FW 190

[Wulf]

Sorry for the futile attempts to educate masses. You guys from "Western" part of the world tend to focus on that one book of Gordon & Khazanov as the preacher to Holy Bible. Fair enough.

What I try to tell you is that there is smtg else beside 7 days creation dogma.

I know the authors of this "holy Bible" very well and thanks God I still have my own brain and free will God bestowed upon me to decide myself. To study different sources,compare each other and come to the conclusions.That's the difference between idol obsessed people ( put Fw here) and those who try to stay objective. I'm not participating on this forum to force you to believe one and only truth. Because there is not such truth. We all live in a free world with access to the sources of information. It's upon each individual to grasp them and make up their mind.

 

 

Okay, so you can't actually corroborate any of your 'creative thinking' about the development of the La-5.  Fine; no surprises there.  That's what we expected.  But seriously, the bizarre rambling attack on G and K, western civilization and the Christian Church - wow, now that was a bonus.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Wulf

[Brano]

Sorry to derail yet another "Fw-190" thread but to my defense I was not the one to start that The rest is up to each individual.Again,sorry,won't bother you anymore here.

[Tomsk]

Sorry to derail yet another "Fw-190" thread but to my defense I was not the one to start that The rest is up to each individual.Again,sorry,won't bother you anymore here.

 

Actually if you have sources on the development of the La-5 that contradict G&K I'd be really interested to hear about them. It's true that a lot of information in this thread is coming from one source and that's never ideal. IMO the best way to find out the truth is to gather as many source as possible.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Was the notion about wing fuel tanks (quote included) so completely without merit that it deserved no discussion or comment. Does having wing fuel tanks affect roll characteristics ? Despite Brano's assertions to the contrary, as far as I can judge the La-5 and LaG 3 still shared a great deal in cominality of structure, they shared as much as they differed. The LaG 3 cutaway shows 5 tanks containing a total of 480 litres of fuel. The Sim La-5 has 521 litres, where did the extra 40 litres go, was the center line tank bigger ? The one thing I can't tell is if, in the quote, the La-5 came in a 5 and 3 tank option or if the better performing 3 tank, la-5 is the "f" version.

 

Does BoS allow for weight distribution or is it a simple calculation of total weight ?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Does BoS allow for weight distribution or is it a simple calculation of total weight ?

As far as I know it does. Thats why the pilot is constantly switching fuel tanks to ensure correct weight balance.

 

[Edited]

 

Also, books are no primary sources, which every well educated person interested in history should probably know.

 

Keep the personal opinions of others to yourself pls.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Bearcat

[Tomsk]

Also, books are no primary sources, which every well educated person interested in history should probably know.

 

Absolutely agree, but what primary sources do we know about? Seems like there's a bit of a dearth of information here ...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Absolutely agree, but what primary sources do we know about? Seems like there's a bit of a dearth of information here ...

That's the issue. I have a combat manual but it does not include a technical manual nor mention perofrmence figures.

 

The only way o probably get on one of those is contacting a museum and aquiring some of their sources. I doubt anybody has the encouragement to do that, not to mention translate it.

[GP*]

Okay, so you can't actually corroborate any of your 'creative thinking' about the development of the La-5. Fine; no surprises there. That's what we expected. But seriously, the bizarre rambling attack on G and K, western civilization and the Christian Church - wow, now that was a bonus.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Wulf]

Was the notion about wing fuel tanks (quote included) so completely without merit that it deserved no discussion or comment. Does having wing fuel tanks affect roll characteristics ? Despite Brano's assertions to the contrary, as far as I can judge the La-5 and LaG 3 still shared a great deal in cominality of structure, they shared as much as they differed. The LaG 3 cutaway shows 5 tanks containing a total of 480 litres of fuel. The Sim La-5 has 521 litres, where did the extra 40 litres go, was the center line tank bigger ? The one thing I can't tell is if, in the quote, the La-5 came in a 5 and 3 tank option or if the better performing 3 tank, la-5 is the "f" version.

 

Does BoS allow for weight distribution or is it a simple calculation of total weight ?

 

 

Don't know if this helps but G and K say the following in relation to the work done to reduce the weight of the aircraft that came to be known as the La-5 F.

 

Among other things ... "The fuel system was altered to use three fuel tanks instead of five, reducing fuel capacity from 539 to 464 litres and eliminating the wingtip tanks which hampered maneuverability" (pages 44-45)

 

 

 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

 

OMG, I know what you mean,  It was unhinged!!

