So I got the FW 190

[Stig]

Many people here simply dont have the time to make tests or recherche for actual documents to back a claim. After all its a game and all that counts is if its fun to fly. If I was its developer I certainly would want to know when my customers are not pleased with my product (not claiming its the case just my impression from intensively reading the forums). There are soooo many complaints about the FW that I at least would definately put an eye or two more on the FM (yes, also if it was a russian plane) in question and try to myke my product more attractive. I really would like to know how the sales of the FW run since last patch or overall compared to other planes. I would bet money its sales are pretty weak. If I was right it actually was in their best interest to correct things.

I really hope with the change in lead in the devteam this will improve. I am confident. Jason makes a much much more reasonable impression to me that its predecessor did. I hope I am right.

Fair enough, but if the developers are to spent most of their time tweaking the FM's of these aircraft (not just the 190) based on the whims and feelings of their customers how much further do you think they will be able to develop this game? 

[Trinkof]

LAL_Trinkoff, I absolutely agree that it is not feasible to determine whether the new or old FM is right based on these reports. The old or the new one could be right.

 

The thing that strikes me though is, In the new FM people feel like they do not have a chance in that AC. However this does not fit well with how the FW was perceived during WW2. Now you may call that anecdotal, but if you have two FMs probably equally backed by facts, then that is the next best thing you can go by.

 

I would like to trust the Experts but they have already fixed the old FM by implying a workaround which leaves us with what we have now.

 

If you trust experts I'm sure you have not met many of them :D

They do have a chance... Problem revolve around online playing.

 

Fw is the best plane for killing AI.

AI is boring, too easy when you have flown hundred of hours..

 

BUT AI is probably much more representative of the average pilot back then, ... And any player in a Fw wma killer versus AI.

 

Problem is : real pilot did not perform 3g turn every two minutes, most of them did not knew how to perform scissors etc...

 

light force on stick induced also a lot less esxhaustion than in other planes... We can go on for hours on the subject, proving FW was a better plane due to things impossible to represent in a Sim.

 

Taking the actual online environnement to judge the quality of an aircraft compared to real pilot reports is A HUGE BIAS.

 

On the other side : taking the gameplay pleasure into account is very important, and I am fully in favor of it. But it is called balancing FM.

 

I agree FW was more fun earlier, but people should stop using false or biased argument, if they do not have hard facts, to try to make it change.

 

They should say it was more fun earlier, period. And it is a fully understandable statement.

Edited September 1, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[Dr_Molem]

for example, there was a huge debate on the climb rate, raging for months ... it was corrected, and ingame, the change is almost invisible .... yet people were very conviced this would make the plane a world champion   

 

It would have been, if they had not touched the rest of the plane, based on incorrect data, but do you even read patchnotes..? 

 

And i suppose you were among those who trusted devs when they said that climb rate was correct (before they fixed it), isn't this a bit hypocritical from you, to post here now as an angel, since you'll support every version of any FM, be it wrong or correct ? 

 

With all respects i have for Mr. Brown, i'll trust pilot reports in this case, those who fought this plane, and those who have fought in this plane. I challenge you to find me a single pilot report that says how much the FW-190 was crap in dogfighting. And don't even start talking about 1944/45 Soviet pilots who only have seen Jabo FW-190F/G flown by ex-Stuka pilots. Go. 

 

Are you denying the fact that stall speed is about 15 kph too high ? 

 

Brown said that stall was harsh, yes it was, for sure, but at low speed, near stall speed, and not when you reach critical AoA by 0,1° at 500 km/h as it is the case ingame. IRL pilots used this as a tactic, but i guess you're aware that they had to pull full elevator and full rudder to be able to stall harshly at high speed (easily recoverable btw... is it the case ingame...) ? 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[Dr_Molem]

I'm under the impression that this difficulty to understand that FW-190 was a good dogfighter IRL, for some people, comes simply to their inexperience in this domain. You know, there are really people who think that "dogfight" automatically means "slow speed turnfight", yes they exist.

