Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Crump]

 

 

My first impressions are that Clmax is lower and that you slow down faster when you load the plane, i.e. the induced drag factor seems to have been dialed up

 

 

Huh??

 

Cdi = .318(CL^2/AR)

 

Induced drag is a function of Coefficient of Lift...

 

Lower the Coefficient of lift and you lower the induced drag...how can induced drag be "dialed up"???

Induced drag has a direct relationship with Coefficient of Lift and an inverse relationship with velocity.....

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Plus the 190 was not blessed with incredible climb rate

 

What's that statement trying to imply? "incredible climb rate"? Question is what one would describe as incredible in 1942. Probably the climb rate of the 109, leaps and bounds ahead everything else. Apart from that, the 190 was pretty much at the top alongside the Spit Mk9

[SR-F_Winger]

Btw. Manu, good that youre back as well:)

[Holtzauge]

 

 

Huh??

 

Cdi = .318(CL^2/AR)

 

Induced drag is a function of Coefficient of Lift...

 

Lower the Coefficient of lift and you lower the induced drag...how can induced drag be "dialed up"???

Induced drag has a direct relationship with Coefficient of Lift and an inverse relationship with velocity.....

 

 

Ok, well the formula you wrote is a simplification Crumpp so let me explain: The AR in the denominator is incomplete. It is missing the so-called Oswald factor e. So the denominator should read A*R*e. Now usually the Oswald factor e is set to a fixed value like 0.8 which is helpful in the simple types of calculations that you usually post in these forums. However, IRL it's a little bit more complicated. You see the Oswald factor e is a function of Mach and Cl. So e(Mach,Cl) meaning that e is not a constant but varies with Mach and Cl. This means that in a realistic FM the factor e would vary with speed and load factor and altitude. I have all this modeled in my C++ simulation so I have to make a model of how e varies with Mach and Cl. You dig? This means that since e i a variable of Mach and Cl it follows that it can be "dialed" up or down. However, since you posted a formula with this missing I can understand if this is confusing for you but I hope this helps in furthering your understanding of fundamental aerodynamics!

[WWChunk]

I've been flying the 190 for the past few hours (I usually only fly offline), and IMO, it has been changed for the worst.  Contrary to popular belief here, I don't want, nor do I expect, an uber-plane; but I find it incredibly hard to believe that it could not maneuver, or turn at high speeds, without beginning to stall, or just flat out stalling.  I'm not even yanking the hell out of the stick, just applying usual back pressure, and then boom, it's into a spin I go.  I don't see how a sim that gets so much right, or the closest we have ever seen it anyway, could continually neuter or hamper a plane that was historically proven to be a great fighting machine.  I'm not an aerodynamics expert, or even a flight model guru, but there has to be something there that so many people feel the same way.  It's literally only this bird that has its wings clipped.  Guess I'll go back to flying the 109 for awhile.

[SR-F_Winger]

I've been flying the 190 for the past few hours (I usually only fly offline), and IMO, it has been changed for the worst.  Contrary to popular belief here, I don't want, nor do I expect, an uber-plane; but I find it incredibly hard to believe that it could not maneuver, or turn at high speeds, without beginning to stall, or just flat out stalling.  I'm not even yanking the hell out of the stick, just applying usual back pressure, and then boom, it's into a spin I go.  I don't see how a sim that gets so much right, or the closest we have ever seen it anyway, could continually neuter or hamper a plane that was historically proven to be a great fighting machine.  I'm not an aerodynamics expert, or even a flight model guru, but there has to be something there that so many people feel the same way.  It's literally only this bird that has its wings clipped.  Guess I'll go back to flying the 109 for awhile.

That pretty much mirrors my "feeling" about the FW.

Well said!

[Crump]

 

 

Ok, well the formula you wrote is a simplification Crumpp so let me explain:

 

Who cares....

 

It nicely illustrates a very basic component of aerodynamics.  Induced drag production has a direct relationship with coefficient of lift and an inverse relationship to velocity.

