The FockeWulf seems horrific...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

OK, so there are charts that support such high rates as we have ingame? AFAIK the Fw-190 was in a class of it's own (compared to other western designs that is) and if the Russians managed to do as well it for sure would be interesting to see the figures. However, I have to confess that until I see the data I remain a bit sceptical because the Me-109 was not a very good performer in this area and I don't recall seeing any pilot accounts where German pilots complained about Russian fighters flicking around in wicked roll manouvers which you would expect if they did as well as the Fw-190 in this department.

 

Interesting, I always found the Yak-1 was pretty poor at rolling, and in big trouble against a Fw-190 in that department. You can get it done by kicking the rudder all the way but that has a cost, of course. Vade recorded a video of a fight between the two of us, him in the Bf-109G-2, me in the Yak-1. I could get out of his way but it meant using heavy rudder, aileron and elevator input to get the thing to roll. That was a very exhausting fight.

 

There was an 'in house' manoeuvre at 16 GIAP created and first used operationally with the Yak-1 where, when pursued from behind, the pilot entered a climb and as soon as the enemy came close, threw only the ailerons all the way to one side. The aircraft would then execute a roll but because of the climb and lack of elevator/rudder input, it lost some altitude and speed in the process. As a result, the enemy closing in would overshoot and suddenly be directly in front and above the Yak-1, which would then only need to raise its nose and take a shot. There are enough records of its use by Pokryshkin, Iskrin, Trud and others.

 

From what I understand the major problem with the Bf-109 in-game is that it was decent in terms of roll but had trouble at higher speeds, but this gradual stiffening is not replicated here. Did I get that right?

[Holtzauge]

Interesting, I always found the Yak-1 was pretty poor at rolling, and in big trouble against a Fw-190 in that department. You can get it done by kicking the rudder all the way but that has a cost, of course. Vade recorded a video of a fight between the two of us, him in the Bf-109G-2, me in the Yak-1. I could get out of his way but it meant using heavy rudder, aileron and elevator input to get the thing to roll. That was a very exhausting fight.

 

There was an 'in house' manoeuvre at 16 GIAP created and first used operationally with the Yak-1 where, when pursued from behind, the pilot entered a climb and as soon as the enemy came close, threw only the ailerons all the way to one side. The aircraft would then execute a roll but because of the climb and lack of elevator/rudder input, it lost some altitude and speed in the process. As a result, the enemy closing in would overshoot and suddenly be directly in front and above the Yak-1, which would then only need to raise its nose and take a shot. There are enough records of its use by Pokryshkin, Iskrin, Trud and others.

 

From what I understand the major problem with the Bf-109 in-game is that it was decent in terms of roll but had trouble at higher speeds, but this gradual stiffening is not replicated here. Did I get that right?

 

Sorry: My bad: I was wrong about the Yak-1. I was posting from memory and was thinking about the BoS LaGG-3 not Yak-1. Can't say the Yak looks unreasonable at all.

[GridiroN]

The reason why nothing ever gets settled in these talks is people get derailed. This topic is not "debate the yak vs spitfire".

 

As of now, the devs are convinced the FW model is correct because 1 source says so. I'd you want to convince them otherwise, you'll have to provide some real sources. I've provided a source produced by British historians citing the FW was superior in most respects to the BF109 in the other FW thread.

 

Anecdotes are not going to convince anyone.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The problem is, what the devs actually need is not just flight performance data or reports citing which aircraft is better, but actual testing that quantifies the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft.

 

The "FM" as we call it is the result of a dynamic interaction of multiple inputs, such as engine power, weight, drag across the whole aircraft, lift produced by the airframe and so on.

 

To get something changed, while a lot of times they have found discrepancies from their own investigation after being tipped off to certain aircraft not matching a series of flight tests in real life, usually you need to provide something that points out exactly what input is wrong, why it is wrong, and which is the correct version of said input.

 

The dynamic nature of things makes this a nightmare though - take the Fw-190 for example. Before it wasn't matching its climb performance and acceleration tests. A user found some lift/drag curves (IIRC) documented during either flight or wind tunnel testing, and these were incorporated into the Fw-190 FM. The result was two-fold: the climb and acceleration were improved and now match the flight test, but the turn stability was greatly reduced.