[JG4_Widukind]

 

 

Best advice for FW190: Dont fly it if you dont want to get frustrated. You are outrun, outrolled, outdived and outclimbed by russian fighters. Only thing it can do well is fighterbombing.

 

thats my felling too.

That Side rudder is only rolling and not sliping thats the greatest Problem of this Plane (same for 109 Versions)

Check Cliffs of Dover Side Rudder its felling very better for shoot landing etc.

The woobling is a Big Problem too...

[Dakpilot]

 Obviously, I haven't read everything there is to read about the I-16, but nothing I have read about it suggests it had a simply 'amazing' rate of roll.  In fact, from what I've read, the I-16 wasn't even a stand-out in the maneuverability stakes during the Spanish Civil War.  It was noted for its speed, not its maneuverability.  It was out-maneuvered by other fighters during the SCW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Brano]

Didn't want to bother with this anymore,but I see the reactions of usual individuals,so I must react.You want to know smtg more about La-5 development? Buy the monography. Unless you live in North Korea,it's available in stone bookstores and on internet shops. But you would rather someone to copy-paste word by word copyrighted text here on public forum,because it is more convenient for you.I will not do that.

You want test datas about La-5? I mentioned it X times in several of my posts even giving contact link. CAMO = Central Archive of Ministry of Defense Russian Federation. I don't remember exactly,should be section 35.NII VVS test reports. Too lazy to do that? Not my problem. And spare me of your puny comments on my personality.You don't know me and I'm not your buddy. Same as I am not the acuser of devs doing smtg fishy,nonprofesional, amateurish and such. You acuse,you prove.Anglo-Saxon law basic principals.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-yawn-

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Funny how he fails to follow his own demands, but I'm gratefull for the commedy anyway.   

[Lusekofte]

Wow this tread went of course after two post and stayed as such in 6 pages 

[LLv24_Zami]

Wow this tread went of course after two post and stayed as such in 6 pages 

That`s true in fact 

[von_Tom]

Quite, and the moderation is subtle and appreciated.

 

Aside from that, I have sympathy for Brano's position, though it is hard for those of us in Western Europe to visit Russia to check sources. I do not however suspect the devs of bias even if it is unconscious bias.  Do the best with what you have, revisit and revisit and tweak and so on and we'll get as good as we can get.

 

For the OP, the first page sums up the tricks.  Never turn (or turn to death) and always exit faster than whatever you shot at.

 

von Tom

[Lusekofte]

Well, I am grateful for the russian companies making these simulators. It is the biggest marked for this genre anyway. Personally I cannot get into the talk about realism. First off we do not sit in real life in a plane risking our life flying it. Those 109 pilot i see in public servers do not give a damn about man and machines when they start the engine and give full throttle and take off in the taxiway. 

This is a game, it simulate planes pretty well and yet stay remarkable balanced . If it did not no one would fly russian side, we do not have the historical benefit of massive manpower. 

This is not realistic, COD is not realistic and the closest we get to realism is DCS witch is not realistic either. That is if you do not use your imagination, if that is the case, this is pretty realistic, and hey that goes for COD and DCS also

[ACG_pezman]

Well, I am grateful for the russian companies making these simulators. It is the biggest marked for this genre anyway. Personally I cannot get into the talk about realism. First off we do not sit in real life in a plane risking our life flying it. Those 109 pilot i see in public servers do not give a damn about man and machines when they start the engine and give full throttle and take off in the taxiway.

This is a game, it simulate planes pretty well and yet stay remarkable balanced . If it did not no one would fly russian side, we do not have the historical benefit of massive manpower.

This is not realistic, COD is not realistic and the closest we get to realism is DCS witch is not realistic either. That is if you do not use your imagination, if that is the case, this is pretty realistic, and hey that goes for COD and DCS also

I just re-read this entire thread, and I have to say, this is the most coherent point I have read in it. We'll never know for sure how these aircraft really preformed. I have to say that, despite any flaws, this is still a great simulation of flight.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm all for achieving as much accuracy as possible in the simulator environment. That said, I have nothing but appreciation for the continuation of the IL-2 series and being able to fly around in these aircraft with the BoS/BoM level of fidelity is something else. Everything about this strikes me as being a quality product - Any questions that I have or concerns that I raise are purely in the pursuit of knowledge and accuracy. If it's off by a little bit... I tend not to worry that much. Real life tends not to be quite as prescribed as a simulator is. No real aircraft would have 100% exactly the same performance specs... It'd be close but not completely the same.

