150GCT_Veltro Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Now 15 pages of debate (dozen of other 190 closed topics) It's only emotions Can you believe that guys ? lol Well said.
F/JG300_Gruber Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 You are correct sir... Very little negative G and you will automatically be in a spin regardless of airspeed as well. I will have to do some testing but I think what is happening is the way the FM works is if you're negative G you are instantly uncoordinated and go into a spin. Not even a flat stall but a spin. It would take quite a bit to get a plane to get into a spin at 400 mph unless you really set it up to so and stamp on the rudder. The current 190 does it will very little effort and no rudder input for whatever reason. Put the necessary amount of right foot when you push the stick and you can get a decent amount of negative G even under 300kph
6./ZG26_Gielow Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Playing the classic iL2 I developed a technic which was impossible to stall the 190. Just set your pitch control to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80 80 and stalls were gone forever. I am not sure if we can do the same here. Playing BoS I have noticed that stall is caused by over control. I think you won't need at any moment more than 30 degrees deflection on your stick from neutral. Very little input to achieve max maneuverability. That's why I think pilots used to say that 190s aerobatics were a pleasure. Other must have here is trimming. If you don't trimm for turns, dives, climbs and level flight you will fail. I also disagree about sudden stall. You always hear a strong wind sound (like open canopy) when you reach maximum Gs for that maneuver. Just don't pull back anymore and don't pull back too quickly to start your turn until you have the muscle memory for it. Using rudder pedals along stick you can go from level flight to 90 degrees bank "instantaneously". I don't know what can be faster than this Edited September 29, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow
6./ZG26_Custard Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Playing BoS I have noticed that stall is caused by over control. I think you won't need at any moment more than 30 degrees deflection on your stick from neutral. Very little input to achieve max maneuverability. That's why I think pilots used to say that 190s aerobatics were a pleasure. Other must have here is trimming. If you don't trimm for turns, dives, climbs and level flight you will fail. I also disagree about sudden stall. You always hear a strong wind sound (like open canopy) when you reach maximum Gs for that maneuver. Just don't pull back anymore and don't pull back too quickly to start your turn until you have the muscle memory for it. Using rudder pedals along stick you can go from level flight to 90 degrees bank "instantaneously". I don't know what can be faster than this I have to say that over control of the control stick seems to be the problem in most cases. From personal experience adjusting the curves to a minimum and with gentle input's seems to help greatly. I also agree that there is a audible warning prior to the stall. I don't use a forced-feedback stick but would assume that you would get some kind of indication of a stall using one?
3./JG15_Kampf Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Playing the classic iL2 I developed a technic which was impossible to stall the 190. Just set your pitch control to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80 80 and stalls were gone forever. I am not sure if we can do the same here. I also used this technique in the old 1946 and worked very well. The last value (80) means that you can pull 100% of their physical joystick, but the game plays that you only have 80% of elevators. After I started using it never was stall, and the plane was not less maneuverable even at high speeds. In BOS operates different. I tested the 'joycurves'. In it you move the curves as you want. Even using only 75% of elevators, the plane still has the ability to go into stall. Furthermore, at high speeds the elevator loses efficiency (75% is not 100%) and its split S will need higher altitude to be used. sorry my english (google translator)
Asgar Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I would love to see a comeback of the RoF control options 5
URUAker Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 All that are following this topic, and that really want to look for solutions to this matter with an open impartial mind look here : http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25504-lets-put-together-new-report-fw-190a-3-han/
Bert_Foster Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Agree on all. Unfortunately the way that the curve adjustments work in BOS (i.e. S-curve where higher 'sensitivity' yields greater effectiveness the more you pull) is the exact opposite of what we need for the 190. If they had a negative sensitivity value where the response started linear but got less effective as you pulled we would still have the great initial responsiveness as well as less likelihood of snap stall with an accidental stick overpull. Now that I think of it, that might be worth putting in the suggestion box. I use straight linear for now...best bad option. Need to look into whether or not my T-16000M came with any kind of custom control curve software Using CH sticks and CH manager you can set "negative" sensitivity values. I tried Linear in BOS (0%) with negative sensitivity via CH manager .... end result is dramatically worse with almost no ability to precisely control pitch and stalling almost instantly as soon as you get some back pressure on.
