Fw-190 after the last update

[Dr_Molem]

 

 

You fixed what? Twisted my words? Good for you. I have quoted your words directly.

I understand that not everyone has read "In Pursuit" or knows about historical Luftwaffe fighter tactics. Now is a good chance to read it, though, and get to know why it is better to fly in pairs than alone and understand that it is not a Fw190-specific thing nor that it means that you have to have two fighters to match one enemy.

 

 

My God, how far you are.

 

I was talking about this "argument" of "fly it in pairs, it really shines" of FMD, and you talk about Luftwaffe tactics which has nothing to do with the subject.

 

Yes when people here say that, they do not mean that "it is better to fly in pairs" but more like "you need to be 2 FW-190 to make this plane work a minimum" which is not totally wrong, but because of the broken FM, and NOT because that's how the plane was IRL (as some haters would like), you understand now or you need a schema ?!

Edited September 2, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[WWChunk]

I read all of the topics on the Würger, and have to sift through tons of nonsense; but can Jason or Han just respond to one of these and say if they're going to revisit this FM or not?  I am learning to fly it as is, but I firmly believe it can be made closer to historically correct.  I think a response from the team would cut down on these threads.  

[FuriousMeow]

Yes when people here say that, they do not mean that "it is better to fly in pairs" but more like "you need to be 2 FW-190 to make this plane work a minimum" which is not totally wrong, but because of the broken FM, and NOT because that's how the plane was IRL (as some haters would like), you understand now or you need a schema ?!

 

It was not a super 1vs1 airplane, most aircraft were more manuverable than it at mid to lower speeds. It had great high speed handling, better than most, which enabled it to hit, attack, reverse. It operated in squadron environments, that is why the SpitV vs 190 "proving grounds engagement" is nothing more than a pointless topic that has no bearing on the plane's actual performance but absolutely shows how much better it is in a tactical environment than the SpitV.

 

The 190 performs the same in just about every game, it is great fast - even better with wingmen - but as soon as the advantage is lost it isn't some uber escape machine. It requires excellent SA, energy management, and a great understanding of it's flight envelope. It has a nasty flight departure, exists in other games that model it as well.

 

It only sucks to those that think it is some uber plane that should go super fast, accelerate super quick, roll so fast it will tear the pilot's head off, and turn like a zero.

 

When the 190A-5 was introduced to Aces High it had a super zoom climb, nothing could catch it. It would go thousands of feet higher than it's initial starting point each time. Of course the LW fans, well the ones that care less for accuracy and more about the 190 being some uber weapon, praised it and how it should be. Then it was found a drag co-efficient was set wrong. Prior to the adjustment, 190A-5s everywhere. Afterwards, only seen in the hands of those that actually could use them as they should have been. Of course there was then a LW backlash on the forums, but it matched the data... strange how the FM accuracy matters very little when the plane that group wants to be some uber machine is an uber machine but because it has wrong data making it too good, and when it is dialed back to accurate numbers they are up in arms about it because they can't dominate easily anymore.

 

Another thing - after bringing the 190A5 to its actual performance variables there was a squadron vs squadron duel. 190A5s vs SpitIXs. 190 squad came out on top with like 2 losses to all Spits down. 10 vs 10. In 1vs1 though, they were whining about it previously.

 

Whining about a plane because it isn't good, in individual hands, 1vs1 doesn't show the plane is improperly modeled. It shows nothing, except that person is getting shot down in it.

 

WWII was a tactical engagement with squadrons engaging squadrons. A few 1 vs 1 break offs, a few friejagds, but it was entirely a tactical war with squadron level engagements which is what the 190 was designed for. That, and ease of use for new pilots as in the engine management, taxiing and take off.

Edited September 2, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Dr_Molem]

The 190 performs the same in just about every game

 

Quote me a flight sim where a FW-190A-3/4 has an 1G stall speed of 185 kph at 3855 kg, LOL... No need to search, there is none.

 

And sadly for you, this sentence cancelled everything you said in your post.

 

EDIT: You maybe want some youtube footage of 1v1, dating from before the FM update that broke the plane ? 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[Ace_Pilto]

Well, I've just taken it for a spin in QMB.

 

It's definitely more controllable but the feeling of 'firmness' at speed still isn't there. It's very elastic over 500kph still but more flyable now than it was previously. 

[Gump]

Well, I've just taken it for a spin in QMB.

