III/JG2Gustav05 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 It would not "suddenly shoot up", but upon releasing the bombs, the Ju 88 would lose as much as 20% of its weight, so if it was flying straight and level at the time of release, it would definately immediately start to climb and accelerate, but propably not more than could be countered by a quick trimming. But did they really install a complete ReVi just for that incredibly minor feature? The main purpose of the Revi is for dive bombing.
SCG_Neun Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Wow...looks great guys....thanks for all the hard work! 1
Asgar Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 The main purpose of the Revi is for dive bombing. normally you would use a Stuvi on a 88 for that
Finkeren Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 The main purpose of the Revi is for dive bombing. Ok, so it is a stand-in for the StuVi?
Asgar Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Ok, so it is a stand-in for the StuVi? people are gone start saying "you can dive bomb just as precise with the revi" in a second BUT ...yes you can dive bomb accurate wit a ju 87 BECAUSE you can dive at an 90° angle. the thing is, the Ju-88 is only allowed to dive at a maximum angle of 60-65°. accuratly dive bombing like that is a lot harder without the Suvi
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 11, 2016 1CGS Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) Ok, so it is a stand-in for the StuVi? No, it's something that was commonly found on Ju 88 bombers. For instance, the drawing below is from a wartime manual: Edited March 11, 2016 by LukeFF 1
Asgar Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) yes commonly seen because Stuvi and Revi could easily be switched out. and if you're going to go level bombing in a big formation you won't fit the Stuvi. I'm pretty sure the '41 manual of the 88 describes how to switch the Revi for the Stuvi, but i have to look it up to be sure Edited March 11, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar
Feathered_IV Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Can someone translate 190 changes ?? Does it mean increase or decrease in performance?? If it was a decrease in performance, I doubt it would have been reported by one of its fans.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) This is previous data for Fw190 in DD123 Climb rate at sea level: 15.9 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 12.7 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 9.5 m/s So climb rate at 3000m is decreased. Get increased at other altitudes. Edited March 11, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05
Yogiflight Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Luke, the pic, you posted, is a Ju88 A1, recognizable through the drum magazine fed MG15. As far as I know, they were still allowed, to dive with a 90° angle. It was forbidden then, because of structural damages on the wings. That is, why the Ju88 needed the StuVi.
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Luke, the pic, you posted, is a Ju88 A1, recognizable through the drum magazine fed MG15. As far as I know, they were still allowed, to dive with a 90° angle. It was forbidden then, because of structural damages on the wings. That is, why the Ju88 needed the StuVi. I think that was right after the BoB. Infact all of my manuals state a dive angle limit of 60°.
[GOAT]Spoutpout Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 I don't mean to come back on an old conflict, but this Fw-190 flight model adjustment is kind of unexpected since two weeks ago, you said: Everything is fine in any case and NO REASON to claim against "undermodelled Fw190" Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that the "old BoS FM" are still regularly checked by the team, but I can't help to feel bad for the peoples who got banned. If they were so aggressive, it was because they were reporting this issue for some time and feel ignored... Anyway, the Ju-88 looks great, as expected. I wonder how Russian fighters will be able to intercept this one efficiently. Against a slow He-111 it is not too hard, but Ju-88 are way faster and nimbler. It's gonna be interesting. If it was a decrease in performance, I doubt it would have been reported by one of its fans. Who said that it has been reported by a Fw 190 fanboy ?
Freycinet Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 I wonder how much height it gains when it drops it's payload. If, for example, you where in formation and the lead aircraft dropped it's bomb load before you, would he suddenly shoot up 500 feet ? I assume it would make even more of a mess of bombing accuracy by the time the last bomb left the rack, not a that anything in the 1940's was what we might consider even reasonable by todays standards for dumb bombs. Hmm, I don't think it works like that... Luke, the pic, you posted, is a Ju88 A1, recognizable through the drum magazine fed MG15. As far as I know, they were still allowed, to dive with a 90° angle. It was forbidden then, because of structural damages on the wings. That is, why the Ju88 needed the StuVi. I'm pretty sure 88's never dove at 90 degrees!