StaB/Tomio_VR*** Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) I know well this place of Meudon-Chalais as my parents lives just beside xD The place consists into a single hangar in the forest made for Airships / Zeppelin in late 19th century. There is no strip beside. Therefore, I'm really surprised to learn that some 190 tests were made there in Occupied France during the war... The 190 was a very secret plane until it reached the frontline in late 41. Teeth troubles were related with engines, not with stability and spin. Such serious tests should have been done in Germany which makes me think that this devs document is not enough to be sure... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_Y Today but under restauration as part of Le Bourget museum Edited September 30, 2016 by 64sTomio 2
Urra Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 I know well this place of Meudon-Chalais as my parents lives just beside xD The place consists into a single hangar in the forest made for Airships / Zeppelin in late 19th century. There is no strip beside. Therefore, I'm really surprised to learn that some 190 tests were made there in Occupied France during the war... The 190 was a very secret plane until it reached the frontline in late 41. Teeth troubles were related with engines, not with stability and spin. Such serious tests should have been done in Germany which makes me think that this devs document is not enough to be sure... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_Y Today but under restauration as part of Le Bourget museum Would be nice to be able to donate a few $ for single pieces of glass,maybe get you name in tiny letters in the corner of the glass, like we can donate for park benches here in the parks.
Caudron431 Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) I know well this place of Meudon-Chalais as my parents lives just beside xD The place consists into a single hangar in the forest made for Airships / Zeppelin in late 19th century. There is no strip beside. Therefore, I'm really surprised to learn that some 190 tests were made there in Occupied France during the war... The 190 was a very secret plane until it reached the frontline in late 41. Teeth troubles were related with engines, not with stability and spin. Such serious tests should have been done in Germany which makes me think that this devs document is not enough to be sure... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_Y Today but under restauration as part of Le Bourget museum I would take the problem differently and ask why testing such a secret plane as you say in a (unsafe?not competent?) place like Chalais Meudon? Then i would discover that this wind tunnel was the largest in Europe at the time allowing full size testing and that a lot of german designs were tested there. If the German decided to come there it was because this wind tunnel was a great tool for them to develop or test their designs. Don't know but i guess they used Chalais Meudon probably because they had nothing quite like it themselves. There is no reasons to be surprised, Nazi Germany did not resist so long against allies with only their own ressources. From slave labour to exploiting every single intellectual or technical ressource everyhere in occupied Europe made it able to keep some its initial advantages and resist for such a long time. What is more, France was not only occupied, but an important part of it was collaborating quite actively with Nazi Germany, Emile Dewoitine (worked for Arado) being a famous aeronautical-related name that comes to mind. For these reasons i personally believe these test were actually quite seriously made. Edited September 30, 2016 by Yak9Micha
PB0_Foxy Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Yak9Micha is totally right ! This wind tunnel called S1Ch was just the best of the world at this time ... wind speed was 180 km/h and back in the 30's it was amazing You can visit it virtually here http://www.ecliptique.com/fullscreen2/onera/hd/visite.html A documentary talking about it (sorry it's in french) Edited September 30, 2016 by PB0_Foxy 3
Livai Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Therefore, I'm really surprised to learn that some 190 tests were made there in Occupied France during the war... The 190 was a very secret plane until it reached the frontline in late 41. Teeth troubles were related with engines, not with stability and spin. Such serious tests should have been done in Germany which makes me think that this devs document is not enough to be sure... The Germans made own Wind channel test in Germany. Here http://www.geschichtsspuren.de/artikel/41-luftwaffe-luftfahrt/98-luftfahrtforschungsanstalt-braunschweig.html This area was never bombed by the USA. Later occupied from the USA Army. Maybe some interesting things can be find inside the USA archives or Germans archives.
MadisonV44 Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 I know well this place of Meudon-Chalais as my parents lives just beside xD The place consists into a single hangar in the forest made for Airships / Zeppelin in late 19th century. There is no strip beside. Therefore, I'm really surprised to learn that some 190 tests were made there in Occupied France during the war... The 190 was a very secret plane until it reached the frontline in late 41. Teeth troubles were related with engines, not with stability and spin. Such serious tests should have been done in Germany which makes me think that this devs document is not enough to be sure... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_Y Today but under restauration as part of Le Bourget museum Good point Tomio
PB0_Foxy Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 No it's not As said above the Chalais-Meudon was the best wind tunnel in Europe in 41 and it was the only one where you can test a full scale aircraft. Yes the German had wind tunnels too but at this time of the war they were smaller and were just able to use small scale models. 1
StaB/Tomio_VR*** Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) I didn't know about the wind tunnel at Meudon-Chalais but it doesn't change the outcome... (do u know what happened to it btw foxy ?) Devs relies only on this document for their last modifications and it doesn't feat all what former pilots / many tests says about it. Results using it in the sim as nothing to do with what we can expect of such a plane and it's not because we don't use it correctly. The 190 was never modelled correctly. For example, it was never really able to escape someone with a sudden direction change when diving. This is howewer maybe because VVS fighters dives very well. Edited October 1, 2016 by 64sTomio
Dr_Molem Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 The 190 was never modelled correctly. For example, it was never really able to escape someone with a sudden direction change when diving. Because VVS fighters roll far too well.
