Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[PatrickAWlson]

If you go back to the FW 190 FM debates in the FM section you will see that what is mostly wanted is to tone down the stall.  Not make the A3 faster, climb better, turn better, or retain energy better - just tone down the stall.

 

One thing that consistently comes up with the FW is how pilot friendly a plane it was.  Its pilots and adversaries describe it as maneuverable.  It never developed a reputation as a newbie killing flying brick.  

 

Nobody argues that the FWs reputation for maneuverability comes from sustained maneuvers.  Instead it came from rapid energy restoration and very light controls.  Good pilots did not make sustained maneuvers.  They made sharp maneuvers from a high energy state, used the FWs ability to regain energy to best advantage, then made another one - rinse wash repeat.  The maneuvers were made to gain an advantage or, failing that, gain separation.  It has never been stated that the FW should be flown in a straight line and woe to the pilot foolish enough to actually attempt a maneuver in combat.

[Wulf]

Whaaat? 

Let's Check that Claim by Claim, talking about the La-5 and wether it's true for the ingame Models. 

 

1st Claim: Top Speed at Ground is slightly below that of 190.

Ingame: At Combat Power the La-5 is (a lot) slower than the 190. True

Ingame: At WEP the the La-5 is slightly slower than 190. True

Ingame (additional): At WEP the La-5 is faster than the 190 in Combat mode.

 

2nd Claim: Turning Times are better than 190 (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/19219-comparative-turn-times-all-bos-fighters-luftwhiners-tovarish/)

Ingame: The La-5 has inferior turning time by about 2 Seconds. False. 

Ingame: Using Wing Cannons the Fw190 turns worse than the La-5. True

Ingame (additional): Turning isn't fun in either. 

 

3rd Claim: Below 3000m the La-5 has superior climb. 

Ingame: La-5 climbs at up to 19m/s and climbs better than 190 at combat power up to 3000m. At Emergency Power the 190 has the advantage above 1500m. Partly True. 

Ingame: Even more true whe MG FF/M are mounted. 

Ingame: 400 seems to be the tipping point where the 190 starts to get the upper hand in a shallow climb. At 450 it already has 2m/s advantage. 

 

4th Claim: 190 accelerates Less well

Ingame: Would have to make a Drag Race, but this is most likely true up to 450. (most likely true) 

 

All of the Claims made by the 190A-8 v La-5FN are either fully, likely or partly true for the A-3 v La-5. 

To me this indicates that the Tactical Advice is correct and applicable to our game. 

 

The La 5 (series 8) was essentially a LaGG 3 with a radial grafted on the front.  As initially configured It was pretty crude and certainly not a great aircraft but, it showed great potential.  That potential was fully realized in the La 5 FN but the La 5 FN  was the result of a ground-up rebuild including a redesign of the control surfaces and the elimination of the wingtip tanks.  The result was an extremely good fighter.

 

Because the La5 FN was, for all intents and purposes, an entirely different proposition to the La5, it's not reasonable to suggest that if a report had been done on the La5 it would have reached the same tactical conclusions as the report on the La5 FN.  The 190 A-3 was a far more accomplished aircraft in comparison to the La5 than was the the A-8 in comparison to the La5 FN.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

If you go back to the FW 190 FM debates in the FM section you will see that what is mostly wanted is to tone down the stall.  Not make the A3 faster, climb better, turn better, or retain energy better - just tone down the stall.

 

One thing that consistently comes up with the FW is how pilot friendly a plane it was.  Its pilots and adversaries describe it as maneuverable.  It never developed a reputation as a newbie killing flying brick.  

 

Nobody argues that the FWs reputation for maneuverability comes from sustained maneuvers.  Instead it came from rapid energy restoration and very light controls.  Good pilots did not make sustained maneuvers.  They made sharp maneuvers from a high energy state, used the FWs ability to regain energy to best advantage, then made another one - rinse wash repeat.  The maneuvers were made to gain an advantage or, failing that, gain separation.  It has never been stated that the FW should be flown in a straight line and woe to the pilot foolish enough to actually attempt a maneuver in combat.

 

The Stall is absolutely fine. It will obviously stall out earlier than all other types, because it has the highest wing loading and clipped wing tips. But it gives a ton of response beforehand, and when you feel it kicking it immediately gets back on track just by centering the controls. 