 

If you decrease the coefficient of lift and increase the velocity....induced drag production will be decreased.  That is Aerodynamics 101...

 

 

 

Oswald factor e

 

Who cares....

 

Efficiency factors varies less than 4% at velocities below mach 1.3 under most theories.....

 

That would be a logical fallacy termed, "A red Herring...."

 

 

 

The red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

[DD_Arthur]

I've been flying the 190 for the past few hours (I usually only fly offline), and IMO, it has been changed for the worst.  Contrary to popular belief here, I don't want, nor do I expect, an uber-plane; but I find it incredibly hard to believe that it could not maneuver, or turn at high speeds, without beginning to stall, or just flat out stalling.  I'm not even yanking the hell out of the stick, just applying usual back pressure, and then boom, it's into a spin I go.  I don't see how a sim that gets so much right, or the closest we have ever seen it anyway, could continually neuter or hamper a plane that was historically proven to be a great fighting machine.  I'm not an aerodynamics expert, or even a flight model guru, but there has to be something there that so many people feel the same way.  It's literally only this bird that has its wings clipped.  Guess I'll go back to flying the 109 for awhile.

 

Nailed it

[LittleJP]

Here's a quick comparison

 

 

This is before the patch

 

 

Here's after. Look how quickly the stall kicks in, when I could pull the same split S without issue previously.

[Holtzauge]

Who cares....

 

It nicely illustrates a very basic component of aerodynamics.  Induced drag production has a direct relationship with coefficient of lift and an inverse relationship to velocity.

 

If you decrease the coefficient of lift and increase the velocity....induced drag production will be decreased.  That is Aerodynamics 101...

 

 

 

 

Who cares....

 

Efficiency factors varies less than 4% at velocities below mach 1.3 under most theories.....

 

That would be a logical fallacy termed, "A red Herring...."

 

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

 

 

Well my response (Post #44)  was in reply to a direct question (Post #41) by you.  But seeing you like to lecture others but in this case show your lack of understanding then I can see why you would “not care” for the answer…..

[Crump]

Well my response (Post #44)  was in reply to a direct question (Post #41) by you.  But seeing you like to lecture others but in this case show your lack of understanding then I can see why you would “not care” for the answer…..

 

That would be a logical fallacy termed, "A red Herring...."

 

 

https://www.logicall...150/Red_Herring

[Holtzauge]

That would be a logical fallacy termed, "A red Herring...."

 

 

https://www.logicall...150/Red_Herring

 

Yeah well don't choke on the herring Crump. Us scandinavians love them! I especially like this version with sour cream chives and potatos. Yummy!

 

https://en.wikipedia...led_herring.jpg

 

But let's get back on topic shall we? Why don't you buy BoS & BoM so you can actually say something meaningful here?

Edited April 3, 2016 by Holtzauge

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Please say no more, Scandinavians in some way are weird ...

 

 

 

 

[Holtzauge]

Now that's bringing out the heavy artillery! Let's just be nice and say it's an "acquired" taste.......Have you ever tried it yourself?

[Holtzauge]

OK, so now I have had the time to test the "new" Fw-190 a bit more and my first impressions of the new 1.201b release have only been reinforced, i.e. I don't like it. So if I fly axis in BoS it will be in the Me-109F4 or G2.

 

Comparing the flying characteristics of the current version BoS Fw-190A3 with the DCS Fw-190D9 I feel much more at home in the DCS model so if I feel like flying the Fw-190 it will be in DCS not BoS.........

 

It's a pity: I really liked the "old" BoS pre-1.201b model A3 but I don't care much for the current version so I will be leaving it sitting in the hangar for the time being. Too bad.....

[Dr_Molenbeek]

OK, so now I have had the time to test the "new" Fw-190 a bit more and my first impressions of the new 1.201b release have only been reinforced, i.e. I don't like it. So if I fly axis in BoS it will be in the Me-109F4 or G2.