 

Otherwise, i hope we will get some news from Turban one day.

[StG2_Manfred]

I'm under the impression that this difficulty to understand that FW-190 was a good dogfighter IRL, for some people, comes simply to their inexperience in this domain. You know, there are really people who think that "dogfight" automatically means "slow speed turnfight", yes they exist.

 

Otherwise, i hope we will get some news from Turban one day.

I'm waiting for online stats, not news he tells us. If it's such an uber plane he's been always claiming, he can let speak his stats for him.

Fair enough, but if the developers are to spent most of their time tweaking the FM's of these aircraft (not just the 190) based on the whims and feelings of their customers how much further do you think they will be able to develop this game?

So we have to live with porked FMs in a flight sim, because devs have no time to tweak them and make them historically correct? If that is the conclusion, good night sim, welcome war thunder.

How many 190, how many spits, altitude of the combat, radar cover in the area etc... Annectote prove nothing ..scientific flight and test report from test pilot seem more solid, like the one posted above.

 

Edit : which Fw, which version of the spit etc.... ?

 

Answering with annectote will never help improve a FM

 

As for the stall, with a stick extension or reducing the pitch axis sensitivity with JS external program... No problem.

 

Lightness of stick due to electrical commands will never be represented in a flight Sim, this is not necessarily a FM issue, but a hardware issue. In flight Sim, the more "easy with the stick" the plane was IRL, the more it will be prone to stall in a flight Sim.... Sad, but unsolvable.

Are the shot down numbers (even not made exclusively with the 190) on the eastern front are also anecdotes?

[9./JG27golani79]

Fair enough, but if the developers are to spent most of their time tweaking the FM's of these aircraft (not just the 190) based on the whims and feelings of their customers how much further do you think they will be able to develop this game?

Yeah, but isn´t the FM one of the most important things in a CFS?

If FMs aren´t worth tweaking / improving then I could also play some arcade flight game.

[Turban]

lol, chill out, couldn't fly today, probably tomorrow should be ok, can't be on the game 24/7    

[Trinkof]

Are the shot down numbers (even not made exclusively with the 190) on the eastern front are also anecdotes?

As I said, if you take your online flight on WOL, 72AG  etc...  as reference to compare with IRL fights, there is a HUGE bias in your point of view : most of the pilots were more or less of the level of average AI we have, did not made 3g turn every two seconds, barely knew siscoors (I just written it two posts above if you cared to read  ...) 

 

already said the tiredness is not represented, and the FW biggest advantage if you read what actual pilots said is actually the easiness to pilot it compared to other airplaines. 

 

If you know what your are doing versus an average AI group, you will kill them one by one no fear, no risks or almost ... 

 

Do not compare IRL with online fight, this is pretty much a non sense 

[Ace_Pilto]

C'mon fellas, stop encouraging this guy, he'll only shitpost the thread to 90 pages with his broken english, cancerous emojis and idiotic assumptions. Let's hear what Turban has to say.

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

 

Verbal warning only.

Edited September 2, 2016 by BlackSix

[Irgendjemand]

Fair enough, but if the developers are to spent most of their time tweaking the FM's of these aircraft (not just the 190) based on the whims and feelings of their customers how much further do you think they will be able to develop this game? 

I understand there is not all time fo the world for that. But at least there should be to make Statements about it. Not just keeping silence.

And on the other hand. I am no Flightsim developer so i dont really know how much work it would be. But I know its Variables in code that have to be changed. That can not be THAT timeconsuming.

I also dont say every FM should match the documents 100% (revealing them to the public would also be a smart move and would help silencing most BIAS claims. We as a community would have a chance to analyse ourselves how close the game FM is to reference). And as you know "seeing is believing".

But if there are slight overperformings on one plane and slight underperformings in another that can add up to a significant discrepancy. Such discrepancys are what upset the people.