There is absolutely nothing special about it. 

You have to stabilize it a bit with Rudder in quick rolling manouvers, but that's mostly because of the short fuselage and small Vertical Stabilizer. 

Manouverable is a very broad, relative word and can mean many things. The Ju-88 was described as manouverable, the Bf110F as well. 

Manouverarbility is a matter of Pilots opinion and in the 190 referred to it's light controls and good rate of roll. 

There is also a Difference between a Real World Pilot and the Simmer, and that's the Force disconnect. 

The 109 can be Manhandled and Stick to the Belly is no Problem. However, in the 190 they Simulate the lower control forces, so that you get full effect at often 1/3rd Pull, the Aircraft starts buffeting, shaking and vibrating, you feel that through the stick and airframe, and at that point the Real World Pilot doesn't just continue Pulling it further. The Sim Pilot has that Force Disconnect. He doesn't feel the Vibration in the Stick and thus will pull it into a really bad Stall-Spin. 

You just have to get rid of your old habits and fly it like the Scalpel it is to the 109s Butchers Knife. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[303_Kwiatek]

You know before last changes A3 was also prone to stall in turns much more than other planes and wasnt easy to fly. Now they make it very easy prone to stall that you couldnt make proper evasion action when needed. Beside stall A3 loose also its acceleration adventage expecially it had in dive. Sorry but even with little climb rate fix these plane is castrated now. I think Crump made good aerodynamical analize where error was made with BOS A3 and i think he proved it enough giving RL data and calculation regarding clmax and critical angle of attack. Remember that since Fw190 relase in BOS developers (Han) claimed that performance and flight model is accurate

Edited September 12, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[WWChunk]

You just have to get rid of your old habits and fly it like the Scalpel it is to the 109s Butchers Knife. 

 

Funny that Günther Rall compared the 190 to a sabre, and the 109 to a floret.  Exactly the opposite of what you said.

 

How do you know the stall is "absolutely fine?"  Did you feel that the stall before the last patch was too forgiving?  I didn't hear a single complaint about the 190 stall characteristics prior to the patch.  I fly offline or with my squad only, and I don't claim to be a virtual ace.  That being said, while I can fly the 190 in it's current state, and have moderate success, there is something off with the onset of the stall itself.  Much like your opinion that the stall is correct, my opinion is that it is not.  I think the dev's should take some time to look at ALL of the FM's again, and get them to a historically accurate level, before moving on to the next iteration of this series; which I plan on supporting financially btw.

[PatrickAWlson]

You just have to get rid of your old habits and fly it like the Scalpel it is to the 109s Butchers Knife. 

 

I'm curious about this.  What do you mean when you use the word "scalpel"?  I don't want to put words in your mouth but your previous posts sounded like you advocate the idea that the FW-90 was a pure hit and run plane that should never be used in maneuvering combat.   If anything, extend and come back for a head on pass because the FW190 has no hope of maneuvering with anything.  Am I mischaracterizing your point of view?  

 

My point of view is somewhat different.  I am OK with the idea that the FW190 has no hope of maneuvering with anything in a sustained maneuver.  However, I believe that the Fw190 should have the ability to make sharp maneuvers from a reasonably energy state and then regain that energy faster than most other planes, putting it in a position to make another sharp maneuver.  Not just roll.  I would think that the 190 could make a very sharp instantaneous horizontal or vertical maneuver from a high energy state.  It would, however, bleed energy quickly so the maneuver could not be sustained.  It's an important distinction because my way of thinking allows the 190 pilot to use its instantaneous maneuver capability to bring its guns to bear.  The ability to recover energy quickly allows it to remain in a fight.  It is a very different way of flying from planes like the Spitfire, 109, or Yak, but it is not pure hit and run.

[Capt_Stubing]

Actually A3 in BOS is only hit and run plane. It is castrated version only for masochist. So or you are masochist or better leave it and wait and pray that some day developers would bring back balls for these plane. But i would not count on it

LOL... I agree but I was trying to be nice about it. 

[Capt_Stubing]

...My agenda ? Sure I have one : prevent this sim from engaging into a race to the bottom where planes have to meet people's expectations despite their lack of skills.