 

Comparing the flying characteristics of the current version BoS Fw-190A3 with the DCS Fw-190D9 I feel much more at home in the DCS model so if I feel like flying the Fw-190 it will be in DCS not BoS.........

 

It's a pity: I really liked the "old" BoS pre-1.201b model A3 but I don't care much for the current version so I will be leaving it sitting in the hangar for the time being. Too bad.....

 

Dude you're just bad, go learn to fly... If devs made the Fw 190A-3 like this, it means it was like this IRL, end of story. 

 

/joke

[SR-F_Winger]

My subjective impression: I got some more time in it now and the thing behaves just a shaity as it did in the very early days when it was commonly referred to as "the flying brick'".

I really dont get it. Why do they fix one thing and mess up the other at the same time. Comon devs. Cant you just make this plane enjoyable to fly? I mean there are lots and lots of your customers that just want a Focke thats an AWESOME plane. Not uber. Just awesome and pleasantly to fly. A plane that feels like the pülane we all read and heard so much about. Its really NOT FUNNY anymore. What we have now is the flying brick again. I feel slapped in the face. I expect the thing to improove and what we get is the mess we already had. This mess can now climb a tad better but its still.........a mess.

Edited April 3, 2016 by StG2_Winger

[Lusekofte]

I think topics like this should be informative about the FM, people should not think, or be under the impression of , or come with anecdotes about they read somewhere that a pilot one time stated. 

The FM of the FW 190 has been a ongoing theme since the release of the game, it is much  easier to let the people flying the plane , and those having the knowledge and data contribute. Maybe the message will be received. I am all for the "everyone are entitled a opinion" . But that goes for everything else but the FM tread. It only brings confusion and you simply do not find the post that actually make sense.

It is just a suggestion. The history and fun facts of the 190 we can do in another topic. 

[JAGER_Batz]

Give up, who want to play this game, will have to get used to this UFO modeling.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I think topics like this should be informative about the FM, people should not think, or be under the impression of , or come with anecdotes about they read somewhere that a pilot one time stated. 

The FM of the FW 190 has been a ongoing theme since the release of the game, it is much  easier to let the people flying the plane , and those having the knowledge and data contribute. Maybe the message will be received. I am all for the "everyone are entitled a opinion" . But that goes for everything else but the FM tread. It only brings confusion and you simply do not find the post that actually make sense.

It is just a suggestion. The history and fun facts of the 190 we can do in another topic. 

 

Anecdotes are often a better indicator of historical performances of aircraft, then the data. Data was often manipulated due to loads of different reasons, i mean even today without totalitarian governments that happens a lot. But if a lot of different pilots, even designated test pilots, from different sides of the war all tell the same story about certain kinds of behavior, that's way more believable then a single sheet of data.

 

As for the 190 - i didn't fly the new model so far. But it should be a decent turner. Unless you are doing sustained turning, it should be pretty close to the 109 and the Yak. As an example, look for the Dora. The Dora in DCS (don't confuse it with the Beta 109) just behaves like you would expect. When i fly it, i can understand every "anecdotal" statement i ever read about it, i don't even have to do precise tests, it just feels like expected. Then we go to the Anton...which was an even better turnfighter then the Dora - I'd expect it to behave like that in any flight simulation. I think the Anton performs exactly like you would expect in 1946 with HSFX...in BoS i have never had that feeling once. And if you can believe people in here, and it turns even worse now, then i guess i am pretty much done with this company. Seriously, comparing all current flight sims, DCS, 1946 with HSFX, Clod with TF - the FMs in here seem by far the most questionable, so many weird things happening now, or in the past. The Russian flaps, the weird behavior, the 190s in it's 3rd (broken) iteration, the roll rate of the 109, and Lavochkins, aerobatics you can perform with a 111...it just seems so far off what you can read in books, in contrary to the other flight simulations..

The FMDO (flight model defense organisation) don't do any good to this, quite the opposite. The more people say "it's all right", the more there won't be fixes in the future.