 

To 'fix it', one needs to identify what exactly is wrong, quantify it and also provide evidence of what is the correct input in that particular parameter.

 

I'm not even an amateur in aero engineering, but I hope this basic explanation helps you understand the situation better.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well, the thing is that FMs are purely based on aircraft parameters as Lucas mentioned (geometry, lift/drag polar, CoG/CoT/CoL, engine model, ect..) that feed the engine, which than calculates the correct flight path and attitude of the aircraft ingame at a time. Some of those like geometry are fiarly easy to gather from sufisticated sources (ie. not WIkipedia) even by a layman, so it's very unlikely any of those is troublesome considering that the devs are professional engineers.

 

Similar thing with engine data. Usually a detailed technical manual provides all information you need to model it.

 

Aerodynamic data is more difficult to gather/calculate but has great impact on overall aircraft performence. Turn times, climb, speed and dive is greatly effected by the aircraft and prop dynamics. Providing you have found out an issue and can quantify it it's still difficult to prove ingame without the ability to perform accurate testfligths to gather ingame data and compare it. The devs onviously have tools ("robot flies the plane")  doing just that, but they don't share it. So ultimately, even if you can make out an issue precisely, it's difficult to prove it unless there is a drastic divergence in performence of the aircraft ingame compared to manual values.

 

And finally there are artificial values that can not be easily calculated using availabel data nor being proved wrong by sby without insight in the FM buisness of 777. Examples of those would be the prop wash simulation (was mentioned to be based on "good guess"), damage effects on the aircrafts aerodynamics / engine, controll surface pressure forces ("stiffining"), ect. Some data like the Lagg-3 roll rate that is unavailabel even to the devs and must also be based on "good guessed" values that can not be easily confirmed or disproven.

Edited June 1, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Crump]

Well, the thing is that FMs are purely based on aircraft parameters as Lucas mentioned (geometry, lift/drag polar, CoG/CoT/CoL, engine model, ect..) that feed the engine,

 

The lifting line math most of these games does not determine the edges of the performance envelope.  All the performance has to be determined empirically.    That is one reason why the multimillion dollar single airplane simulators at work require a room full of mainframes.

 

If you want to explore the physics of the aircraft's performance and determine the edges of the envelope, a different set of math rules is required.

[Crump]

 

 

The reason why nothing ever gets settled in these talks is people get derailed. This topic is not "debate the yak vs spitfire". As of now, the devs are convinced the FW model is correct because 1 source says so. I'd you want to convince them otherwise, you'll have to provide some real sources. I've provided a source produced by British historians citing the FW was superior in most respects to the BF109 in the other FW thread. Anecdotes are not going to convince anyone.

 

Good post.

 

Here is some of that data you are talking about...

 

 http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=347780

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=347872

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=360064

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=360452

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=361966

[KoN_]

I am trying to work out if its the FM or the Joystick sensitivity that we all have in game , some aircraft fly really nice like the E7 and the i-16 , i just cant get my head round the 190 at its present state , I can not believe this is the true 190 .

If the dev team decide to make the spitfire V  .........` as history tells us that this was outclassed by the 190 at the time  .  So the spitfire V  cant be better than the Yak and it cant be better than the 190 , so were does that leave the spitfire in this game .

 

Sorry to bring up the spitfire but if this is going anywhere like a new theatre . I am pretty sure we want the spitfire .  

 

I would like to know who can really fly this 190 .`` with out pulling his hair out............  

Edited June 5, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm already bald but my mane would be in place otherwise. I freely state the Fw is flawed but it is completely flyable and a murderous b@tch if you don't try to jerk her around too much.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I haven't flown it too much (again, definitely not my type of aircraft) but if to put my recent experience down as it is now, correct or incorrect, it is an excellent aircraft in an open-ended environment where you take-off and go hunting. It fares poorly on a 1 x 1 CoE, CoAlt, 'fire only after merge' kind of duel, but then that's as artificial as you can get. When I fly it, I treat it like an La-5 with less nasty level flight characteristics (i.e. not a 'trim whore' unlike the Lavka) and that works wonders.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Keep her fast and pick your flight. She is a broadsword not a foil.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

To me flying this kind of aircraft is akin to being a lancer - come in fast and charge through whatever is in front of you, leaving nothing left to bury afterwards.