 

Most people complaining about the FW can't do much ingame regardless of the plane, and were hoping the FW would bring some gloryto them . But it doesn't work like that so they hate on it.

 

Regardings posts and hard facts everything is in the FM forums I'm not gonna repeat myself forever.

Lack of Skill aye... Well I'm a RL pilot and own my own airplane.  I also have 100s of hours in tail draggers and flown aerobatics.  Lastly I've been a dedicated virtual FW pilot since Il2 came out with their expansions.  I played competitively online for over 10 years on Ghost Skies.  I have never seen a Plane get so much scrutiny  such as the FW.  It has gone through dozens of changes throughout the years including this sim.  Funny enough were do you think the programming is done for both this sim and IL2 1946?    This A3 is not what you would expect.  I agree it in the beginning it seem to have some of the right things going for it but now it's anemic at best.  Try a head on merge co-alt with a Yak and I bet all things being equal in terms of skill you will lose almost every time.  Everyone is capable of getting of a snapshot but just in terms of managing that fight you have your hands full in the current FW. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by 14./JG5CaptStubing

[LeRocket]

Funny that Günther Rall compared the 190 to a sabre, and the 109 to a floret.  Exactly the opposite of what you said.

from what i found searching, a floret is a fencing foil which is started as a practice weapon for the rapier. i wouldn't exactly say it's the opposite of what klaus said, do you know what gunther meant by this?

[LuftManu]

I'm curious about this.  What do you mean when you use the word "scalpel"?  I don't want to put words in your mouth but your previous posts sounded like you advocate the idea that the FW-90 was a pure hit and run plane that should never be used in maneuvering combat.   If anything, extend and come back for a head on pass because the FW190 has no hope of maneuvering with anything.  Am I mischaracterizing your point of view?  

 

My point of view is somewhat different.  I am OK with the idea that the FW190 has no hope of maneuvering with anything in a sustained maneuver.  However, I believe that the Fw190 should have the ability to make sharp maneuvers from a reasonably energy state and then regain that energy faster than most other planes, putting it in a position to make another sharp maneuver.  Not just roll.  I would think that the 190 could make a very sharp instantaneous horizontal or vertical maneuver from a high energy state.  It would, however, bleed energy quickly so the maneuver could not be sustained.  It's an important distinction because my way of thinking allows the 190 pilot to use its instantaneous maneuver capability to bring its guns to bear.  The ability to recover energy quickly allows it to remain in a fight.  It is a very different way of flying from planes like the Spitfire, 109, or Yak, but it is not pure hit and run.

This, sir, is the best example of figthing in a 190. And is how it should be done.

Hard now because of the insta-stall and high energy loss.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Ala13_ManuV

[Turban]

Lack of Skill aye... Well I'm a RL pilot and own my own airplane.  I also have 100s of hours in tail draggers and flown aerobatics.  Lastly I've been a dedicated virtual FW pilot since Il2 came out with their expansions.  I played competitively online for over 10 years on Ghost Skies.  I have never seen a Plane get so much scrutiny  such as the FW.  It has gone through dozens of changes throughout the years including this sim.  Funny enough were do you think the programming is done for both this sim and IL2 1946?    This A3 is not what you would expect.  I agree it in the beginning it seem to have some of the right things going for it but now it's anemic at best.  Try a head on merge co-alt with a Yak and I bet all things being equal in terms of skill you will lose almost every time.  Everyone is capable of getting of a snapshot but just in terms of managing that fight you have your hands full in the current FW. 

[Edited]

 

If I have to I will just start to shut down every 190 thread that pops up since they all seem to devolve into this kind of childish back and forth nonsense. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Bearcat

[150GCT_Veltro]

RED FLEET

 

Always a nice reading, La5-FN vs F8?

 

 

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality. The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s. One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon. The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us. The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided. If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail. When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver. Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length. The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down." When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy. In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected. Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

[LuftManu]

With a Yak ? lol. Any day of the week.

 

Please get you epen back in your pants 

 

Edit : Just had a look at your WOL stats.

 

It's quite funny.

 

Stop going personal for both of you.