[[DBS]El_Marta]

I have the impression that after the latest hotfix all  planes I flew handle too well.

Edited April 4, 2016 by [DBS]El_Marta

[Willy__]

El_Marta' timestamp='1459807083' post='346301'] I have the impression that after the latest hotfix all  planes I flew handle too well.

 

The 109s feels better, at least for me. But the 190 is a complete and utter garbage right now. It cant run from anything, it cant outturn anything because of the sudden stalls as you could before, not even in high speeds, also making knife fighting/barrel rolling even more difficult. Also, I know its not really related to the topic, but I think the MiG is way too fast down low. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I know its not really related to the topic, but I think the MiG is way too fast down low. 

Of course it is. If you want some realistic numbers, look at plane 2,3,4 in this chart (since they all are the so called "late Mig3"). But would anybody fly them if they would be realistically modeled, apart from some hardcore's? Probably not. I have stopped viewing this game as a Simulator, since it clearly doesn't model enough in a realistic way to be called that.

But when you view it as a "Simcade" flight game with focus on game balance and an even playing field, you can still have fun.

It's pretty much the same like the Citroen in the WTCC class from R3E. You can argue till dawn, but in the end it would be 20 Citroen against each other in every multiplayer race when it would be modeled realistic. I started viewing BoS in the same way, the only healthy way.

[Venturi]

It does 500 flat out at sea level, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Brano]

Of course it is. If you want some realistic numbers, look at plane 2,3,4 in this chart (since they all are the so called "late Mig3").

They are not. Only one with index 4 is with slats (after s.16). Down under table you have explanation that it reached 475km/h at ground level. MiG-3 s.24 in game can get to ~ 480km/h with max continuous AM-35 engine settings of 1020mmHg and 2050rpm - values which were standards for testing.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

They are not. Only one with index 4 is with slats (after s.16). Down under table you have explanation that it reached 475km/h at ground level. MiG-3 s.24 in game can get to ~ 480km/h with max continuous AM-35 engine settings of 1020mmHg and 2050rpm - values which were standards for testing.

Standards for testing? Testing for full speed is normally full throttle - no matter if it is 1min emergency rating or you can fly full throttle all day. Even the speed testing with the F4 is with 1.4ata "1 minute rating" 

And you wanna tell me that Mig3 with Am38 could fly 550 at ground level with continuos power? LOL

And they still are late Migs..just look at their numbers, all above 3000. By far not all late Migs had slats

Edited April 5, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[CUJO_1970]

Very disappointed, especially after nearly two years of development (waiting) and significant monetary investment in the software and hardware to fly this sim.

 

One step forward (climb) and two steps back (stall).

[Brano]

Standards for testing? Testing for full speed is normally full throttle - no matter if it is 1min emergency rating or you can fly full throttle all day. Even the speed testing with the F4 is with 1.4ata "1 minute rating"

And you wanna tell me that Mig3 with Am38 could fly 550 at ground level with continuos power? LOL

And they still are late Migs..just look at their numbers, all above 3000. By far not all late Migs had slats

You should study a lot on the NII VVS test methods and history of MiG-3 manufacturing.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

You should study a lot on the NII VVS test methods and history of MiG-3 manufacturing.

That's not a source. And that still sounds that you think the Mig3 with 38 engine could do 550 in continuos power. But keep on telling that your[Edited] pals, if it makes you happy 

 

Be advised that comments about Reds or Nazis within the context of referring to any developer or community member will not be tolerated.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

But keep on telling that your [Edited] pals, if it makes you happy 

Spare yourself, if you got nothing worthy of saying, than say nothing.

 

Various methods of testing were common thing before and during the war, no standardized methods were developed until long after the war. It is entirely possible that max speed in Soviet documents relates to rated power or maximum continuous power, depending what requirements are engineers expected to meet. That's why 99% of those books and aircraft monographs are a waste of time if you try relate them to sim, as authors write about history, not technical aspects. Such details however can easily be found in flight manuals / pilot handbooks / pilot notes or whatever they decided to call them.  