[Wulf]

I just re-read this entire thread, and I have to say, this is the most coherent point I have read in it. We'll never know for sure how these aircraft really preformed. I have to say that, despite any flaws, this is still a great simulation of flight.

 

 

Yeah sure, but the weight of the evidence currently available would nevertheless tend to support the view that the current model of the La-5 is over-modeled.  Why do I think that?  Well, at present, the La-5 series 8 rolls at least as well and probably better than the 190.  Now remember, this level of performance is being attained  in  an aircraft that, according to Soviet combat reports, was heavy on the stick and slow to roll from bank to bank.  Now, from what I've read, these maneuverability issues were specifically addressed during the development work undertaken on the La-5 F - during the course of what amounted to a complete re-working of the air frame which included the removal of the wingtip tanks.  If that is indeed the case (and that's what the available evidence appears to say), any La-5 F that gets introduced into the game is either going to roll at the same rate as the current model (which would obviously be quite wrong - because we know they re-worked the aircraft to improve the rate of roll) or it's going to roll at an even faster rate, which will be just plain ridiculous, because at that point it will actually eat the FW 190 alive.  

 

So, despite what may have been said elsewhere, I strongly suspect that the current in-game La-5 has actually been given the rolling performance of the La-5 F.  How the devs manage that little credibility issue, as the game develops, is anyone's guess.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Wulf

[HagarTheHorrible]

As Wulf says, it is not just where the La-5 is, but where it goes. If a leading Soviet Ace says that the 5 tank version was known to be inferior, by all the pilots in his unit, in speed and had sluggish controls compared to three tank versions then it is reasonable to think that if a three tank, or the "f" version is introduced, it will outclass an aircraft that was, at he time, considered outstanding in terms of it's ability to roll or control finess.

 

Is that not a perfectly reasonable assumption to make ?

[Caudron431]

Well, I am grateful for the russian companies making these simulators. It is the biggest marked for this genre anyway. Personally I cannot get into the talk about realism. First off we do not sit in real life in a plane risking our life flying it. Those 109 pilot i see in public servers do not give a damn about man and machines when they start the engine and give full throttle and take off in the taxiway. 

This is a game, it simulate planes pretty well and yet stay remarkable balanced . If it did not no one would fly russian side, we do not have the historical benefit of massive manpower. 

This is not realistic, COD is not realistic and the closest we get to realism is DCS witch is not realistic either. That is if you do not use your imagination, if that is the case, this is pretty realistic, and hey that goes for COD and DCS also

 

Great post! Couldn't agree more. This sim while not 100% accurate is frankly realistic enough.

 

To me this sim (and many other contested ones) is really close in reproducing phenomena that occured during war. Many just cannot cope with the reality of a situation, and instead of adapting and overcoming, they can only bitterly debate about the fairness of the situation, on how it is not as it should be, etc, lowering the morale even more.

 

Some people just want the exact expectated performance for all aircraft (which not bad per se) but some want it just to minimize the surprise effect, because they are too static and rigid, they cannot fight when their "dominaton methodologies" don't work anymore. All must go according to plan and without risks just like in sports:This is a loser tactic in a real war situation. It's a civil servant type of mentality. I think this sim shows this well.

 

Instead of coming edit on these boards edit and propose something new coming from their combat observation to defeat the enemy, and first forbid all that don't work anymore, they bitterly ask for enemy aircraft FM changes and continue to get shot down online (lulz), when there are large possibilities to create new winning tactics. Few videos are given to illustrate the "unfairness", just figures, i suppose because mistakes have been done which would have led to possible defeat, overmodelled FM or not.

 

But it is unfair to call that kind of people whiners though, i must insist on this: during war these kind of people existed and would be called people with low morale: the phenomenon is actually completely realistic, it existed in real life:

 

"In September 5 GIAP was withdrawn for a month to recieve replacement pilots and the new La5FN. Thanks to the latter type's increased performance, the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand over its opponents, who thought they were engaging standard La5s. Indeed, in late October regimental pilots interrogated a German ace that they had shot down, Baevskii, fluent in german, acting as interpreter. At the end of the interview the captured pilot asked to see the aeroplane which had shot him down, and when shown, the German exclaimed "That cannot be! It's an La5, and that could never catch me!".