 

By the way, I dont think stats will show real performance. (And please, don`t do that Turban, that quote reminds me of a similar but not realistic game    )

[WWChunk]

from what i found searching, a floret is a fencing foil which is started as a practice weapon for the rapier. i wouldn't exactly say it's the opposite of what klaus said, do you know what gunther meant by this?

I believe Mr. Rall was actually referring to the armament, but the comparison reminded me of his quote.  I would also say that a saber is to a butcher knife, as a scalpel is to a floret/foil...so it is the opposite of what Klaus was saying...according to Mr. Rall.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm currently testing your guys's thesis on the Stall at all speeds. I'm trying to devise tests to contrast and compare. 

[PatrickAWlson]

One bit of food for thought about data and its relevance in a PC flight sim.  In an ideal sim we have a perfect physics model with perfect data that produces absolutely realistic results.  So what's wrong with this?  Well, first we don't have perfect data.  But lets say we did.  It still would not produce perfect results because the emulator is not perfect.  Makes sense, right?  Perfect data pushed through an imperfect algorithm will produce imperfect results.  

 

What does that mean?  it means you have to do some voodoo.  Ideally you fix the problem by making your physics engine more perfect, but if that is not possible then you have to tweak the data to produce more plausible results.   Alternatively, you don't do that and you live with whatever your algorithm spits out.

 

The makers of BoS do a phenomenal job of simulating flight on a PC for the cost of less than $100.  But it's not perfect.  Speed, rate of climb, dive, maybe even acceleration - things that have been explicitly measured - are of great value as bench marks.  The quirkier aspects of an aircraft like when it will depart controlled flight are much tougher to model, as they depend on the physics engine (the one that costs less than $100) to accurately take in a silly number of variables and calculate real world outcomes.  With that in mind my request is to be open to the possibility that the combination of physics engine and data set might not be producing exactly the right outcome, especially when the outcome that we experience is significantly different from what real pilots reported.

[MadisonV44]

You wrote above that you dont fly anymore, so how do you know that the 190 handles as you claim? Also how do you know what the "reds seem to know the fw better than others", since you dont fly anymore? 

Sincerely. 

 

Why should I justify myself for not flying anymore the FW ? 

I used to fly her everyday .. and I stopped since enough is enough of absurd situations experienced online.

End of it. 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

You know before last changes A3 was also prone to stall in turns much more than other planes and wasnt easy to fly. Now they make it very easy prone to stall that you couldnt make proper evasion action when needed. Beside stall A3 loose also its acceleration adventage expecially it had in dive. Sorry but even with little climb rate fix these plane is castrated now. I think Crump made good aerodynamical analize where error was made with BOS A3 and i think he proved it enough giving RL data and calculation regarding clmax and critical angle of attack. Remember that since Fw190 relase in BOS developers (Han) claimed that performance and flight model is accurate

 

Problem is, Crump must be on the blacklist of most of the dev team and no matter what he says, he won't get much credit. Even if the points he raised could finally lead to an accurate FM for the FW.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think rather that Fw 190 is much more in black list here then Crump. It is noticable since relase of the plane unfortunately.

Edited September 12, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JG13_opcode]

Who'd have thought Turban would devolve to ad hominem?

 

Stubing is a very skilled pilot and WOL stats mean nothing.

 

Just lock this thread already. The sim is going pacific soon anyways. There's no point.

Edited September 13, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[JtD]

Problem is, Crump must be on the blacklist of most of the dev team and no matter what he says, he won't get much credit.

If that's true, it's not a problem, it's a huge time saver for the team.

[Turban]

Who'd have thought Turban would devolve to ad hominem?

 

Stubing is a very skilled pilot and WOL stats mean nothing.

 

Just lock this thread already. The sim is going pacific soon anyways. There's no point.

 

He quoted me and presented himself as an expert.

 

I looked him up, which was the thing to do. It's funny how everything around here is one way only.

 

People can look me up, but if I look someone up.. damn I'm a troll who should be reported....

 

Tells me a lot about people's integrity...

[Max_Damage]

[Edited]

 

Russian pilots were always of quite a low opinion about the fw190. It loses in climbs, turns and spirals to the russian fighters 24/7 because its a brick. Unlike the me109.