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 S! The problem with LagG-3 and La-5 IN GAME is that they can keep up with a Fw190 in a roll easily, even in RL they could not by far due the heavy control forces they had. Only La-5F/FN sported some improvement in the roll, but even then it was in the same ballpark as Bf109G/K about 4-5sec for 360deg roll. Fw190 was considerably faster in that department. Fw190 also initiated a roll fast as it's controls were so responsive. Will be interesting to see what these wind tunnel documents are revealing though.
216th_Jordan Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 Because VVS fighters roll far too well. As does the 109. I've been wondering what causes this effect though, it seems that it's not easy to put this parameter correctly in the dynamic flight model. But regarding 190, good sources showed up, hope it gets wrapped up in a well documented message and gets appropriate treatment.
PB0_Foxy Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 I didn't know about the wind tunnel at Meudon-Chalais but it doesn't change the outcome... (do u know what happened to it btw foxy ?) Devs relies only on this document for their last modifications and it doesn't feat all what former pilots / many tests says about it. Results using it in the sim as nothing to do with what we can expect of such a plane and it's not because we don't use it correctly. The 190 was never modelled correctly. For example, it was never really able to escape someone with a sudden direction change when diving. This is howewer maybe because VVS fighters dives very well. Wind tunnel is still there as it has been elevated to the rank of "Monument Historique" It's gonna be preserved and it is located in the same park as the hangar Y. ONERA stop to used it in 76 but it was used for the devellopement of famous aircraft as Mirage III, the Caravelle and the Concorde. The main problem about this FM story is that most people in this topic are talking about what they read in famous aces books. (What the devs called emotions because yes what the pilots told in their books are based on their emotions) To try to make a FM as accurate as possible you have to use facts. Performance test in wind tunnels are part of it. Who said the devs relies only on that document for the FM ? They just said they tuned it in the last update using that document. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the FM is correct or not as I never flew a FW190. I'm currently flying an Extra 200 plane who is far away from the 190 in term of performances. I just think that talking here for 15 pages will get us nowhere .... If people wants the things to get changed they have to do it the right way giving to the devs what they expects .... They want facts let's give them facts ! Chitchat will not gonna help ! Devs doesn't have enough times to read those topics full of polemics ... I saw Kwiatek post some interesting stuff in the FM section of the forums let's make a good report to the devs using all the data gathered by people from the community and may be some changes will come ! 2
Pollux Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 Wind tunnel is still there as it has been elevated to the rank of "Monument Historique" It's gonna be preserved and it is located in the same park as the hangar Y. ONERA stop to used it in 76 but it was used for the devellopement of famous aircraft as Mirage III, the Caravelle and the Concorde. The main problem about this FM story is that most people in this topic are talking about what they read in famous aces books. (What the devs called emotions because yes what the pilots told in their books are based on their emotions) To try to make a FM as accurate as possible you have to use facts. Performance test in wind tunnels are part of it. Who said the devs relies only on that document for the FM ? They just said they tuned it in the last update using that document. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the FM is correct or not as I never flew a FW190. I'm currently flying an Extra 200 plane who is far away from the 190 in term of performances. I just think that talking here for 15 pages will get us nowhere .... If people wants the things to get changed they have to do it the right way giving to the devs what they expects .... They want facts let's give them facts ! Chitchat will not gonna help ! Devs doesn't have enough times to read those topics full of polemics ... I saw Kwiatek post some interesting stuff in the FM section of the forums let's make a good report to the devs using all the data gathered by people from the community and may be some changes will come ! + 1
MadisonV44 Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 If people wants the things to get changed they have to do it the right way giving to the devs what they expects .... They want facts let's give them facts ! Chitchat will not gonna help ! Devs doesn't have enough times to read those topics full of polemics ... They want facts let's give them facts ? Try to stop with that infinite loop guys, just one time. Let's try to re-conciliate our point of views. We all support this sim, there are no red or blue in real life. We also know and we understand that Devs need a formal approach described in the FM section. OK we all know that. But just for this time, listen with the intent to understand, not the intent to reply with the same never ending data request. Just leave the data and the sources for a moment ! For God's sake can we all try to be simple and analyse the point with common sense, just one time : - We have two versions, the pre-patch and the post patch - The two versions are based on same "global criteria" and "roughly" match the historic FM of the 190 - I wrote "global criteria" so we are not in the details there so we should all agree on that - The BOS pre-patch FM was very tricky but following the 190 flying recommandations it was an interesting plane to fly ! - In BOS post-patch version the same pre-patch characteristics have been pushed to the limit - Before the dramatic patch all people agreed to say that Devs were right because ... muhahaha ... Devs they are always right - Since the new patch the same people claim that ... muhahaha ... Devs they are always right - Regular and skilled FW flyers are complaining ONLY since the post patch version (the cursor as been pushed too far) - For them the problem is not only related to instant stall, climbing rate, but also speed and energy degradation for reaching max speed So why did we reach 600+ replies in this thread (+ all replies of all closed topics ...) ? Why all other plane debate finally find solution one day (yes we had some, about theP-40 for example, now issue is resolved) and not the 190 ? The simple thing : I would suggest to Devs and senior management to fly her regularly, not just for a test ... leave data a moment, if you fly her regularly guys ... i'm convinced you will give us back the previous pre-patch version 3
Stig Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Regular and skilled FW flyers are complaining ONLY since the post patch version So those guys complaining about the pre-patch Fw 190 are neither regular or skilled Fw flyers? Considering that many of these guys have complained about both the pre- and post-patch versions that seems a bit hard to accept.