 

 

Thing I pointed in other thread, someone should try to track what kind of data were used to update flight model of FW-190 and compare it to other sources. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Just adding to this, NII specifies in their documents whenever full power is used. Most La-5 data contains speeds with and without forcing the engine, for example.

[Dakpilot]

 But keep on telling that your [Edited] pals

 

Schoolboy attempts to antagonise, and disrupt threads should not be part of FM discussion.

 

and don't pretend that was some kind of lighthearted joke , your constant suggestions that anyone who talks about Russian aircraft is a communist or some kind of Stalin apologist is well noted

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat

[II./JG77_Manu*]

550 is obviously the absolute top speed of the Mig3 with the AM38, i think we really don't have to argue about that. So why should the other Migs then be measured with continuous? It also clearly says "maximum speed". Maximum speed is never "continuous. I have loads of other sources in books who all tell that the Mig3's topspeed was not faster then 109E at combat rating at lower altitudes..

always the same story in here

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Because that's how testing happend in the NII VVS.

 

The MiG-3 with the AM-35A engine was a full-fleshed frontline fighter that went into service in thousands. The AM-38 on the MiG-3 however was an interesting but ultimately failed experiment due to cooling that only saw a couple of dozens flying, most of them due to AM-35 shortage. An educated guess on why they measured continuous is because the requirements were set for a fighter that can fly and fight at those parameters for a long time, not some brick that can only hold its ground by wearing out the engine after three flights. All the books in the world will not change how NII VVS conducted their flight testing. You may question the methods if you'd like, but that's how they did it.

[Pajeka]

Hi guys, just for information, currently downloading 236mb update, any ideas?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Sure and the early Mig3 made 495 on continuous

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

550 is obviously the absolute top speed of the Mig3 with the AM38, i think we really don't have to argue about that.

550 is just a number. And how is that even related to our MiG-3 which has following engine :

 

Engine:

Model: AM-35a

Maximum power in Boosted mode at sea level: 1350 HP

Maximum power in Nominal mode at sea level: 1120 HP

Maximum power in Nominal mode at 6000 m: 1200 HP

 

 

 

So why should the other Migs then be measured with continuous? It also clearly says "maximum speed". Maximum speed is never "continuous.

It is a table based on 3 books. Few historians wrote their books and provided data known for them. Without specified manifold pressure and revolutions its not possible to get conclusive info. Not to mention the position of the radiator opening, weight at which data were measured, etc. 

 

 

 

I have loads of other sources in books who all tell that the Mig3's topspeed was not faster then 109E at combat rating at lower altitudes..

But you take into account that aircraft in the field do not represent the ideal performance of prototype due to the fact that they are operated on daily basis, they are maintained by people who may not have all spare parts at hand, who may lack high quality oil, grease, specified fuel and so on.  

 

Again, I dont claim it is correct or wrong. All I'm just saying that  forming a conclusion based on table found in the internet is not what any dev will look at seriously. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Sure and the early Mig3 made 495 on continuous

Yes, No, Maybe ?

It's also a matter of nomenclature. Words have various meanings in various languages. And words can be given a specific meaning in specific situation. Again, thats why one needs data on manifold pressure and revolutions at least. 

[Holtzauge]

I'm planning to do some C++ simulations of the Fw-190A3 instantaneous turn rate to compare with the current BoS model and need some independant test result.

 

So would appreciate if someone could test this: Autumn map, full fuel & ammo, treetop level, 400 kmph IAS entry speed then turn around a complete 360 and note the time it took and your IAS on exit. Please do a few tests to get an average.

 

When I have a few BoS results I will post my C++ sim results and we can compare.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Can give it a try. Dont have rudder pedals so making a coordinated turn will be a bit of a problem but still will try to do my best. 

 

And yes, I've tried Surströmming once. Not sure what was worse, smell or taste ... but never again I will try it.