 

It's definitely more controllable but the feeling of 'firmness' at speed still isn't there. It's very elastic over 500kph still but more flyable now than it was previously. 

.

was there any modification?

.

"fly in pairs" is not the argument or answer to an FM that is causing wildly bad and historically uncharacteristic behavior. I think that's what molem is saying. "fly in pairs" is a given tactic for any plane.

... but I disagree with molem in that 2 fw's equal 1 vvs fighter. I feel confident flying an la5 against 2 (current) fw's. id think a yak would even be more at ease. these fw's cant protect one another and aren't fast enough to get away. of course, im not speaking of avoiding the fight

.

chuck yeager (p-51 pilot) called it comparable to the mustang in fighter capability. some called it the best german fighter of the war. would our wurger earn those comments from any credible source?

[Ace_Pilto]

Outboard cannons with 140rds or however many it is (The lesser one). I fly with them since I'm not sure why the game considers the standard configuration to be a "modification".

[LLv24_Zami]

It was not a great turn fighter but not as bad as we have it in BoS right now. Stall happens too early. Simple as that. 

 

And no, I don`t have any data for you. Fly the thing and try to turn with any plane.

[Willy__]

 

 

Outboard cannons with 140rds or however many it is (The lesser one). I fly with them since I'm not sure why the game considers the standard configuration to be a "modification".

 

You should try without the outboard cannons. For some bizarre reason after the last update there's quite a difference flying with only 2 cannons compared to 4. 

[Ace_Pilto]

Thanks Staiger, I'll probably give that config a try next time I fly it online since it lets me squeeze a little more out of the aircraft. Last night I was just fooling around against the "Ace" Yak-1 AI in QMB for an hour or so to see how the standard config felt. It did feel better, the accelerated stalls are still there but some of the "feel" is back so now the AoA limits are easier to maintain rather than being an unpredictable nightmare. Initial speed buildup in the dive also seems to be slow but I think that this has more to do with problems maintaining the best AoA due to the lack of control feel than any problem with the performance or the aerodynamic FM algorithm itself.

 

I think that Pat Wilson really hit the nail on the head in another thread about this with his comments regarding how 1CGS have to make their adjustments. Especially regarding the risk of rewriting the algorithm vs the challenges of tweaking one that won't perform as desired. The FM guys deserve credit for their improvements and hard work on what must be a very demanding job.

 

Anyway, I'll probably try it out on Berloga or something soon with 2 cannons so you're all welcome to come and shoot me down, the more the merrier, I like to give it a good test when I go on there!

 

One of the things that interests me most about the 190FM is the "outside" or negative 'G' accelerated stall. That one can really catch you with your pants down! Happily I didn't find myself inadvertently going into this maneuver while trying to recover from a regular accelerated stall which was the main problem IMO. The same goes for wing stalls at low speed, recovering one wing only to stall the other is a real problem when you don't have enough feedback from the controls to avoid it and this is why I felt that the aircraft was unsafe to fly. Sometimes I see folks posting a lot of anecdotes about the Fw-190 in combat and, among them all, there's are no Luftwaffe records stating that pilots were afraid of the Fw-190 or that they considered it to be a death trap. Now I don't know enough about the technical aspects of aerodynamics to say what AoA is the limit for any particular speed so I trust 1CGS to get that right but I do trust my "feel" enough to tell me if something is safe to fly.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I am unaware of any FM update since the last major overhaul. When did the update/mini-update take place which affected the accelerated stall? Are we sure it is not just a placebo effect? I know they occasionally skip patch notes on minor things but I'd be surprised if they did anything significant to the 190 and not mention it.

[Ace_Pilto]

Only one way to establish that for yourself Murf, give it a fly and see what you think.

[Willy__]

Sorry, by "last update" I meant the one they changed the FM, the one everyone complained about. The thing is, before the update, the performance diff between the 2 cannons vs 4 cannons were very small, I would always take the cannons if available, but after the update, the handling of the 4 cannons got much much worse compared to the 2 cannon, to the point I'm leaving the extra 2 cannons at the base. MP wise there isnt much difference downing people with 2 or 4 cannons, maybe an experienced Peshka pilot will take longer to shoot down.

Edited September 3, 2016 by JAGER_Staiger

[Holtzauge]

I read all of the topics on the Würger, and have to sift through tons of nonsense; but can Jason or Han just respond to one of these and say if they're going to revisit this FM or not?  I am learning to fly it as is, but I firmly believe it can be made closer to historically correct.  I think a response from the team would cut down on these threads.  

