Irgendjemand Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Prediction:I think the FW will keep performing that crappy until the VVS get a plane that historically correct could compete with or exceed its performance, THEN they will change the A3 to its correct performamce and therebey maintaining the balance they want. You will see. Edited July 16, 2016 by Irgendjemand
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 BTW, You can see from the instructions that the R6 kit could in fact be applied to an FW-190A4 by the Geschwader using the Factory Kit whereas the FW-190A5 and FW-190A6 was applied at the factory. If you look at FW-190A4's Cg limits, the forward CG is .05Meters AFT of the Forward CG limit for an FW-190A5/A6. Again, this was done to prevent the adverse loading condition that could develop depending on the empty weight CG location of the aircraft coming off the assembly line.
Dr_Molem Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Prediction: I think the FW will keep performing that crappy until the VVS get a plane that historically correct could compete with or exceed its performance, THEN they will change the A3 to its correct performamce and therebey maintaining the balance they want. You will see. That might have been true if the FW-190 was not the only plane in BOS that does not has its pack of FM issues.
JG13_opcode Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 If PEC are not considered in your game, then you will be looking at a 20% or higher error in the relative performance depending on the match up. Hmm... your game Do you own this game or not? Prediction:I think the FW will keep performing that crappy until the VVS get a plane that historically correct could compete with or exceed its performance, THEN they will change the A3 to its correct performamce and therebey maintaining the balance they want. You will see. This makes no sense. The 190 is not a very big threat to VVS aircraft compared to the F-4 and G-2. If they want to maintain "balance" they'd have nerfed the Messerschmitts.
Dr_Molem Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 This makes no sense. The 190 is not a very big threat to VVS aircraft compared to the F-4 and G-2. If they want to maintain "balance" they'd have nerfed the Messerschmitts. True, i forgot this point. 109s in BOS are among the best in term of overperforming FMs. Mix a bit of FW-190 roll rate, P-47 Vne, A6M's stall characteristics, some salt/pepper... and you have your BOS 109.
JG13_opcode Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 It's just people whose favourite ride is the 190 and are sour that it's not the best.
Dr_Molem Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 It's just people whose favourite ride is the 190 and are sour that it's not the best the FW-190 in BOS is a F*cked-Wulf 190, a Butchered Bird. Fixed.
JtD Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Fw190 is my favourite ride. I don't want it to be 'best', I want it to be realistic. It's not. 1
Irgendjemand Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Fw190 is my favourite ride. I don't want it to be 'best', I want it to be realistic. It's not. this! Watchit. FM claim. Risking to get a ban:)
MK_RED13 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Fw190 is my favourite ride. I don't want it to be 'best', I want it to be realistic. It's not. This is "to be realistic" in this GAME! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMlUVifr30c Thanks Dr_Zeebra Ed. PS: I don't want to imagine how it would be if he used FLAPS! Edited July 16, 2016 by MK_RED13
1CGS LukeFF Posted July 17, 2016 1CGS Posted July 17, 2016 Do you own this game or not? He doesn't, which really tells one a lot about what his agenda is.
Crump Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 He doesn't, which really tells one a lot about what his agenda is. Which would be what sinister motive in your mind, lmao?!?
Art Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Which would be what sinister motive in your mind, lmao?!? Just ignore him. "Tester" no evidence has single test that everything is OK.
Crump Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Just ignore him. "Tester" no evidence has single test that everything is OK.
RAY-EU Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Meanwhile this silece lapsus thought . Leaving this video of today Historic WW2 two of the best fighter planes . Which was better ? P51 Mustang D o FW 190 A series in this case is the engine D2 Of the BMW serie 801 D2 corresponds Fw 190 A8 or A13 . Coments intresting tells P51 D was better fighter over 6 Km high and were equal FW190 series A3,4,5 ... At low altitute down 6 km except Fw 190 A8 , A13 ... And Fw190 D9 for the liquid cooled like P51 D .
F/JG300_Gruber Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 Sound tests says that the Fw is better for my ears 1
YSoMadTovarisch Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Can we just ignore Crump's attempt and stroking his epeen and go back to the things that matter? Edited July 25, 2016 by GrapeJam 3
Art Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Can we just ignore Crump's attempt and stroking his epeen and go back to the things that matter? Can they fix Fw 190?
RAY-EU Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Yes with all the information we gave , are only a couple of minutes ¡ But they don't want !?