 

in Lagg and Lavochkin Aces of WW2 George Mellinger.

 

In this German ace's mind, no Russian type would ever be able to defeat his superior tactics and superior aircraft, that was the securing doxa in which he lived. Even when shown the aircraft, he could'nt accept it. But he was shot down.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[LLv24_Zami]

Great post! Couldn't agree more. This sim while not 100% accurate is frankly realistic enough.

 

To me this sim (and many other contested ones) is really close in reproducing phenomena that occured during war. Many just cannot cope with the reality of a situation, and instead of adapting and overcoming, they can only bitterly debate about the fairness of the situation, on how it is not as it should be, etc, lowering the morale even more.

 

Some people just want the exact expectated performance for all aircraft (which not bad per se) but some want it just to minimize the surprise effect, because they are too static and rigid, they cannot fight when their "dominaton methodologies" don't work anymore. All must go according to plan and without risks just like in sports:This is a loser tactic in a real war situation. It's a civil servant type of mentality. I think this sim shows this well.

 

Instead of coming in the thread and propose something new coming from their combat observation to defeat the enemy, and first forbid all that don't work anymore, they bitterly ask for enemy aircraft FM changes and continue to get shot down online (lulz), when there are large possibilities to create new winning tactics. Few videos are given to illustrate the "unfairness", just figures, i suppose because mistakes have been done which would have led to possible defeat, overmodelled FM or not.

 

But it is unfair to call that kind of people whiners though, imust insist on this: during war these kind of people existed and would be called people with low morale: the phenomenon is actually completely realistic, it existed in real life:

 

"In September 5 GIAP was withdrawn for a month to recieve replacement pilots and the new La5FN. Thanks to the latter type's increased performance, the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand over its opponents, who thought they were engaging standard La5s. Indeed, in late October regimental pilots interrogated a German ace that they had shot down, Baevskii, fluent in german, acting as interpreter. At the end of the interview the captured pilot asked to see the aeroplane which had shot him down, and when shown, the German exclaimed "That cannot be! It's an La5, and that could never catch me!".

 

in Lagg and Lavochkin Aces of WW2 George Mellinger.

 

In this German ace's mind, no RUssian type would ever be able to defeat his superior tactics and superior aircraft, that was the securing doxa in which he lived. Even when shown the aircraft, he could'nt accept it. But he was shot down.

That is just BS. People just wan`t (fairly) accurate FMs for every plane.

 

But when I look at your name, I realize why you try to justify current situation 

[Caudron431]

That is just BS. People just wan`t (fairly) accurate FMs for every plane.

 

But when I look at your name, I realize why you try to justify current situation 

Then post your proofs, otherwise...Well... when i look at your avatar i realize that you just could be the kind of people i mentionned in my post. But it's not true, you're not like that, i don't know you, it would be stupid for me to make such a statement.

 

BTW, reading my other previous post about what i think about AC FM in this game will help you to find out what the value of your post really is.

 

 

 

Something to keep in mind is that having the best performance possible (in ° per sec) on all controls is of little use if you don't have the possibility to use them precisely, in a useful manner, aka harmony of controls, in what the Fw190 was one of the best, and the late 109 not really good IIRC. It could be that "These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and maneuverability." is just a means to make ?possible? high figures something more useful in the real world: aka harmony of controls. Instability, in other worlds high maneuvrability, can easily be an annoyance and even a danger (at that times, no computer to correct it and make it usefull) for the pilot: high performance, roll instability, and superb harmony of controls is what made the Fw190 the legendary AC. You could change the attitude of the aircraft and re put it in its optimal performance enveloppe far quicker. But you still had to be very good and daring to get the lethal margin out of it. To me the Fw should roll faster than all other ac and be more difficult to put out of a low altitude high speed dive. While the La and Lagg roll rate should be a bit reduced and instability increased. The Yak should be easier to fly but also useless at higher altitudes: flaps must be corrected too. Compared to the Fw, late BF should be different and be more difficult to control due to the lack of good harmony of the controls. That said the game is already completely awesome in that it truly gives a different character to each aircraft. This is an awesome achievement to me because, at least to me, enjoying a sim is not all about competition. The performances can be corrected and i'm sure they will be.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Tomsk]

Honestly I don't mind if the La-5 in game is slightly over modelled (and I'm not saying it is), it's just like fighting against a later La-5F or La-5FN (which FW190s really did face).