 

+1

 

If you go over to the DCS forums, you can see the developers there interacting with the community in a different style and much more actively than here. Of course they don't respond to all input and I don't think anyone expects the developers here to do that either but the BoS Fw-190 FM has been left to fester unanswered for too long IMHO.

 

As things stand now, If I feel like flying a Fw-190 I much prefer doing that over at DCS. I really like what this sim has to offer but currently it would be dishonest so say I'm not looking forward to the DCS Normandy map. I think IL-2 has a window of opportunity to do something about the BoS Fw-190 FM but its closing......

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Only one way to establish that for yourself Murf, give it a fly and see what you think.

I fly it 20-30 hours a month. I have not seen any changes since the overhaul.

[Kurfurst]

+1

 

If you go over to the DCS forums, you can see the developers there interacting with the community in a different style and much more actively than here. Of course they don't respond to all input and I don't think anyone expects the developers here to do that either but the BoS Fw-190 FM has been left to fester unanswered for too long IMHO.

 

As things stand now, If I feel like flying a Fw-190 I much prefer doing that over at DCS. I really like what this sim has to offer but currently it would be dishonest so say I'm not looking forward to the DCS Normandy map. I think IL-2 has a window of opportunity to do something about the BoS Fw-190 FM but its closing......

 

+1

 

Indeed. And YoYo's (the FM dev at DCS) comments are hilariously cynical sometimes, I love them. I remember when one self-appointed pseudo-engineer wanted to push some for "correct" (meaning nerfed of course) FM for the umpteenth time for the D-9 (he how "optimistic" the D-9 climb rate was, because, ***drumroll*** he posted his own charts what he thinks it should be instead of the historical docs) and the reaction from DCS devs was just something like this:

 

"Is this all you can say? 'My calculations show'"?

 

 

I suppose he is busy putting out the flames as he burned for days like the Reichstag because we haven't seen that one ever since. Must have been a mortal wound to one overblown ego :D

 

Anyway, this is good developer approach IMO. Laugh off the charlatans, root out the valid input from the weed but always consider because there is often useful input. And even bugs are eventually worked out. No wonder why DCS has such a reputation for high fidelity FMs. I can see Il-2 BOS is handling the overzealous FM "fixers" the same, so there is hope the FM will get more and more realistic. 

[Holtzauge]

+1

 

Indeed. And YoYo's (the FM dev at DCS) comments are hilariously cynical sometimes, I love them. I remember when one self-appointed pseudo-engineer wanted to push some for "correct" (meaning nerfed of course) FM for the umpteenth time for the D-9 (he how "optimistic" the D-9 climb rate was, because, ***drumroll*** he posted his own charts what he thinks it should be instead of the historical docs) and the reaction from DCS devs was just something like this:

 

"Is this all you can say? 'My calculations show'"?

 

 

I suppose he is busy putting out the flames as he burned for days like the Reichstag because we haven't seen that one ever since. Must have been a mortal wound to one overblown ego :D

 

Anyway, this is good developer approach IMO. Laugh off the charlatans, root out the valid input from the weed but always consider because there is often useful input. And even bugs are eventually worked out. No wonder why DCS has such a reputation for high fidelity FMs. I can see Il-2 BOS is handling the overzealous FM "fixers" the same, so there is hope the FM will get more and more realistic. 

 

Gee, having a bad day are we? Well first of all I'm no self appointed pseudo-engineer as I happen to have an MSc in aeronautical engineering and I'm willing to back that up by posting my certificate on my profile if you insist. So if you persist I will do that but if I do then I want an apology from you if you are wrong are we clear on that? So it's your call, you can either follow up on your insinuation or crawl back under the rock from where you came. So what's it gonna be?

 

Other than that I can only classify your post as pathetic. Sorry but there it is. In addition, I don't see why you have to drag a developer from another simulation into this but as it happens you are wrong there as well as I happen to exchange PM's with Yo-Yo from time to time. In fact, I think I will send him a PM linking your post here. Will be interesting to see his response.

[Kurfurst]

Sorry HZ, but the only one dragging other like DCS developers into this discussion appears to be you. You constantly make reference and use their good practices and name without their consent, as opposed to the alleged bad practices of Il2BOS devs.