 

The tactic that was evolved to use fw190 to its best potential was not "bnz" like most of you may think. Rather stay low and force headons with straight passes while the me109 do the vertical turnfighting. But then when yak9T appeared headons were prohibited lol.

 

People should really read what Bearcat said couple of post above.

Edited September 13, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[Dr_Molem]

[Edited]

 

Russian pilots were always of quite a low opinion about the fw190. It loses in climbs, turns and spirals to the russian fighters 24/7 because its a brick. Unlike the me109.

 

The tactic that was evolved to use fw190 to its best potential was not "bnz" like most of you may think. Rather stay low and force headons with straight passes while the me109 do the vertical turnfighting. But then when yak9T appeared headons were prohibited lol.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[Livai]

Learn to fly the Fw-190 A-3 how he fly. A very good example how to fly successful. BTW there are some good Bf-109 example inside how to fly this plane, too

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5yrSZnObg

[303_Kwiatek]

Even if you know how to fly A3 in game or simulator it doesnt mean that it is modeled correctly and accurate. You could used to how to manage it but it doesnt change how these plane accelerate climb stall or turn.

[Irgendjemand]

Learn to fly the Fw-190 A-3 how he fly. A very good example how to fly successful. BTW there are some good Bf-109 example inside how to fly this plane, too

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5yrSZnObg

Heh. Sure he is good - BUT - you could as well ask people to learn how to be "lucky as hell". Since that is what this guy was in almost all of the shown situations (the 190 ones). Be it for his opponent just stupidly staying full throttle resulting in overshoots or plain bash themselves into the ground:)

Edited September 13, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[ACG_pezman]

One bit of food for thought about data and its relevance in a PC flight sim. In an ideal sim we have a perfect physics model with perfect data that produces absolutely realistic results. So what's wrong with this? Well, first we don't have perfect data. But lets say we did. It still would not produce perfect results because the emulator is not perfect. Makes sense, right? Perfect data pushed through an imperfect algorithm will produce imperfect results.

 

What does that mean? it means you have to do some voodoo. Ideally you fix the problem by making your physics engine more perfect, but if that is not possible then you have to tweak the data to produce more plausible results. Alternatively, you don't do that and you live with whatever your algorithm spits out.

 

The makers of BoS do a phenomenal job of simulating flight on a PC for the cost of less than $100. But it's not perfect. Speed, rate of climb, dive, maybe even acceleration - things that have been explicitly measured - are of great value as bench marks. The quirkier aspects of an aircraft like when it will depart controlled flight are much tougher to model, as they depend on the physics engine (the one that costs less than $100) to accurately take in a silly number of variables and calculate real world outcomes. With that in mind my request is to be open to the possibility that the combination of physics engine and data set might not be producing exactly the right outcome, especially when the outcome that we experience is significantly different from what real pilots reported.

And what if the current performance of the 190 is a result of that voodoo? Before this last patch people complained incessantly about the 190, which I find funny because they are now asking for it back, but what if they were right last time? What if the aircraft, with its stalls and all, is actually closer now to the real numbers than the previous version? Sure it stalls easy now, but looking at the data the numbers its producing now in climb, turn, and speed are the most accurate they have ever been. Now it's just the stability that is in question and how do we determine its accuracy off of pilot comments, especially if it contradicts the data produced? Can you justify reducing its, potentially, more accurate performance for more stability that could reduce the accuracy of the hard data and the sim overall? How would it even be fair to tweak it when the numbers are already good? I remember the last FW190 version we had, y'all Luftwhiners about burnt me at the steak for suggesting it was "good enough" because it wasn't historically accurate (ya know, that climbrate being just a bit too low), but now it looks like I'm vindicated in that "Arcadeish" viewpoint.

 

Y'all bust the poor devs balls without thinking of what you ask for. As pat so nicely reminded us, this isn't a perfect sim and no sim ever will be. So what if adjusting the stall characteristics makes the 190 completely over-powered because the physics engine interprets the data differently, and it never stalls or turns too good then? Would the LW pilots be cool with reducing its performance to make it more believable then? What if that makes it preform bad, not turning as good as it should but at least being stable? There is no guarantee that the FM we have now is not the most accurate they can produce. And if it is, you all sit here and accuse the devs of all the worst intentions, never considering that maybe, just maybe, this is the best it gets. You want your pre-patch, slower climbing yet more stable version, that could turn better but nothing else? Why? All you would do is complain and never consider that maybe they have already given the poor aircraft everything it can get without pushing it into the "crazy unrealistic/un-historical" area? You want an accurate 190? Go play a sim that doesn't have partially dynamically generated FM's and fly within your data table sets, just cruising on that rail.