Asgar Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Pre patch FM was criticized for climb performance. People had more than enough sources for their claims. The Post patch FM is being criticized for "weird" and overdone stall behaviour 3
Livai Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 The simple thing : I would suggest to Devs and senior management to fly her regularly, not just for a test ... leave data a moment, if you fly her regularly guys ... i'm convinced you will give us back the previous pre-patch version I not think this will ever happen. Why if you fly the plane regularly you will notice the the Achilles Heel its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins. Not at high speeds but on lower speeds there where almost all dogfights happen where the Achilles Heel hurts the most. Not to mention the heavy elevator controls at lower speeds. You can really feel the +1000kg over the 109 at low speeds.
StaB/Tomio_VR*** Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Foxy, 99% of the peoples can't provide devs the requested documents by devs cos we are not all aeronautic enginners so we can only "complain'' on forums like we do. I hope and believe they will consider this when making the 190A5 or the 190FM debate will never end. 1
PB0_Foxy Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Don't worry Tomio I'm an aircraft engineer and I don't have those documents too Anyway I think Devs are more open minded than most people think. I'm sure they've heard about the 190's FM story. They cannot be blind and ignore such a hot topic ! May be the 190's FM is gonna be tuned in 2.004 ! Who knows ? But be sure adjusting a FM is not as simple as moving cursors up and down. It is way more complex than that and that's why they ask for datas. Saying the 190 should gain speed faster in a dive or retain better his energy may be right but is not simple to do as it is not quantifiable. Devs are working with mathematical formulas and algorithms
MadisonV44 Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 May be the 190's FM is gonna be tuned in 2.004 ! Who knows ? I hope... Waiting for the 190-A5 is not the solution as this period of the conflict must be covered Pre patch FM was criticized for climb performance. People had more than enough sources for their claims. The Post patch FM is being criticized for "weird" and overdone stall behaviour Well summarized, improvement on clim performance brought a side effect ... Hope they keep up the good job continuing the next step of improvements, slightly reducing the instant stall effect (no removing it of course) and acceleration /energy degradation also.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Hope they keep up the good job continuing the next step of improvements, slightly reducing the instant stall effect (no removing it of course) and acceleration /energy degradation also. There should still be an almost instant stall effect, but not at 30% elevator movement, rather at 80%, or respectively 100% when flying faster. This should make this bird way more manouverable again, especially doing rapid movements after rolling (scissors for example) Anyway, changes are discussed with the Devs currently, so let's hope for the best. Edited October 2, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*
MadisonV44 Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 .... Anyway, changes are discussed with the Devs currently, so let's hope for the best. I did not have this information. Sounds great, but where does this information comes from ?
II./JG77_Manu* Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I did not have this information. Sounds great, but where does this information comes from ? FM section http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25504-lets-put-together-new-report-fw-190a-3-han/?p=395596 Edited October 2, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*
Capt_Stubing Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Put the necessary amount of right foot when you push the stick and you can get a decent amount of negative G even under 300kph Agreed... Keeping her coordinated is the key but why she gets there so fast in the first place is a bit odd.