 

Which I find ironic since on the reality on DCS board is not dissimilar to what we see with your FM claims on this board: waving around a self-made little chart w/o any reference or evidence, evading giving straight answers and for example claiming how "too optimistic" the D-9 climb is - yet here you keep telling everyone how perfect that model is and this one in BOS is flawed.

 

Now as to what pitiful threats you wish to me make, who you want yourself to be seen and, who's friendship you wish to claim and to whom you wish to PM that's entirely your concern of which I care very little about.

[Crump]

Holtzauge, besides so arrogantly claiming your calculations that do not match any other data or anybody else's conclusions are the only thing that is correct, you have made too many errors in the basic's to be believable.  The use of Equivilent Airspeed for example.  Completely threw you off and started multiple pages of nonsense as you tried to claim..."Engineers Speed" wasn't for engineers, LOL.

 

You still do not use Reynold Number right.  You throw it into a conversation but do not bother to make a correct comparison or scale adjustment.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22155-naca-data-indicates-bos-yak-clmax-too-high/

Edited September 3, 2016 by Crump

[Holtzauge]

Sorry HZ, but the only one dragging other like DCS developers into this discussion appears to be you. You constantly make reference and use their good practices and name without their consent, as opposed to the alleged bad practices of Il2BOS devs.

 

Which I find ironic since on the reality on DCS board is not dissimilar to what we see with your FM claims on this board: waving around a self-made little chart w/o any reference or evidence, evading giving straight answers and for example claiming how "too optimistic" the D-9 climb is - yet here you keep telling everyone how perfect that model is and this one in BOS is flawed.

 

Now as to what pitiful threats you wish to me make, who you want yourself to be seen and, who's friendship you wish to claim and to whom you wish to PM that's entirely your concern of which I care very little about.

 

Nope, I have made references to the devs over at DCS praising their way of communicating with the community. That does not mean we agree on everything. In addition, I have never named a DCS dev by name here. You on the other hand have. Not only that, but you have used that dev as a bat against me. I just sent a PM to Yo-Yo about that. Will be interesting to see how he reacts. Me, I would be upset about being dragged into your pettiness but we'll see.

 

So I notice you studiously ignored to follow up on your insinuation about my academic credentials. We'll you had your chance and it looks like you chickened out . So why don't you crawl back underneath the rock from where you came....

[Holtzauge]

Holtzauge, besides so arrogantly claiming your calculations that do not match any other data or anybody else's conclusions are the only thing that is correct, you have made too many errors in the basic's to be believable.  The use of Equivilent Airspeed for example.  Completely threw you off and started multiple pages of nonsense as you tried to claim..."Engineers Speed" wasn't for engineers, LOL.

 

You still do not use Reynold Number right.  You throw it into a conversation but do not bother to make a correct comparison or scale adjustment.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22155-naca-data-indicates-bos-yak-clmax-too-high/

 

Well I don't think you understand diddly squat of a lot of stuff you post here and in other forums and true, my calculation seldom tab up with yours but then there could be other explanations to that than that mine wrong. In addition, your penchant for parroting aerodynamic terms and concepts and post excerpts from books may impress some in this forum but they don't impress me much. You see, that is one of the advantages of having an MSc. in aeronautical engineering as it allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff and to me you come up lacking.

[Holtzauge]

As fascinating as this has been, it's getting late here and I have better things to do so don't expect any more answers until tomorrow lunch CET......

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yay, were back to this for the umpteenth time. It's hard to decide who wants the Fw threads locked more between you guys. Take it to PM.

[Crump]

 

 

Well I don't think you understand diddly squat of a lot of stuff you post here

 

I know that and it is very telling.  Again, how many pages did you argue that EAS cannot be used for turning performance calculations??

 

[Holtzauge]

I know that and it is very telling.  Again, how many pages did you argue that EAS cannot be used for turning performance calculations??

 

 

Crump, I never said EAS cannot be used, I just have a different opinion than you on how to use it correctly. Now can we please return to discussing the Fw-190?

[Stig]

Yay, were back to this for the umpteenth time. It's hard to decide who wants the Fw threads locked more between you guys. Take it to PM.

 

It those appear that these guys are here for arguing with one another more than for actually trying to fix something that may be wrong 

[Bearcat]

You can thank the usual suspects for getting this thread locked. 

 

The next time this happens there will be no discussion at all and all parties will just not post for 30 days.