 

All you real life pilots need to consider and remember this:

 

This is software development, not flying. All your experience in tail draggers and flying is great but useless to us all except in an anecdotal sense. Unless you can spit out the equations to mimic physics better than the devs (and these would not be the equations that refer to our own earthly physics, because it's very hard for a PC to replicate all that info and still have time to render the game, control the AI, and run the data transfers between PC and server, etc...; so cut some corners in the math to make it more simple to compute so the game plays and don't let the simplified and tweaked math be noticeable at all in any FM), please stfu and refrain from telling the devs, the people with degrees in math, computer science, aeronautical engineering, and software development, how wrong they are when you don't even know what it takes to get the game this damn close. They already know how it should be, it's arrogant to think they don't, but really just look at the task before them.

 

Hence the name Luft-Whiners: "whaa whaa whaa, I'm sad because I'm not Hartmann :'( make my plane better so I can feel good about myself." That's all us who fly both sides hear from you all, like we didn't pay for this game too. Aren't we entitled to the most accurate sim on the market as well? How do we determine how accurate it is? Hard verifiable data or pilot memoirs of rosy, nostalgic memories? [Edited]

 

The ranting is just getting warmed up. [edited]

 

Watch that lenguage and please, do not try to start a flame war with that last sentence.

Edited September 13, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[Irgendjemand]

We dont want the old one back, we want the old one with correct climb. This old one also had better acceleration overall, especially in dives, and relative rollspeed.

 

With the way you write you dont upset people but tempt them to just add you to their ignorelist. Really all this "luftwhiner" shaite gets so much on my nerve i cannot tell you how much it does.

 

Did you ever think about why red side jocks dont complain that much? Couldnt it maybe be because they are happy with how their planes behave relatively seen? Sure I wouldnt complain as well if my favorite ride would fly 50+ kmh too fast at certain heights - well, actually I would/do right now.

 

Most people (including me) dont want only the FW fixed but also for example the 109 AND the YAK because they both are too good. Its not only a matter of the side.

 

The FW only comes up this much because its totally messed up in the opinion of most of the people. THIS poll paints a pretty clear picture.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[unreasonable]

 Now it's just the stability that is in question and how do we determine its accuracy off of pilot comments, especially if it contradicts the data produced? 

 

 

I understand where you are coming from with your rant, but it is very unfair in parts.  The critical angle of attack - ie "the stability" you mention, currently the main source of complaint - is given to us by the DDs for the game, and for the RL plane from documentation, either directly or from the plane's performance numbers and the aviation physics. (Forgotten which). So this issue is not just about pilot comments.

 

Some of the people discussing the documented RL also have engineering degrees and/or experience in creating CFS FMs, so not arrogant.  [edited]

 

If you are just getting warmed up I am looking forwards to chapter 2!

[SYN_Haashashin]

 issue is not If you are just getting warmed up I am looking forwards to chapter 2!

 

Well, chapter 2 of flying the 190 is challenging?? go ahead. But I dont think I have to remember that any FM discussion cant take place here and this topic is moving to that kind of convertation. 

 

Also I totally agree with what Bearcat said above.

[ACG_pezman]

We dont want the old one back, we want the old one with correct climb. This old one also had better acceleration overall, especially in dives, and relative rollspeed.

 

With the way you write you dont upset people but tempt them to just add you to their ignorelist. Really all this "luftwhiner" shaite gets so much on my nerve i cannot tell you how much it does.

 

Did you ever think about why red side jocks dont complain that much? Couldnt it maybe be because they are happy with how their planes behave relatively seen? Sure I wouldnt complain as well if my favorite ride would fly 50+ kmh too fast at certain heights - well, actually I would/do right now.