Irgendjemand Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) I put her aside for some time now. Yesterday gave her a spin again. For me this planes performance feels totally porked. Stalls far too early and too harsh, takes seemingly forever to recover and feels like you drive a lorry. Acceleration felt subterranean. Right now i prefer any other german fighter over this one. Should i give her a monicker right now it would be "Brickcoffin":) But thats just my subjective feeling tm. EDIT: No hard feeling thou. I am having a ton of fun with the other planes. Maybe one day there will be some FW that feels better. Edited October 5, 2016 by Irgendjemand
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 I really am a true illiterate regarding Air Combat as a whole - modern air combat even more because I really don't like it at all... But as a pilot, as as a simmer, I try to get the feel from each aircraft model I use the closer to what my mind tells me is a plausible model of the real counterpart. In IL-2 I have become a fan of the A3 since the day the problems with the initial graphics of the windshield were corrected in a patch released soon after it was made available as a module. From there on, it is one of the fighters I get more success in, only compared in the VVS side to the La-5N. I use pretty much the same technique flying both - A3 and La-5N - and I can fight most opponents, human or AI with success at a rate which is considerably above the score I get when flying other VVS or Axis fighters. There can be problems with it's performance, and there were problems with it's stability until some patch, sometime ago, made it very pleasant to fly, at least for me. I keep pitch curve of 45% for all aircraft. Using the techniques one of you, more than a year ago, taught me as those supposed to be used in such an aircraft, I am satisfactorily successful in most of my sorties.
216th_Peterla Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Hi Jcomm, can you elaborate more about those techniques. I like the plane but I don't fly it properly, tend to stall to quickly and I can't recover her. Just bail out or a hole in deck it's what I have. Thanks,
Danziger Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 FM section http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25504-lets-put-together-new-report-fw-190a-3-han/?p=395596 Great to see a proper discussion with plenty of good information and no insults and accusations! The devs respond much better to politeness. I hope everything gets fixed because it looks like you guys have got some really good sources.
MadisonV44 Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 FM section http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25504-lets-put-together-new-report-fw-190a-3-han/?p=395596 Many thanks M8 !
Urra Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 I really am a true illiterate regarding Air Combat as a whole - modern air combat even more because I really don't like it at all... But as a pilot, as as a simmer, I try to get the feel from each aircraft model I use the closer to what my mind tells me is a plausible model of the real counterpart. In IL-2 I have become a fan of the A3 since the day the problems with the initial graphics of the windshield were corrected in a patch released soon after it was made available as a module. From there on, it is one of the fighters I get more success in, only compared in the VVS side to the La-5N. I use pretty much the same technique flying both - A3 and La-5N - and I can fight most opponents, human or AI with success at a rate which is considerably above the score I get when flying other VVS or Axis fighters. There can be problems with it's performance, and there were problems with it's stability until some patch, sometime ago, made it very pleasant to fly, at least for me. I keep pitch curve of 45% for all aircraft. Using the techniques one of you, more than a year ago, taught me as those supposed to be used in such an aircraft, I am satisfactorily successful in most of my sorties. Hi jcomm, may I ask what joystick you have?
Guest deleted@50488 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 I have a T16000, and Saitek Combat rudder. I set a joystick "curve" of 40% on pitch, 30% on yaw, 10% in roll.
Xenunjeon88 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) I've started playing IL-2 1946 again but with HSFX mod installed. I flew the A-3 in that game and in terms of 1st impressions, IN MY OPINION, the model in IL-2 1946 HSFX seems to better represent what interviews, reports and pilot commentary have said on the FW-190. I went through a series of aerobatic maneuvers and mock dogfights in both games and where the BOS FW-190 keeps falling into a spin during the more taxing manuvers, the HSFX model has a much more solid response, less prone to stalls and spins and seems to have great energy retention. You won't outturn a Yak-1 in a sustained turn, but when I try reversing for a two circle fight in BOS, I bleed speed like a sieve and either turn so sluggishly the Yak manages to get the first shot, or I fall into a spin as I desperately try to turn this thing around. HSFX is the complete opposite, I reverse the turn, gain separation, and swoop in like the devil was after me. Elevator authority is amazing in HSFX where BOS is like a bucking bronco. What gives the FW-190 in HSFX is not it's turn, but its ability to change directions very quickly and precisely. In BOS trying to do that gets you killed. HSFX's FW-190 really did feel like a sabre in that you can't stick to a Yak in the turn, but its power, speed and maneuverability allowed you to gain separation, run in there guns blazing, then gain separation again, it was a real, "charge in, charge out" sort of fight, where as in the HSFX 109, you wanted to follow the Yak and stick to his tail. They're the same plane, yet they handle so differently. Yes, HSFX is a mod for a game that's like 16 years old, the model in BOS is more detailed and refined, but I want to know why the two are so different when the 109 handles the same in both games. Edited October 6, 2016 by Xenunjeon88 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now