I think most FMs are good for the most part. But there are some outliers that simply are not acceptable. Especially if they are with such an iconic plane like the FW 190 is.

Imagine a P51 performing and handling like a dog. You can bet your money americans would complain and complain and complain. And thats their good right. Just as it was for the russians if there were hughe shortcomings in their FMs.

At the end we all want the same. Fly our favorite WWII crate and while doing so feeling that it performs how our by so many anecdotes formed imagination tells us. I for my part can live with shortcomings. But the shortcomings should at least feel historic correct and not overarching..

[Irgendjemand]

Wasn't the fineness ratio recently adjusted on the FW190? If that's so, it's a change that I think feels right. Not that I know much about flight physics, but I remember noting a long time ago the tendency the plane had to stay up in the air when I wanted to land it, and how hard it was to lose speed and altitude compared to the other planes in the game.

It was. And this is how these changes influenced the behavior in my opinion:

 

1. Slightly better climb

2. Worse acceleration

3. Evil stallbehavior

4. Far worse zoomingcapability

5. Really huge energybleed while changing direction (deadly in scissors). You can scissor. But only a few times since after a few scissors youre simply so slow that you fall out of the sky - that is if you not already stalled yourself to death.

 

There is a reason why people describe the thing with the term "Brick". That just what it feels like when flying it.

And believe me. I gave this thing quite some time after the patch and i claim not to be the best but a decent fighterpilot(virtual) .

Edited September 2, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[II/JG11_ATLAN_VR]

I understand there is not all time fo the world for that. But at least there should be to make Statements about it. Not just keeping silence.

And on the other hand. I am no Flightsim developer so i dont really know how much work it would be. But I know its Variables in code that have to be changed. That can not be THAT timeconsuming.

I also dont say every FM should match the documents 100% (revealing them to the public would also be a smart move and would help silencing most BIAS claims. We as a community would have a chance to analyse ourselves how close the game FM is to reference). And as you know "seeing is believing".

But if there are slight overperformings on one plane and slight underperformings in another that can add up to a significant discrepancy. Such discrepancys are what upset the people.

I think most FMs are good for the most part. But there are some outliers that simply are not acceptable. Especially if they are with such an iconic plane like the FW 190 is.

Imagine a P51 performing and handling like a dog. You can bet your money americans would complain and complain and complain. And thats their good right. Just as it was for the russians if there were hughe shortcomings in their FMs.

At the end we all want the same. Fly our favorite WWII crate and while doing so feeling that it performs how our by so many anecdotes formed imagination tells us. I for my part can live with shortcomings. But the shortcomings should at least feel historic correct and not overarching..

 

absolutely right!

[Dr_Molem]

Lets look a little deeper into that. Lets compare yak and fw190. 1 on 1 head on merge with same altitude and similiar energy states. What are the options for FW-190?

 

With current FMs (FW-190 AND Yak-1), the 190 can only run away or play on looooooong high speed climb game and reverse minutes later.

 

With correct FMs ? The FW-190 pilot can do everything he want against a Yak-1 as soon as he does not follow him into slow speed sustained turn.

[303_Kwiatek]

Yak1 shouldnt outclimb A3. At 1,3 ata climb should be similar but at 1,42 ata A3 should be noticable better then Yak-1. So irl A3 was faster better climb better control response better dive speed and firepower. Yak1 was only better in sustained turn nothing more.

[303_Kwiatek]

Suorces are known here was posted many times german for A3 and russian test for Yak1 69 series

[Irgendjemand]

1 on 1 head on merge with same altitude and similiar energy states

 

Agree with everything. The problem in game is that even if you keep flying straight line you still dont have a chance to escape the YAKs. They will stay behind you even after a 180 turn. I had encounters like that more than once. Ended with me running away back to the home airfield.