 

Most people (including me) dont want only the FW fixed but also for example the 109 AND the YAK because they both are too good. Its not only a matter of the side.

 

The FW only comes up this much because its totally messed up in the opinion of most of the people. THIS poll paints a pretty clear picture.

 

I understand where you are coming from with your rant, but it is very unfair in parts.  The critical angle of attack - ie "the stability" you mention, currently the main source of complaint - is given to us by the DDs for the game, and for the RL plane from documentation, either directly or from the plane's performance numbers and the aviation physics. (Forgotten which). So this issue is not just about pilot comments.

 

Some of the people discussing the documented RL also have engineering degrees and/or experience in creating CFS FMs, so not arrogant.  (As for the "bastards" part, you would have to ask their mums....)

 

If you are just getting warmed up I am looking forwards to chapter 2!

 

I understand both of your points, but this is what I think everyone is missing with the exception of Pat:

 

As Pat so eloquently put it, the physics in this game are not commiserate of the physics of our world; the world that the aces flew and fought in.  The problem is that, for a engineering firm with exponential assets, to replicate just a second of flight takes MANY SECONDS.  That would be impossible to make a game with because the computations would be so overwhelming and intricate that the frame rate would be 1 every 30 or so seconds.  So, obviously the formulas to handle the physics aren't up to par with engineering type programs.  So already we know that the formulas used to compute the FM's aren't going to have the same values as the formulas used to determine how a plane will fly at Lockheed Martin if the exact same data about an aircraft is entered.  So, our devs, attempt to find shortcuts that will reproduce as closely as possible the real aircraft but with data that isn't exact.  It's really complicated.

 

This means that when you take your 190, with it's increased climb rate but poorer stall characteristics, and say adjust the variables that determine the stall characteristics you don't just change the stall characteristics.  It changes a lot more.  To fix that a new engine would have to be built to preform the calculations more accurately. 

 

They can't just go in and change characteristics of an aircraft without exponentially changing other aspects of that, and other, aircraft in the game.  This is because part of the flight model is dynamically computed, and changing clmax or other variables will lead to changes in performance at different altitudes that may be even more ahistorical than the spin.  It's not as simple as people make it sound and when you consider just how changing one variable can affect the entire aircraft, then maybe it makes more sense.

 

I will say that the 190 is a mean spinner and a tough aircraft to fly.  But I will also say this, as a mostly VVS flyer, the 190 is an aircraft that I have learned to respect and fear over the 109.  This is because when a pilot is greedy they will usually get themselves into a bad position, be it a 109, 190, or Yak.  However the VVS aircraft have more parity with a 109 than a 190, and when flown conservatively, the 190 is simply unstoppable.  It's fast, agile, and powerful.  It's the same reason why I don't turn fight in a La-5, it just isn't meant for it.

 

But the utter crap that is spouted out at the devs because of the 190 is uncalled for.  Is it suspicious, the stalling, in the 190?  Yes, even I think it's difficult.  Yet, I don't understand why so many LW pilots refuse to keep it at speed and be patient, it has been proven here and in other forums that the terms used by 190 pilots to describe it's flight characteristics are only anecdotal and unreliable because we simply don't understand the context the pilot was using.  This evidence, if submitted into a court, would be circumstantial at best, and that isn't good enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  I believe that is how the devs are going about it as well. 

 

Sorry for the nasty tone on the last post, but reading through this thread will get you pissed.

[150GCT_Veltro]

People here don't care if THIS FW-190 could have good performances or not, people here SAYS this is not a FW-190, that's what people is asking for. We'll have A5 in Kuban, another one like this A3? I hope no, really.

 

This is a sim, not an "arena" game.

 

FW is a "best seller" not just because you can shoot down a lot of enemy aircrafts, but only because IS a FW-190.

 

Give us something that feel to be a FW-190, that's not the case of this one for the reasons we have said a lot of time.

 

...sure...we are wrong, provide references...ecc. ecc...

 

We'll see with Spitfire, and with Spitfire vs Yak.

Edited September 13, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

@p3zman

But the utter crap that is spouted out at the LW pilots, by some people who fly mostly VVS, because of their ignorance is uncalled for.

 

There, fixed that sentence for you

Edited September 13, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[150GCT_Veltro]

Asking for references and evidences? Just look at Crump post.