[tailwheel]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. I realy like the FW 190. But for the life of me I can't accept that what we have in this FM is what the Luftwaffe had in real life. I've tried my hand at this bird since IL2-1946, and the original in that series was an abandonable dog. It wasn't until the later patches that the plane was even flyable. I tried hard to get to like the BOS 190 and I accepted that it was supposedly a tricky bird to fly. But sheesh, it really is a deathtrap. Comparing it to the La-5 and Mig3 the 190 gives absolutely no confidence in using it in combat. I wasn't even using it in for fighting, just doing what I would consider 'standard' aerobatics. I could get the mule to do some stuff but something as simple as doing a 360' turn shouldn't be a terrifying experience ending in a final flat spin corkscrew into the ground. Taking down a 110 with a La-5 is pretty straight forward, but it is sad how an IL-2 has no problem giving the 190 a run for it's money. 

If that is truly how the 190 flew, I pity the pilots. Certainly there should be plenty of german metal in the ground where those birds spun into the ground, without a bullet hole.

 

So has anybody who actually flew a 190 tried the current FM? there are replicas out there, built by FlugWerk. They should be somewhat representative of the RL 190s. What do pilots of those planes say? There should be some info to be gathered from the military museum.

 

Over powering this game bird isn't my intent. If this is realy how it flew, then so be it, I'll relegate it to FOBO duty. Or maybe I should not attempt flying a plane so far out of my league.

[Holtzauge]

IMHO there are three FM related things that stick out in BoS at the moment: One is the Fw-190 stall and lift characteristics, the second is the way you are rewarded from popping flaps and the low speed controllability of some fighters (just watch the AI and some user tracks and you will know what I’m talking about). The third is the Me-109 which to use internet slang is a bit OP at the moment. So, why not fix the Fw-190, temper the Me-109 somewhat and look over if you really should be rewarded for popping flaps all the time in the Russian fighters? Doing this would tune everything more in line with IRL if you ask me.

 

I mean if using flaps was as efficient as we see in BoS where are all the pilot accounts of how this was used to such good effect? Also, if the Me-109 was so OP and the Fw-190 was such a dog then why on earth would the RLM ever continue to let them be built? Who in their right mind would fly a BoS Fw-190 if you had access to a Me-109? Why did so many Germans prefer the Fw-190 over Me-109? Why was the RAF so worried by the appearance of this fighter? Why did RAF pilots say “Jerry stays and fights” with the Fw-190 when in BoS your best option is to disengage and run? I fly the Fw-190 in BoS because it is more challenging and I always liked its appearance but if my life was on the line I would for sure choose a BoS Me-109 not a Fw-190. Using the Me-109 in BoS is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Last but not least: DCS has a completely different view on how the Fw-190 should handle compared to BoS. Both can’t be right. So who is right and who is wrong? Seems to me the DCS rendition tabs better with historical accounts. I wonder why?

 

Just my $0.02…….

Edited June 6, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Kurfurst]

Any self-respecting combat sim's FM is not based on very subjective perceptions or wishes, or even the historical record but hard aerodynamic data, original documents and such.

 

We have plenty of the former but those belong to the historical or general discussions session, rather the FM section. As for the historical record, Soviet veterans almost uniformly considered the 109 rather 'OP' too IRL, but regarding the 190 the stress is always on that its heavy armament made frontal attacks inadvisable. And that's it, no mention of stellar lift and turn or stall characteristics of any sort.

[Holtzauge]

As for the historical record, Soviet veterans almost uniformly considered the 109 rather 'OP' too IRL, but regarding the 190 the stress is always on that its heavy armament made frontal attacks inadvisable. And that's it, no mention of stellar lift and turn or stall characteristics of any sort.

 

Well what a surprise: Kurfurst thinks the Me-109 should be OP! Who would have guessed?

 

Now be a good fellow and point out where I asked for the BoS Fw-190 to be endowed with "stellar lift and turn or stall characteristics" would you?

[unreasonable]

Any self-respecting combat sim's FM is not based on very subjective perceptions or wishes, or even the historical record but hard aerodynamic data, original documents and such.