One might say "dive". But that doesnt help since the YAK just dives only marginally worse than the FW (not talking topspeed here - if you go for a steep dive youre toast anyways since he will just catch you a tad later while diving shallow). As before metioned our ingame tests showed the FW even in emergencypower in a shallow dive from 5k to treetop only gains a few hundred meters of separation (still gunrange).

 

What should have happened in that situation (IMHO) is that i should have been able to make separation enough to turn around and at least go for a headon. But that just doesnt work out. Running is the only option and even that doesnt save your 4 letters if the enemy is persintent enough.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

From another thread from MadisonV44, but so true:

 

 

- Another thread about the FW-190 CHECK

- Another topic that will turn bad

- Another place where people flying exclusively red side will ask you for evidence, references CHECK

- Another bunch of answers from blue side sharing the common sense of what they read from the history (from both sides writings) CHECK

- Another time red side will argue this is biased and not based on figures CHECK

- Another conclusion  that we have not enough "data" and that we have to rely on the very few that have been found CHECK
- Another bunch of videos showing that we should "learn to fly the FW in it's flight domain, see my compilation of lethal pass guys"   CHECK

- Another readings that make me sick of seeing my favorite plane being trashed  CHECK!

- Another thread that won't make me change my mind : nobody will force me to fly a flatiron CHECK

- Another time the majority of 190 frequent flyers will be tired of struggling about the subject and will stay silent and quiet CHECK

- Another subject that will be ignored and closed soon CHECK See update 131

Edited September 2, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Irgendjemand]

From another thread, but so true:

 

 

- Another thread about the FW-190 CHECK

- Another topic that will turn bad

- Another place where people flying exclusively red side will ask you for evidence, references CHECK

- Another bunch of answers from blue side sharing the common sense of what they read from the history (from both sides writings) CHECK

- Another time red side will argue this is biased and not based on figures CHECK

- Another conclusion  that we have not enough "data" and that we have to rely on the very few that have been found CHECK

- Another bunch of videos showing that we should "learn to fly the FW in it's flight domain, see my compilation of lethal pass guys"   CHECK

- Another readings that make me sick of seeing my favorite plane being trashed  CHECK!

- Another thread that won't make me change my mind : nobody will force me to fly a flatiron CHECK

- Another time the majority of 190 frequent flyers will be tired of struggling about the subject and will stay silent and quiet CHECK

- Another subject that will be ignored and closed soon CHECK See update 131

and?

[Ace_Pilto]

I was really hoping we could stop derailing this topic and let Turban have his say.

[Stig]

I understand there is not all time fo the world for that. But at least there should be to make Statements about it. Not just keeping silence.

And on the other hand. I am no Flightsim developer so i dont really know how much work it would be. But I know its Variables in code that have to be changed. That can not be THAT timeconsuming.

I also dont say every FM should match the documents 100% (revealing them to the public would also be a smart move and would help silencing most BIAS claims. We as a community would have a chance to analyse ourselves how close the game FM is to reference). And as you know "seeing is believing".

But if there are slight overperformings on one plane and slight underperformings in another that can add up to a significant discrepancy. Such discrepancys are what upset the people.

I think most FMs are good for the most part. But there are some outliers that simply are not acceptable. Especially if they are with such an iconic plane like the FW 190 is.

Imagine a P51 performing and handling like a dog. You can bet your money americans would complain and complain and complain. And thats their good right. Just as it was for the russians if there were hughe shortcomings in their FMs.

At the end we all want the same. Fly our favorite WWII crate and while doing so feeling that it performs how our by so many anecdotes formed imagination tells us. I for my part can live with shortcomings. But the shortcomings should at least feel historic correct and not overarching..

 

There is always going to be someone that finds something wrong with the FM, whatever the plane. If the devs are to take these complaints seriously other then by demanding tests, documentation and so forth, what then? How about polls , we vote on what needs to be changed. Would that work better for you?

[Irgendjemand]

I was really hoping we could stop derailing this topic and let Turban have his say.

