this shows to be wrong / inaccurate.

 

Jason tells it in this answer: Because they apparently don't agree or have time to work on previous planes.  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18341-developer-diary-part-108-discussion/?p=287425 

 

My interpretations are: It's not about the 190 alone - it's about some core elements of the automated calculations which gives the output - the different planes FM's or performances.

 

To admit this it can have two implications:

1. We admit that our FM system are wrong - which can be destructive to a "best Sim image".

2. It's a lot of work to be done - we don't have time and resources to do it - so we depress any implications for the need for it.

[Maxyman]

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.

Fine, you don’t have to share my opinion and I’m not convincing you.

 

Obviously, the stick force irrelevance is not obvious. The charts here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17974-la-5-vs-fw-190a-3-roll-rate-comparison/?p=282486 will be different if the stick force changes. Figure 47 – Variation with indicated airspeed of rolling velocity obtained with 50-pound stick force. And we don’t know the force in Ze_Hairy’s tests, this factor is not considered.

 

Second, Ze_Hairy hasn’t answered how much is the incredible roll speed. Which makes this discussion endless.

[RoteDreizehn]

@senilix

seems to be you are right with your interpretations

 

 

@ze_Hairy 

thanks a lot for trying to fight and for this good reengineering.

really enjoyed your posts...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Obviously, the stick force irrelevance is not obvious. The charts here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17974-la-5-vs-fw-190a-3-roll-rate-comparison/?p=282486 will be different if the stick force changes. Figure 47 – Variation with indicated airspeed of rolling velocity obtained with 50-pound stick force. And we don’t know the force in Ze_Hairy’s tests, this factor is not considered.

 

Second, Ze_Hairy hasn’t answered how much is the incredible roll speed. Which makes this discussion endless.

The table is only usefull for the devs since they have automated FM formulars calculating things like stick forces, inertia ect at given speed and stick deflection. Given Hairy used full stick deflection they can calculate it perfectly the same way the game does, which the normal user can't. So as far as our limited testing methods go stick forces can't be measured and thus are irrelevant for qualitative reports of FM errors.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[CaK_Rumcajs]

There are things that are not gonna change. 1C is a large Russian business. WWII is still a great topic for the Russians. In the end they were the ones to beat Nazi Germany. One can't really expect there is no bias on the part of the devs. Maybe unintentional but there is simply no way to avoid their national pride. If an American company was to develop a sim targeting the Pacific theater you can be sure there would be a great push for The great Marianas Turkey shoot reenactment. Don't you believe? Watch the Red Tails movie how an biased story is pictured. Maybe if there was a sim company originating from Patagonia we would get unbiased FMs and plane sets though hardly perfect anyways.

I suggest to enjoy the game as it is. There will always be people who are not satisfied and find distortions in FMs and will report them. And they may sometimes succeed in making the devs change details. But in general 1C will always provide somewhat balanced scenarios by carefully choosing the plane sets and maybe helping some aircraft types. Regardless of that the game is great. The FMs are truly amazing (maybe sometimes not performance wise) and the joy and sensation of flying is there. Use your piloting skills to avoid situations when you have an Yak on your six. And when you fail that then admit a defeat and get over it. The sim if worth such a tolerant approach.

Edited September 19, 2015 by II./JG1_Rumcajs

[Maxyman]

The table is only usefull for the devs since they have automated FM formulars calculating things like stick forces, inertia ect at given speed and stick deflection. Given Hairy used full stick deflection they can calculate it perfectly the same way the game does, which the normal user can't. So as far as our limited testing methods go stick forces can't be measured and thus are irrelevant for qualitative reports of FM errors.

The chart has no value if the stick force is no equal to 50 pounds. This is a fact.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Maxyman

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

And thats why devs have to evaluate it not Hairy. Your point?

[Maxyman]

And thats why devs have to evaluate it not Hairy. Your point?

I'm not discussing FM or devs but Ze_Hairy's testing methods. What 777 have to do is a different story and I'm not exaggerating my importance here.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Maxyman

[Dakpilot]

Seems like you have a problem with the word "CHECK".

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18341-developer-diary-part-108-discussion/?p=287418

 

What does this mean for you ?

 

I'll help you... it means that they will never make FM revisions by themselves, NEVER.

 

And when people report FM issues, you get a "You're wrong", yes, because Han's reply is an "You're wrong", whatever you would like to think. I have not even mentioned his "You leave in free country where democracy is very high. So you're free to do anything that you sure is right." AND "Best regards." that were there only to be provocative against me, but sure, you have to read the old FM discussions i had with him to understand why... guess why he left the discussion ?

 

1CGS's bodyguards, the firsts to critique FM reports, but also the firsts to say "nice work devs !!!!" when they read FM corrections in patchnote.

 

Forgive me a moment, i have to go throw up.

 

The problem is, anger and rants are never a way to get things sorted with FM discussions, your whole attitude is going about it in the wrong way, to accuse me of being a 1CGS 'bodyguard" is ridiculous, the only critiquing of FM  claims I do is when they are not based on science, correct facts or bad methodology, as a pilot I WANT the FM's to be as accurate as possible, and to clarify, not JUST the FW190

 

It just seems that the constant effort to suggest that the Dev's  are , Stupid, intractable and usually biased, blows all decent communication out of the water, your public outcry implying that the only answer you got from your report was a rude 'you are wrong' goes a long way to show what your  attitude is,

 

Han's actual answer

 

"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"

 

Which seems very reasonable, would not have justified the -

 

     "Thats just shameful.   "

 

     "It's those kinds of things that really sour the experience"

 

     "Wow...    "

 

     "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)"

 

fairly inaccurate/unpleasant responses garnered from "its wrong!"