Willy__ Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) For them their FW is correct. Even if we show them charts and other proofs. They wont admit that they *****d up. It was always like that I doubt it will ever change. For now the best you can do is not fly the 190, if you really need the extra cannons, take the 109 with gunpods. Edited July 27, 2016 by Herr_Istruba 1
SvAF/F16_Goblin Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 I concur with Herr_I , don't fly it. I have a 50 cm extension with spring tension mounted to it and even with very gentle manoeuvring the snap stall is ever present. Stopped flying it a while ago. 1
RAY-EU Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 It should be great take all the information archives of the Historic WW2 of the Luftwaffe and RAF about the capture of the FW190 A3,4 And represented with graphics , datas and grafics . Han make a very good job given and making public in the forum de datas of performance of each plane . In this case FW190 A3 . Should be our job compare these datas , evaluate and making comparisons about Han datas and Historic WW2 desclasified documents Of Luftwaffe and RAF amd comparison Graphics for example climb performance and inclination caracteristics of the FW190 A 3 . meters/ seconds speed in every altitude with the ATA, And rpm of the engine . Another is test and compare whit Han datas in the sim Il2 BoS of FW190 A3 . Are Han datas correct afters tested in the Sim ? Has been chaged , what datas has change ? Is a very hard and long job ! Is about to represent , join , contrast all datas , resume and finally represent with graphics like the RAF WW2 documents about FW190 A3 . But inestead of compare FW 190 A3 whith other planes compare FW190 A3 in 3 parallel ways : a/:Datas and Graphic representations about FW 190 A3 of Han published in the forum . b/:Datas and Graphic representation of the Desclasified Historic documents of WW2 of the Luftwaffe and RAF and contrast . c/:Datas and Graphic represntation about testing with the sim Il2 Bos . Of performance parameters of FW190 A3 climb , speed , roll rate , diving speed and maximum speed , turn time with Ata engine Rpm contrast ... Is a long vantions HomeWork to do , it will be very great and good to do it and we have all the information , only that we have to Make it in the good Order Way representaton ! Thanks Han and the forum Comunity ! , Well We all have the desclasified History WW2 documents lets them take in order to compare all ! Thanks
CisTer-dB- Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I read or heard no where that the FW had a widow maker reputation, quite the opposite. As it is now and on how many I witness spinning to death in BoS it surely would have had one. Food for tough o7
Hoots Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I read or heard no where that the FW had a widow maker reputation, quite the opposite. As it is now and on how many I witness spinning to death in BoS it surely would have had one. Food for tough o7 Nah, don't forget 90% of the folk here aren't pilots, and of the ones who are I would imagine it is a very small percentage that have any relevant experience. Extrapolating the way people fly here into the real world isn't a good comparison. My opinion of course, others probably differ
CisTer-dB- Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) Nah, don't forget 90% of the folk here aren't pilots, and of the ones who are I would imagine it is a very small percentage that have any relevant experience. Extrapolating the way people fly here into the real world isn't a good comparison. My opinion of course, others probably differ I understand that and I fully agree, but it happen that I do. Although without being an engineer planes have no secret for me and I considered BoS as a game noting more, but still departing from a controlled flight for a sneeze is not normal and not fun either Edited July 27, 2016 by ATAG_dB
=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) For them their FW is correct. Even if we show them charts and other proofs. They wont admit that they [Edited] up. It was always like that I doubt it will ever change. For now the best you can do is not fly the 190, if you really need the extra cannons, take the 109 with gunpods. Second that. In my opinion it is tragic, not only that the FW is underperforming in many areas, but that Russian fighters are overperforming in areas (long shallow climb overheat issue not considered in YAKs, partially insane energy retention of Russian fighters, damage of 20mm Minengeschoss in comparison to Russian guns) in which I would expect the FW to shine, that have really ruined the FW for me. Add the historically correct turn fight advantage of the YAKs and the (mostly) higher max speed of LA5s, you do not have much going for the FW. Unfortunately I don't expect it to get fixed either... Edited July 27, 2016 by SchwarzeDreizehn 4
PatrickAWlson Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I read or heard no where that the FW had a widow maker reputation, quite the opposite. As it is now and on how many I witness spinning to death in BoS it surely would have had one. Food for tough o7 Just my $.02 - RoF, BoS, and often flight sims in general overstate bad characteristics. In WWI the Camel and DRI are classic examples. The Camel really was a widow maker, but mostly to untrained pilots. Experienced pilots generally didn't have a problem with it. IMHO the 190 is the same situation. It had a noted, sometimes nasty stall under certain conditions. That stall was quite recoverable and used tactically by German pilots. That appeared to get translated into a noted, nasty, darn near unrecoverable stall under most conditions. It's not that the feature should not exist, just apparently not in anywhere near as extreme a form as we have it. 2
DD_Arthur Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 It's not that the feature should not exist, just apparently not in anywhere near as extreme a form as we have it. Exactly.