Youre right. I am eager to hear what he has to say too.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[PatrickAWlson]

I understand there is not all time fo the world for that. But at least there should be to make Statements about it. Not just keeping silence.

And on the other hand. I am no Flightsim developer so i dont really know how much work it would be. But I know its Variables in code that have to be changed. That can not be THAT timeconsuming.

 

 

I love the 190 and cannot control it at all, so I would love to see it changed.  Having said that, I can say with certainty that you are not correct about the time consuming nature of getting data right.  It is often far more time consuming than adding logic.  This is made even worse when your algorithms are not up to what you are trying to model.  You end up rewriting your FM algorithms (very risky) or trying to get proper behavior from an algorithm that doesn't want to produce it.

 

I do hope they work the 190, but I would not underestimate the challenge.

[Irgendjemand]

I love the 190 and cannot control it at all, so I would love to see it changed.  Having said that, I can say with certainty that you are not correct about the time consuming nature of getting data right.  It is often far more time consuming than adding logic.  This is made even worse when your algorithms are not up to what you are trying to model.  You end up rewriting your FM algorithms (very risky) or trying to get proper behavior from an algorithm that doesn't want to produce it.

 

I do hope they work the 190, but I would not underestimate the challenge.

Thanks for the info. I didnt know that.

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

Another subject that will be ignored and closed soon CHECK See update 131

 

 

I don't see anything in update 131 mentioning upcoming fixes, only a list of what they've already done.

[LukeFF]

Well, looks like devs found out about those tests:

9. Fw-190 A-3 aerodynamic characteristics corrected to meet the now available data (in short, its fineness ratio was reduced a little while its climb rate at high altitudes increased somewhat);

That isn't anything new. It's just a recap of what they've already done.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

I don't see anything in update 131 mentioning upcoming fixes, only a list of what they've already done.

 

That´s exactly my point!

[JG13_opcode]

That´s exactly my point!

.... I don't understand why an update back in March would cause talk of the porked 190 to go away Edited September 2, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

*Facepalm*

 

ok dude just making it clear to you, I am not refering to the update from March, and I never have. You brought that up. My point is, that the FW isn´t mentioned in anything they have announced in the new DD. Hence the subject, meaning the 190 is ignored... again...

Edited September 2, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[303_Kwiatek]

Fw 190 was pain for developers since relase.  There were many issues - bad cocpit bar visiblilty,  wrong performance ( expecially climb rate) , bad control response at higher speed. And since relase i remember Han which claimed that everything is correct with these plane .  Then changes has came  - some good some bad -   so final result is similar as in the begining -  still plane is porked.  Some things were corrected but other were porked.   Still i doubt that climb rate is correct according German specification,  wing polar was changed now plane behave like very draggy plane with very bad stall characterisitic.  If we take other hand overperforming Russian planes like Yak-1 ( too high speed at medium to high alts, too good climb rate) then BOS A-3 dont looks good.

 

IRL  A-3 was much faster then Yak-1  ( at high alt even about 100 kph) ,   got better climb rate about 2-3 m/s at emergency power, better dive, better roll rate and firepower.  Yak-1 was only better in sustained turn rate. It was similar situation like with Spitfire MKVB  but Yak-1 was even worse then Spitfire MKVB.   SPit MK VB was faster at altitude, got better climb rate, firerpower, maximum dive speed and much better turn rate then Yak-1.  And Fw 190 A-3 totaly dominated Spit MKVB at Western Front.

 

For these which dont belive that Fw 190 was good dofgihter i think they should read Johhnie Johnson ( SPitfre ACE) story from dogfight with Fw 190 over Dipee :

Pity that only simulator which i think objective represents Fw 190 flight charactersitic and performacne is DCS Fw 190

Edited September 3, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Some more about Fw 190 A-3 flying characterisict from British test raports:

Edited September 3, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Caudron431]

Pity that only simulator which i think objective represents Fw 190 flight charactersitic and performacne is DCS Fw 190

That could well be due to the lack of real challenging opposition. The D9 does well against a P51 in DCS, what would it do against a late mark Spitfire, Lavoschkin or Yak is something i'd like to see. Mustang is not the hardest aircraft to beat in a dogfight server environment.