 

We have plenty of the former but those belong to the historical or general discussions session, rather the FM section. As for the historical record, Soviet veterans almost uniformly considered the 109 rather 'OP' too IRL, but regarding the 190 the stress is always on that its heavy armament made frontal attacks inadvisable. And that's it, no mention of stellar lift and turn or stall characteristics of any sort.

 

Yet we have seen "hard aerodynamic data" showing that the BoS 109 has an excessively high top speed and rolls much faster than it's RL equivalent.  

 

Or is this to be ignored because "Soviet veterans uniformly considered the 109 rather 'OP' in RL?

 

Whoops, sorry Holtzauge, simultaneous post. I will leave you to deal with Kurfurst's self-contradictory post.

Edited June 6, 2016 by unreasonable

[JtD]

Any self respecting combat sim's FM should allow to re-create subjective perceptions and the historical data. I agree it's not the input for any FM, but should always be a plausibility check at the output.

Edited June 6, 2016 by JtD

[Kurfurst]

Well what a surprise: Kurfurst thinks the Me-109 should be OP! Who would have guessed?

 

Now be a good fellow and point out where I asked for the BoS Fw-190 to be endowed with "stellar lift and turn or stall characteristics" would you?

 

Well what a surprise, Holtzeuge-Pilum still wants to nerf to 109 (again, and always), despite having failed at that on the DCS and the Il-2:BOS boards. Because, you see, there is evidence: he thinks its OP!

What else could any self-respecting developer would not be convinced by such well-reasoned arguments? 

 

On the other hand, I am glad you agree that you believe that it is perfectly OK lift, turn and stall department, despite the emotions that run so high about it.

[Kurfurst]

Any self respecting combat sim's FM should allow to re-create subjective perceptions and the historical data. I agree it's not the input for any FM, but should always be a plausibility check at the output.

 

If the data is true to the historical one (and I do not mean the homemade psuedoengineering charts showing God-knows-what), then the subjective perceptions can be recreated. However these subjective impressions of wartime pilots were often inaccurate (hence why any FM is based on physics and original testing results, rather than pilot tales) and were very strongly influenced by other factors, such as the training level of pilots, the tactics that were followed and the operational and strategical environment. If you would want to re-create those results, you would need to simulate the historical missions and their circumstances as well, but who would, in what is a game after all, want to simulate the lack of radios, stupid tactics enforced upon them, enemy getting better intel, lack of fuel, or superior enemy numbers..?

[Holtzauge]

Well what a surprise, Holtzeuge-Pilum still wants to nerf to 109 (again, and always), despite having failed at that on the DCS and the Il-2:BOS boards. Because, you see, there is evidence: he thinks its OP!

What else could any self-respecting developer would not be convinced by such well-reasoned arguments? 

 

On the other hand, I am glad you agree that you believe that it is perfectly OK lift, turn and stall department, despite the emotions that run so high about it.

 

Nope, I asked for the Me-109 to be tempered not nerfed (you may want to look "tempered" up in a dictionary!) and if anyone here is subject to emotions running high.....Well, you may want to re-read your own post.......

[Holtzauge]

If the data is true to the historical one (and I do not mean the homemade psuedoengineering charts showing God-knows-what), then the subjective perceptions can be recreated. However these subjective impressions of wartime pilots were often inaccurate (hence why any FM is based on physics and original testing results, rather than pilot tales) and were very strongly influenced by other factors, such as the training level of pilots, the tactics that were followed and the operational and strategical environment. If you would want to re-create those results, you would need to simulate the historical missions and their circumstances as well, but who would, in what is a game after all, want to simulate the lack of radios, stupid tactics enforced upon them, enemy getting better intel, lack of fuel, or superior enemy numbers..?

 

Wow, this was rather long-winded and I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Does this mean you think the BoS Fw-190 is currently modeled as it should be then? Also, where are the "homemade psuedoengineering charts showing God-knows-what" Kurfurst? Maybe I missed those?

[Kurfurst]

Yeah and every dev so far respectfully said 'no' your  'tempering' desires, so why not just swallow that bitter pill and leave it at that. 