 

Best Regards

 

Dakpilot

Edited September 19, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Dr_Molenbeek]

-snip-

 

Biaised persons do not make FM reports, they stay here on the forum to spit their hatred all the day.

 

Now read, i'm a human, i can be angry, as i lose patience.

 

Making fun of me by saying "No reason to expect any changes here." not only because my report is "flexible" (read the one that served to fix high speed handling, and then talk about "flexibility"), but also because apparently both roll inertia and winter climb rate are fine since everything is "calculated automatically"... And i guess that high speed handling before corrections made in March was also "fine because calculated automatically based on adjustments" ? Yet the answer i got from Han was "Han has left the discussion". Just an example.

 

I can only agree on the point that i should have post Han's reply so people would not misinterpret, though... because that wasn't my intention.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I think (though I'm far from being a specialist on the matter) that if everything is automatically calculated given the mass distribution and all other parameters of the airplane, It means that the physical engine itself needs to be adjusted for good FM rendering. That may not be easy nor feasible in the timeframe because if they change it, it means that every other planes will be requiring some fine tuning after that as well. And given the workload they have to release the BoM content and keep up with their schedule, this is not something planed for the near future.

[Dakpilot]

I think a huge amount gets lost when two people converse about an incredibly complex subject when both are not speaking their Mother tongue

 

A little patience/consideration would go a long way in these situations...perhaps your thoughts of being made fun of are an overreaction or misunderstanding..... 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

There are things that are not gonna change. 1C is a large Russian business. WWII is still a great topic for the Russians. In the end they were the ones to beat Nazi Germany. One can't really expect there is no bias on the part of the devs. Maybe unintentional but there is simply no way to avoid their national pride. If an American company was to develop a sim targeting the Pacific theater you can be sure there would be a great push for The great Marianas Turkey shoot reenactment. Don't you believe? Watch the Red Tails movie how an biased story is pictured. Maybe if there was a sim company originating from Patagonia we would get unbiased FMs and plane sets though hardly perfect anyways.

I suggest to enjoy the game as it is. There will always be people who are not satisfied and find distortions in FMs and will report them. And they may sometimes succeed in making the devs change details. But in general 1C will always provide somewhat balanced scenarios by carefully choosing the plane sets and maybe helping some aircraft types. Regardless of that the game is great. The FMs are truly amazing (maybe sometimes not performance wise) and the joy and sensation of flying is there. Use your piloting skills to avoid situations when you have an Yak on your six. And when you fail that then admit a defeat and get over it. The sim if worth such a tolerant approach.

 

A lot right here.

 

But such devs attitude have some bad influence in community. For some (who care realism and historical accuracy) it would be dissapointment and game braker, for others ( who perefer balance and some nationality bias) would be ok.

 

BTW community test proved that A-3 in BOS winter condtion got climb performance like it should have in ISA condtions ( +15 C).  So in BOS winter condition A-3 dont have any benefis from cold air in climb  -  or rather even in ISA condtion in BOM/BOS it would have worse climb rate then it got IRL  (comparing to german charts).  All other BOS planes in BOS winter condtions got much better climb rate then they had in ISA.  Only hurt plane is Fw 190 A-3. So its mean that A-3 is underperforming reagarding climb rate comparing to RL data.

 

What would be if A-3 in BOS would have accurate climb rate and roll rate adventage over other planes?  I think it would be real bucher bird here.  Probably some can't live with that

Edited September 19, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[LukeFF]

 

 

There are things that are not gonna change. 1C is a large Russian business. WWII is still a great topic for the Russians. In the end they were the ones to beat Nazi Germany. One can't really expect there is no bias on the part of the devs. Maybe unintentional but there is simply no way to avoid their national pride. If an American company was to develop a sim targeting the Pacific theater you can be sure there would be a great push for The great Marianas Turkey shoot reenactment. Don't you believe? Watch the Red Tails movie how an biased story is pictured. Maybe if there was a sim company originating from Patagonia we would get unbiased FMs and plane sets though hardly perfect anyways.

 

Ah, the ol' "Russians cannot be trusted to program anything unbiased" argument. Always was a weak argument and always will be.  

[Bearcat]

There are things that are not gonna change. 1C is a large Russian business. WWII is still a great topic for the Russians. In the end they were the ones to beat Nazi Germany. One can't really expect there is no bias on the part of the devs. Maybe unintentional but there is simply no way to avoid their national pride. If an American company was to develop a sim targeting the Pacific theater you can be sure there would be a great push for The great Marianas Turkey shoot reenactment. Don't you believe? Watch the Red Tails movie how an biased story is pictured. Maybe if there was a sim company originating from Patagonia we would get unbiased FMs and plane sets though hardly perfect anyways.

I suggest to enjoy the game as it is. There will always be people who are not satisfied and find distortions in FMs and will report them. And they may sometimes succeed in making the devs change details. But in general 1C will always provide somewhat balanced scenarios by carefully choosing the plane sets and maybe helping some aircraft types. Regardless of that the game is great. The FMs are truly amazing (maybe sometimes not performance wise) and the joy and sensation of flying is there. Use your piloting skills to avoid situations when you have an Yak on your six. And when you fail that then admit a defeat and get over it. The sim if worth such a tolerant approach.

 

Enough of this.

 

The FMs are what they are. I am sure that this thread has been looked at. They may change, they may not. Deal with it or don't.