Jade_Monkey Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 I don't mean to come back on an old conflict, but this Fw-190 flight model adjustment is kind of unexpected since two weeks ago, you said: Everything is fine in any case and NO REASON to claim against "undermodelled Fw190" Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that the "old BoS FM" are still regularly checked by the team, but I can't help to feel bad for the peoples who got banned. If they were so aggressive, it was because they were reporting this issue for some time and feel ignored... Anyway, the Ju-88 looks great, as expected. I wonder how Russian fighters will be able to intercept this one efficiently. Against a slow He-111 it is not too hard, but Ju-88 are way faster and nimbler. It's gonna be interesting. Who said that it has been reported by a Fw 190 fanboy ? I dont mean to... Thats how all great contradictions start. They got banned for being rude and bitching, not because they were wrong. Well before that, the devs asked to provide technical proof by PM or in a specific thread. All the lazy whining without providing supporting evidence is just useless. 3
HippyDruid Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Phwoar!!! 44 bombs, I can't wait to get that thing up in the skies! Great update, thanks.
No601_Swallow Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Very, very nice modeling work. Really captures the spirit of that amazing piece of machinery, and the cockpit is just a treasure trove of detail work. Unlike in ClOD I really think you get a feeling of just how cramped that pit was. I completely agree. CloD's cockpits are works of art, but this one really looks like there's no room at all - just lots of corners to take the skin off your elbows! Ifeel a bit nervous at just the thought of going up in one of them. Still, it's going to be a long two weeks. Be sure.
71st_AH_Mastiff Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) I dont mean to... Thats how all great contradictions start. They got banned for being rude and bitching, not because they were wrong. Well before that, the devs asked to provide technical proof by PM or in a specific thread. All the lazy whining without providing supporting evidence is just useless. I don't mean to come back on an old conflict, but this Fw-190 flight model adjustment is kind of unexpected since two weeks ago, you said: Everything is fine in any case and NO REASON to claim against "undermodelled Fw190" Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that the "old BoS FM" are still regularly checked by the team, but I can't help to feel bad for the peoples who got banned. If they were so aggressive, it was because they were reporting this issue for some time and feel ignored... Anyway, the Ju-88 looks great, as expected. I wonder how Russian fighters will be able to intercept this one efficiently. Against a slow He-111 it is not too hard, but Ju-88 are way faster and nimbler. It's gonna be interesting. Who said that it has been reported by a Fw 190 fanboy ? just because you demand an apology and want people to admit there defaults, isn't going to happen for you or even bringing up the issue, just let it go. We don't need to rehash this over and over and over. Edited March 12, 2016 by 71st_Mastiff 6
xvii-Dietrich Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Wow. Just seen this Dev Diary. The Ju 88 is looking STUNNING. So much detail, such a great plane. I'm eagerly awaiting it's release.
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 12, 2016 1CGS Posted March 12, 2016 CloD's cockpits are works of art, but this one really looks like there's no room at all - just lots of corners to take the skin off your elbows! Ifeel a bit nervous at just the thought of going up in one of them. Oh yes, it was a very cramped cockpit: 3
Haza Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Gents, See 34.10 min (below link) to see how close they were as well!!!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RhTpawi7E No beans before the flight that's for sure!!! 1
FuriousMeow Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) There's a difference between reporting a problem, testing, presenting a case as to why it is actually not correct based on data and what those who got banned, or otherwise, did which wasn't present quantifiable data that could be used to make a machine simulate a plane which is what a computer does. I'm glad to see the 190 more accurate, it won't matter one bit to those that think they should be uber aces in it because it was a fighter-bomber on the Eastern Front for a reason and is an amazing fighter in wing pair to squadron engagements due to its quick acceleration, roll rate, and great zoom but very, very, few actually use it other than solo. Edited March 12, 2016 by FuriousMeow 4
Jade_Monkey Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Gents, See 34.10 min (below link) to see how close they were as well!!!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RhTpawi7E No beans before the flight that's for sure!!! Hahaha, im on a bus going to NYC right now and someone in the bus hasnt heard of the "no beans rule". Im dying in here 3
Haza Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Jade_Monkey, That just made me laugh out loud for real!!!