[Dr_Molem]

Yeah and every dev so far respectfully said 'no' your  'tempering' desires, so why not just swallow that bitter pill and leave it at that. 

 

[Edited]

 

No more of that...

Edited June 7, 2016 by Bearcat

[Holtzauge]

Yeah and every dev so far respectfully said 'no' your  'tempering' desires, so why not just swallow that bitter pill and leave it at that. 

 

Must say I'm a bit surprised you are in the know who the FM devs listen too? OTOH maybe its because you have such a proven track record of unbiased and factually correct input on the Me-109 that they trust you with such inside information?

[Kurfurst]

Its no particular secret that I have been asked to counsel in several combat flight sims.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Come on, don't get another topic locked. We are running out of threads where we can legitemitely complain about the 190

 

Fun aside, my suspicion in terms of handling is that the 109 (f in particular) is able to pull too high AoAs ingame while the 190 seems lacking in this regard. Also the 190s roll acceleration (not rollrate!) seems bugged and about on par with the Yak and Mig and worse than the Lavotchkins.

 

Not a great 190 fan here so this is my objective view of things.

[ZachariasX]

If the data is true to the historical one (and I do not mean the homemade psuedoengineering charts showing God-knows-what), then the subjective perceptions can be recreated.

 

 

Sorry, but not necessarily. ANY flight simulation striving for authentic flight behavior within a defined envelope still requires (a lot!) of flight testing to get these parameter right. It is done this way with all “big” simulators. Why should “little ones” not need that?

 

Edit: I think it's pretty cool what we have so far.. but let's keep working on it...

Edited June 6, 2016 by ZachariasX

[tailwheel]

If the data is true to the historical one (and I do not mean the homemade psuedoengineering charts showing God-knows-what), then the subjective perceptions can be recreated. However these subjective impressions of wartime pilots were often inaccurate (hence why any FM is based on physics and original testing results, rather than pilot tales) and were very strongly influenced by other factors, such as the training level of pilots, the tactics that were followed and the operational and strategical environment. If you would want to re-create those results, you would need to simulate the historical missions and their circumstances as well, but who would, in what is a game after all, want to simulate the lack of radios, stupid tactics enforced upon them, enemy getting better intel, lack of fuel, or superior enemy numbers..?

 

What other charts? I would be interested to see them.

 

You inspired me so I added a chart.

 

I was a bit curious on the effects on speed caused by extending flaps. So I had some fun to satisfied my curiosity

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20773-performance-charts/?p=363172

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tailwheelbrownbear

[unreasonable]

 

 

Edit: I think it's pretty cool what we have so far.. but let's keep working on it...

 

Yes, it is extraordinarily good IMHO. (In the flying experience, not yet, sadly, in the SP campaign area, but there is still hope).

 

It is because it is so good that people are still interested in fine tuning the areas that seem to conflict with available data.

 

I just hope the constructive contribution of those addressing the remaining issues is not drowned out by either the "everything is so awful I am going to spit the dummy" crowd, or the "developers are always right as of now - just like they were with the last version" group.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I just hope the constructive contribution of those addressing the remaining issues is not drowned out by either the "everything is so awful I am going to spit the dummy" crowd, or the "developers are always right as of now - just like they were with the last version" group.

Yes, the polarity of those two crowds is rather extraordinary. The game is very good but in need of some tweaking as well. It's not all roses or rubbish by any means. I wonder how some of those people deal with adversity in their real lives.

[Dr_Molem]

A FW-190 FM fix would be nice but sadly it will be only a small step i.e it will still fight mutants fighters.

[Chief_Mouser]

Does a black redstart last week count? Had a peregrine drop smack onto a lapwing right in front of me many years ago. Impressive.

Cheers.

Edited June 7, 2016 by 216th_Cat

[Bearcat]

Come on, don't get another topic locked. We are running out of threads where we can legitemitely complain about the 190

 

Fun aside, my suspicion in terms of handling is that the 109 (f in particular) is able to pull too high AoAs ingame while the 190 seems lacking in this regard. Also the 190s roll acceleration (not rollrate!) seems bugged and about on par with the Yak and Mig and worse than the Lavotchkins.

 

Not a great 190 fan here so this is my objective view of things.

 

 

Indeed.............