 

However, as someone who really likes flying the FW190 I'd like to know what it's advantages over the La-5 in game are, so I can fly it better:

- Is it faster? On the deck? At altitude?

- Apparently it doesn't roll better ...

- Apparently it doesn't climb better (I never thought to rely on climb rate much in a 190 anyway).

- Is the high speed maneuverability better? 

- The armament is (IMO) better.

- It *should* dive better and zoom better: I believe it's heavier and similarly aerodynamic.

- It probably turns worse in sustained turns (normally true for the 190).

 

Would be good to know what the strengths and weaknesses are vs the La-5 in game.

[LLv24_Zami]

Then post your proofs, otherwise...Well... when i look at your avatar i realize that you just could be the kind of people i mentionned in my post. But it's not true, you're not like that, i don't know you, it would be stupid for me to make such a statement.

 

BTW, reading my other previous post about what i think about AC FM in this game will help you to find out what the value of your post really is.

How can I proof that people want accurate FMs? You just have to take my word for it.

 

For other kind of proof, look around. Plenty available.

 

And you`re right, I`m not like that. Just in middle of my La-5 campaign and I like the plane a lot. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

From the La-5's point of view:

 

The Lavochkin is slower at all altitudes; rolls worse but still competitive (i.e. a good pilot can play on your reaction time and get the upper hand); worse high speed manoeuvrability; dives worse (plus lower Vne); loses energy quickly in sustained turns. I think the La-5 climbs better but I don't know.

 

The armament depends on who you ask: factually the Fw-190 can haul more fire at you, but the La-5 has 2 x 20mm guns right at the nose which makes aiming a blessing. The ammo supply is decidedly small though, especially if compared to the Fw-190.

 

All in all, you have an upper hand on most aspects with the Fw-190, however the edge is really small by all means. If the La-5 sees you first, is flying even a little bit higher or is lighter, the tables turn.

[Lusekofte]

That is just BS. People just wan`t (fairly) accurate FMs for every plane.

 

But when I look at your name, I realize why you try to justify current situation 

 

You are wrong, there are some of us done this for a while. We know that the fact , you sitting in a warm chair with a digital joystick, finger maneuvering your plane that has no kind of servo, no added force whatever speed. There will not be a realism. This is why I have a realistic yoke, it make the gameplay harder. You need to use your muzzles and it add realism. Sitting here and yelling out 1 million opinions on how a plane should be, never actually sitting in it is BS

Edited February 20, 2016 by EG14_LuseKofte

[LLv24_Zami]

You are wrong, there are some of us done this for a while. We know that the fact , you sitting in a warm chair with a digital joystick, finger maneuvering your plane that has no kind of servo, no added force whatever speed. There will not be a realism. This is why I have a realistic yoke, it make the gameplay harder. You need to use your muzzles and it add realism. Sitting here and yelling out 1 million opinions on how a plane should be, never actually sitting in it is BS

Roger that sir!

 

I bow in front of your expertise   

 

Now, I`m late for a party. Carry on   

 

[mb339pan]

190? it's my favorite plane, go fast and not go to dogfighter are the keys to success

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

This is a hot topic to touch, but it is interesting non the less. As a game aiming for the mid to high budget marked (in Russia also low) BoS / BoM is/should be optimised for accordingly priced joysticks. Personally I use a quite bit used mid price X-52 Pro and it is fairly accurate ingame with natural settings.

 

As for comparisons and reports about "stability" the issue with joystick settings arises whenever sby reports a certain behaviour or characteristic. That's why for comparison purpose only natural settings should be used (0 sensetivity, low to none deadzones, no noise filter).

 

It's no mystery that the Bf-109 F is the most pitch unstable of the 109s while the E is the most pleasent. With the changes for the 109 FM announced in DD 120 there's however little reason to be totally upset about it.

 

If I had to chose which planes in BoS/BoM come closest to my own flight expirience, ie behave most realisticly, I'd say the Bf-110 and Bf-109 E win by far. That's only my opinion though.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

But it is unfair to call that kind of people whiners though, i must insist on this: during war these kind of people existed and would be called people with low morale: the phenomenon is actually completely realistic, it existed in real life:

 

This comparison between people that want accurate FM, and RL WW2 pilots that were not 100% aware of planes they were fighting, is total nonsense.