Willy__ Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) IMHO the 190 is the same situation. It had a noted, sometimes nasty stall under certain conditions. That stall was quite recoverable and used tactically by German pilots. That appeared to get translated into a noted, nasty, darn near unrecoverable stall under most conditions. It's not that the feature should not exist, just apparently not in anywhere near as extreme a form as we have it. I have no problems with the stall characteristics, I can recover from almost any spin. Its just that the 190 bleeds energy and speed way too fast, and it does really take a really long time to recover the lost energy. Although the stall is way too sudden, thats not the only problem with the plane ingame... Edited July 27, 2016 by Herr_Istruba 2
PatrickAWlson Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I have no problems with the stall characteristics, I can recover from almost any spin. Its just that the 190 bleeds energy and speed way too fast, and it does really take a really long time to recover the lost energy. Although the stall is way too sudden, thats not the only problem with the plane ingame... I never get to the point of worrying about energy retention because I have usually killed myself before it becomes an issue . And I admit that I don't fly much so my PoV should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I can fly the other planes at least well enough to let something else kill me - not the 190 though.
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Another thing that's really questionable ar eit's dive characteristics in a dive. There's a well detailed performence comparison between the 190 A-2 and 109 F-2 both tested in a 30° dive. The 190 was noted to gain significant seperation especially in the early dive while the 109 only managed to reach up in the later part of the dive. Don't think this is the case ingame as sby already conducted tests and reported it to be impossible. About the stall, yes it was sudden but not really vicious in the sense that it stalled more often than any compareable aircraft of that period. It was also noted that the transition into a spin could be prevented easily with quick aileroun movement and a slight pitch change. It is nothing that seriously rendered the plane incapeable in combat, it just required caution to be flown. Apart from that the 190 was more beginner friendly than the 109 in nearly every regard.
F/JG300_Gruber Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Its just that the 190 bleeds energy and speed way too fast Very good point. Sometimes you can manage to put your wings in a stall configuration, with the plane shaking like crazy but keeping flying forward. But it just looses speed like it have retrorockets fitted on. You can go from 700kph to 200kph in a couple seconds, with the plane keeping a level flight attitude. I don't believe this is even physically possible.
CUJO_1970 Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 After spending over 50 hours online this past month or so, fighting against humans and reviewing many flight records - the handling disparity between the other fighters and the FW-190 is unacceptable. You fly the FW on a razor's edge - any wrong or sudden movement and the aircraft wants to fall out of the sky. A unique branch of physics has been applied to the FW that can't be explained away by wing loading. It is currently playing by rules that don't apply to it's competitors. 2
L3Pl4K Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Another thing that's really questionable ar eit's dive characteristics in a dive. There's a well detailed performence comparison between the 190 A-2 and 109 F-2 both tested in a 30° dive. The 190 was noted to gain significant seperation especially in the early dive while the 109 only managed to reach up in the later part of the dive. If you mean this: http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24&L=0%2F It was the F4 not F2. If not, send me please the link for A2/F2 comparsion.
YSoMadTovarisch Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Considering that what we have in BoS is the A3, which was much heavier and had a more powerful engine, it should be even more superior in a dive, but righ now the 190 has no advantage in dive acceleration over any plane, not even Russian planes, the only the reason the A3 can outdive Russian planes in BoS is that it has a higher Vmax. 3
Willy__ Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) the only the reason the A3 can outdive Russian planes in BoS is that it has a higher Vmax. the only the reason the A3 can outdive Russian planes in BoS is that it has a higher Vmax. the only the reason the A3 can outdive Russian planes in BoS is that it has a higher Vmax. the only the reason the A3 can outdive Russian planes in BoS is that it has a higher Vmax. +1 Edited July 28, 2016 by Herr_Istruba
YSoMadTovarisch Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 To be fair, you were missing your canopy which should slow down your plane a lot, you also got hit pretty badly so further speed was lost due to aerodynamic damage.
Recommended Posts