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 There's a difference between reporting a problem, testing, presenting a case as to why it is actually not correct based on data and what those who got banned, or otherwise, did which wasn't present quantifiable data that could be used to make a machine simulate a plane which is what a computer does. I'm glad to see the 190 more accurate, it won't matter one bit to those that think they should be uber aces in it because it was a fighter-bomber on the Eastern Front for a reason and is an amazing fighter in wing pair to squadron engagements due to its quick acceleration, roll rate, and great zoom but very, very, few actually use it other than solo. When flown to it's strengths is does just fine as a single as well but, yes, it is better as a pair. Isn't every fighter though? 1
Dakpilot Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 White contrails will be able to be created far above the combat, at a greater rate of climb now although this will be very handy when the Western Europe expansion comes out Cheers Dakpilot
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 White contrails will be able to be created far above the combat, at a greater rate of climb now although this will be very handy when the Western Europe expansion comes out Cheers Dakpilot Is that what happens in expert? My mates and I usually only seek to come in at 500-1000m above the fray or about 500m above the bombers I am escorting. I haven't broken 5000m AGL since I flew expert as a solo ship almost a year ago.
HagarTheHorrible Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) Hmm, I don't think it works like that... ! I don't know why not ? I apologize, this isn't really the right thread to discuss this, but as I've started ........ I appreciate , in real life, things like pilot experience and seat feel, would mitigate against it, but lacking many of the real life cues I would have thought that's exactly what would happen. Maybe utterly unobvious when flying alone in the sim but if you were flying next to another bomber that had just dropped several hundred kilos of bombs then I would have thought it was very much more noticeable. Maybe it's just me, but it's never occurred to me to reduce power when dropping bombs to ensure that I don't climb or speed up out of a formation ( not that I fly in a formation, but you know, if I did...... Yeh !!! and pigs might fly) If it did occur, I'm not saying it does, I'm just curious about the physics, then I expect real pilots were trained to expect and compensate for it, sim pilots however might not even be aware of it happening, or mores to the point, care. Never patronize a fool, he might, by sheer chance, say something clever and end up making you look like a twit, isn't that right raaaid ? Edited March 12, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible
HR_Tumu Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 nice plane. Can devs tell us something about next scenario?? Thx
Yogiflight Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Hagar, I think, what this game concerns, you are right. I don`t know how it is IRL, but it happened to me, that after a bombthrow with the He111 my Heinkel kept flying in the same altitude until I exited the horizontal autopilot. When it was off, my Heinkel climbed like mad, until I trimmed it down quite a bit. When you see in the case of the Ju88, when thrown six 250kg bombs plus the 50kg bombs out of the bombbay, the AC loses quite some weight and therefore should definitely start climbing.
Asgar Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) There's a difference between reporting a problem, testing, presenting a case as to why it is actually not correct based on data and what those who got banned, or otherwise, did which wasn't present quantifiable data that could be used to make a machine simulate a plane which is what a computer does. I'm glad to see the 190 more accurate, it won't matter one bit to those that think they should be uber aces in it because it was a fighter-bomber on the Eastern Front for a reason and is an amazing fighter in wing pair to squadron engagements due to its quick acceleration, roll rate, and great zoom but very, very, few actually use it other than solo. are you starting this BS again i know for a fact that by now, multiple people explained on this forum that the reason the 190 was used as a fighter bomber (which wasn't even it's exclusive role) was not that the Fw performed worse than it's opponents but because the Ju-87 was massively outdated and the Fw was simply more capable of delivering payloads. (and returning home afterwards Edited March 12, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar
1CGS BlackSix Posted March 12, 2016 1CGS Posted March 12, 2016 Can devs tell us something about next scenario?? We haven't made the decision on the following project yet.
Bando Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) I'm glad with the upcoming update. Thank you dev team. @ Blacksix: Are you guys making that decision on your own, or do we (as the potential users) also have a say in that (by poll or so)? Edited March 12, 2016 by Bando 1
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 We haven't made the decision on the following project yet. Looking forward to the day that you do and you can tell us :D Great Dev Update with that Ju88 video. Superb! Keep em coming!
Idlergear Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Thoroughly enjoyed BOS so far and really looking forward to the 88's arrival. Keep up the great work Development Team
ACG_KaiLae Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) are you starting this BS again i know for a fact that by now, multiple people explained on this forum that the reason the 190 was used as a fighter bomber (which wasn't even it's exclusive role) was not that the Fw performed worse than it's opponents but because the Ju-87 was massively outdated and the Fw was simply more capable of delivering payloads. (and returning home afterwards Also a big difference between a G or F model 190, and a A model. Edited March 12, 2016 by Kai_Lae
Boomerang Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Apologies if this is off topic but, where is Flat Spin Man these days, haven't seen him here for a while now. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now