[Caudron431]

This comparison between people that want accurate FM, and RL WW2 pilots that were not 100% aware of planes they were fighting, is total nonsense.

More likely it is your interpretation of what i wrote that is total nonsense.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Wulf]

Great post! Couldn't agree more. This sim while not 100% accurate is frankly realistic enough.

 

To me this sim (and many other contested ones) is really close in reproducing phenomena that occured during war. Many just cannot cope with the reality of a situation, and instead of adapting and overcoming, they can only bitterly debate about the fairness of the situation, on how it is not as it should be, etc, lowering the morale even more.

 

Some people just want the exact expectated performance for all aircraft (which not bad per se) but some want it just to minimize the surprise effect, because they are too static and rigid, they cannot fight when their "dominaton methodologies" don't work anymore. All must go according to plan and without risks just like in sports:This is a loser tactic in a real war situation. It's a civil servant type of mentality. I think this sim shows this well.

 

Instead of coming edit on these boards edit and propose something new coming from their combat observation to defeat the enemy, and first forbid all that don't work anymore, they bitterly ask for enemy aircraft FM changes and continue to get shot down online (lulz), when there are large possibilities to create new winning tactics. Few videos are given to illustrate the "unfairness", just figures, i suppose because mistakes have been done which would have led to possible defeat, overmodelled FM or not.

 

But it is unfair to call that kind of people whiners though, i must insist on this: during war these kind of people existed and would be called people with low morale: the phenomenon is actually completely realistic, it existed in real life:

 

"In September 5 GIAP was withdrawn for a month to recieve replacement pilots and the new La5FN. Thanks to the latter type's increased performance, the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand over its opponents, who thought they were engaging standard La5s. Indeed, in late October regimental pilots interrogated a German ace that they had shot down, Baevskii, fluent in german, acting as interpreter. At the end of the interview the captured pilot asked to see the aeroplane which had shot him down, and when shown, the German exclaimed "That cannot be! It's an La5, and that could never catch me!".

 

in Lagg and Lavochkin Aces of WW2 George Mellinger.

 

In this German ace's mind, no Russian type would ever be able to defeat his superior tactics and superior aircraft, that was the securing doxa in which he lived. Even when shown the aircraft, he could'nt accept it. But he was shot down.

 

 

Wow, so it's come to this.  We purchase a sim on the expectation that, to the greatest extent possible, every effort will be made to replicate the actual performance of the original aircraft.  When we complain that in certain glaring respects we appear to have been sold something other than advertised, it's somehow our fault for not sucking it up and adapting our style of play to the new fantasy FMs.

 

 Buddy, if I wanted to fly a Star Wars Tie-fighter game I would have gone out and purchased the real deal.

[Caudron431]

Wow, so it's come to this. 

Nope.

 

Try to get the meaning of what i wrote, it can help. Tip: try to read and understand. Hope you'll make it!

 

 

My thoughts about FMs from my first post in this thread.

 

BTW, reading my other previous post about what i think about AC FM in this game will help you to find out what the value of your post really is. Yak9Micha, on 17 Feb 2016 - 11:24, said: Something to keep in mind is that having the best performance possible (in ° per sec) on all controls is of little use if you don't have the possibility to use them precisely, in a useful manner, aka harmony of controls, in what the Fw190 was one of the best, and the late 109 not really good IIRC. It could be that "These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and maneuverability." is just a means to make ?possible? high figures something more useful in the real world: aka harmony of controls. Instability, in other worlds high maneuvrability, can easily be an annoyance and even a danger (at that times, no computer to correct it and make it usefull) for the pilot: high performance, roll instability, and superb harmony of controls is what made the Fw190 the legendary AC. You could change the attitude of the aircraft and re put it in its optimal performance enveloppe far quicker. But you still had to be very good and daring to get the lethal margin out of it. To me the Fw should roll faster than all other ac and be more difficult to put out of a low altitude high speed dive. While the La and Lagg roll rate should be a bit reduced and instability increased. The Yak should be easier to fly but also useless at higher altitudes: flaps must be corrected too. Compared to the Fw, late BF should be different and be more difficult to control due to the lack of good harmony of the controls. That said the game is already completely awesome in that it truly gives a different character to each aircraft. This is an awesome achievement to me because, at least to me, enjoying a sim is not all about competition. The performances can be corrected and i'm sure they will be.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[ACG_pezman]

We all love this sim or else we wouldn't be here reading the forums.