 

I'm sure this is one of the reason why some people like the DCS 190 so much. My guess is that as soon as a La7 a Yak3 or Spit IX will be implemented, a huge cloud of complain will also fly towards DCS airspace. Poor DCS dev team, they don't know what is coming 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Dr_Molem]

That could well be due to the lack of real challenging opposition. The D9 does well against a P51 in DCS, what would it do against a late mark Spitfire, Lavoschkin or Yak is something i'd like to see. Mustang is not the hardest aircraft to beat in a dogfight server environment.

 

I'm sure this is one of the reason why some people like the DCS 190 so much. My guess is that as soon as a La7 a Yak3 or Spit IX will be implemented, a huge cloud of complain will also fly towards DCS airspace. Poor DCS dev team, they don't know what is coming 

 

Meanwhile, it's not the DCS Dora that stalls 15 kph higher than it should.

[Caudron431]

 

Maybe but they'll quickly find out what they think is wrong with it as soon as they will have a more challenging opposition, be sure!

Edited September 3, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Gump]

there are a lot of "reasons" that are not immediately apparent from just looking at kill records, but it is interesting to look at ott kittel's record and see that most of his kills (including yak9s and la5s) were around 1km alt, with a few at 3km.

[Dr_Molem]

 

 

Maybe but they'll quickly find out what they think is wrong with it as soon as they will have a more challenging opposition, be sure!

 

 

Sadly the last DD looks like it is not going to happen soon, but as everyone here, i hope you're not wrong.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

IRL A-3 was much faster then Yak-1 ( at high alt even about 100 kph) , got better climb rate about 2-3 m/s at emergency power, better dive, better roll rate and firepower.

  Kwiatek, can you tell me which aircraft dive faster, Bf109 F4/G2 or Yak1? Maybe you has some source and can share it with us.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Probably need to be specific on which Yak-1 we're talking about when comparing to the FW190s performance. There are quite a few changes across the series of Yak-1s... and if we include the Yak-1B into the mix... well that's 3 and a half years worth of performance improvements across the line from late 1942 to mid 1944.

[ZachariasX]

That could well be due to the lack of real challenging opposition. The D9 does well against a P51 in DCS, what would it do against a late mark Spitfire, Lavoschkin or Yak is something i'd like to see. Mustang is not the hardest aircraft to beat in a dogfight server environment.

 

I'm sure this is one of the reason why some people like the DCS 190 so much. My guess is that as soon as a La7 a Yak3 or Spit IX will be implemented, a huge cloud of complain will also fly towards DCS airspace. Poor DCS dev team, they don't know what is coming 

Is that so? In DCS, the 190D is the hardest plane to fly in combat, in the Mustang you can kill it off comerably easy. And the 109K is king of the hill. Everytime I go online you see loads of 109, many Mustangs and very few 190D. In the 190D, with full boost and throttle firewalled, it is hard to separate from the P51, even though IRL the P51 doesn't stand a chance following a chandelle.

 

We don't have perfection, but we aim for it. And at some point, thouse who have to do the legwork for it deserve a break...

[Trooper117]

Update Turban?... How did you do?

[ZachariasX]

Based on what evidence?

 

Merely anectotal evidence by Prillers book of the history J.G. 26, him quoting pilots.

 

The rest is: Fw-190D9: 4 tons weight, 2000 hp, Mustang: also 4 tons, ~1700 hp. If you hang both on the prop, I would guess that Mustang will not follow the 190 all the way. And I was referring to such a maneuver down in course of an engagement. Not boom and zoom up there.

 

But you are most welcome proving me otherwise, of course.