 

I think our axis driver friends may have a point about the roll rate of the LaGG and La, but we may also have a point on the roll rate of the 109.  With the dev's addressing the flaps of the Yak and other aircraft, I think it shows that the issues discussed in this thread will be looked at, and if found to have merit, fixed.

 

The Dev's want to make money too, and there is no money for them with such a niche community if they don't keep things as accurate as possible.  And that is, after all, what all of us want, right?  The most historically accurate sim possible?  And that makes me think, how can we say we don't already have it?  Can updates be made?  Yes and they are made, but that doesn't change the fact that we might already have the most historically accurate sim available.  And with every update the Dev's release it just confirms that status and raises the standard.

 

So, complaining about things doesn't help, it just makes people angry and then we get a thread like this.  And when inevitably the Dev's lock it, it will just overflow into a new thread or a new forum (like simhq) and be called evidence of Dev bias.  All that we really need is some trust and patience.  Trust the Dev's are looking, or will look, into your criticisms and be patient.  What have the Dev's done to make us think they wont?  Can we still make criticisms?  Yes, and please do, but please don't complain about the sim in them.  All it does is poison the community and that results in stunted growth or maybe even death of it.

 

Seriously, lets grow the hell up.  There are issues, I agree.  We all agree on that.  However I also don't think it's so cut and dry.

 

The way I see it, if you got an enemy on your six you already screwed up.  It is exponentially easier to chase down an aircraft that is better than yours than to get one off your six that is worse.  The reason is the nature of the fight, slowly (or quickly) devolving into turns and evasions, attempts to turn the tables, etc... all of which cost energy.  And isn't that the biggest advantage in a dogfight, energy retention?  So if you burn your energy trying to get someone off your six or kill someone on your twelve, aren't you potentially setting yourself up for failure?

[LukeFF]

 

 

"In September 5 GIAP was withdrawn for a month to recieve replacement pilots and the new La5FN. Thanks to the latter type's increased performance, the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand over its opponents, who thought they were engaging standard La5s. Indeed, in late October regimental pilots interrogated a German ace that they had shot down, Baevskii, fluent in german, acting as interpreter. At the end of the interview the captured pilot asked to see the aeroplane which had shot him down, and when shown, the German exclaimed "That cannot be! It's an La5, and that could never catch me!".  

 

in Lagg and Lavochkin Aces of WW2 George Mellinger.  

 

In this German ace's mind, no Russian type would ever be able to defeat his superior tactics and superior aircraft, that was the securing doxa in which he lived. Even when shown the aircraft, he could'nt accept it. But he was shot down.

 

 

See? They were having flight model arguments back during that time, too. 

[unreasonable]

 

"In September 5 GIAP was withdrawn for a month to recieve replacement pilots and the new La5FN. Thanks to the latter type's increased performance, the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand over its opponents, who thought they were engaging standard La5s. Indeed, in late October regimental pilots interrogated a German ace that they had shot down, Baevskii, fluent in german, acting as interpreter. At the end of the interview the captured pilot asked to see the aeroplane which had shot him down, and when shown, the German exclaimed "That cannot be! It's an La5, and that could never catch me!".

 

in Lagg and Lavochkin Aces of WW2 George Mellinger.

 

In this German ace's mind, no Russian type would ever be able to defeat his superior tactics and superior aircraft, that was the securing doxa in which he lived. Even when shown the aircraft, he could'nt accept it. But he was shot down.

 

Actually, if you take that story as true, it is perfectly consistent with the idea that the LW pilot might have been right in his belief of superiority - relative to the La5s. The mistake he made was in not understanding the improvement between the La5 and the La5FN, a completely new type in effect, but easy to mistake for the La5. 

 

Note that "the regiment briefly enjoyed the upper hand" - ie that the German aces were perfectly capable of adjusting to changed circumstances once they were aware of the change. No "securing doxa" here.

Edited February 20, 2016 by unreasonable

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Don´t turn (under 400Kmh), go fast, use its firepower, so...hit and run.

Its a killer!!!

 

 

Saludos

15(Span.)JG51 Costa

She turns just fine down to 300 kph but I agree faster is better. Also pitching for a constant 300 gives me my best climb rate as well.