 

Really boring what's going on here.

[PatrickAWlson]

@p3zman -

Of course the next attempt to correct the 190 could go horribly wrong.  That is always a risk.  How to handle it?  You test as much as possible make sure that the new changes work.  You keep what you had as a backup if it all goes bad.  It is a well known software development process.  

 

Per keeping the 190 at speed - did anybody suggest that the 190 should be a top notch low speed performer?  I'm pretty sure that is not the case.  

[Turban]

So I was relaxing and watched a documentary on Typhoons.. what could go wrong right?

 

 

https://youtu.be/qexMo-2ZLos?t=16m31s

 

 

Too bad it will be ignored like all the rest 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Turban

[ACG_pezman]

@p3zman -

Of course the next attempt to correct the 190 could go horribly wrong.  That is always a risk.  How to handle it?  You test as much as possible make sure that the new changes work.  You keep what you had as a backup if it all goes bad.  It is a well known software development process.  

 

Per keeping the 190 at speed - did anybody suggest that the 190 should be a top notch low speed performer?  I'm pretty sure that is not the case.  

 

No Pat, the issue has revolved around the horrible stall characteristics when you attempt to turn the 190 at (allegedly) all speeds.

 

There are too many variables to consider when discussing this topic, from how the game mimics physics to how the pressure applied to the stick is exponentially increased due to the 190's control surfaces being hydraulically (electric maybe?) driven.  This was a huge benefit that reduced the amount of pressure exerted by the pilot to obtain enough positive control to preform maneuvers.  This is what gave the 190 its amazing high speed handling (which our lovely A3 has in this game). 

 

However, no matter how much we attempt to tell people that the 190 is a high speed performer, and you yourself just alluded to the fact that the discussion doesn't revolve around low speed handling, people refuse to keep the bird at speed.  You can literally dive at 90 degrees in a 190 onto a target and pull a very tight, very quick turn to get a gun solution.  No other aircraft in this game can do that. 

 

Do you know what it's like in all VVS aircraft to see a 190 dive down 90 degrees at you?  Where do you go?  What move do you make?  With a 109 you can start him rolling around in the dive by turning to the left or right then reversing.  The faster the 109 goes the slower his turn rate becomes, and soon you just reverse and he can't maintain and has to leave.  Against a 190 he can roll faster than I can reverse, then he can pull out of a very high AOA dive (without stalling because your doing 500+kph) and get a gun solution.  Hit or miss he's back up and away.  I can't out-run him, I can't really out-turn him (certainly not at high speeds) unless he GETS SLOW AND STALLS!  And I can only out-climb him in a La-5 with boost for a short bit.  That is all we have.  When a 190 driver isn't paying attention and lets another target sneak onto his six while he is at a lower E state and the aforementioned.  That's the only two ways we can kill one. 

 

It really is an amazing aircraft despite all the muck that gets drudged up on it.  It just makes a lot of us take pause and wonder if the aircraft is being utilized right.  As VVS pilots we HAVE to use our aircraft right or we are dead.  Every last one of our aircraft is outperformed by the 109 or 190 in some manner or aspect.  I know every last LW pilot on this thread knows how to get away and knows when they screw up and burn too much E, but I don't get why it isn't applied more.

 

 

So I was relaxing and watched a documentary on Typhoons.. what could go wrong right?

 

 

https://youtu.be/qexMo-2ZLos?t=16m31s

 

 

Too bad it will be ignored like all the rest 

 

Can you just please explain the punch line, I'm at work and don't have the time to watch it.  I imagine it says something to the effect of the 190 wasn't an uber turner or something.  Otherwise I don't know why you would post it.

Edited September 13, 2016 by 19.GIAP//p3zman

[Turban]

Can you just please explain the punch line, I'm at work and don't have the time to watch it.  I imagine it says something to the effect of the 190 wasn't an uber turner or something.  Otherwise I don't know why you would post it.

 

Typhoon pilot recalls his first (?) encounter with the FW 190. FW pilot tried to do a tight turn, suffered high speed stall and went into the drink.... 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Turban

[JtD]

... how the pressure applied to the stick is exponentially increased due to the 190's control surfaces being hydraulically (electric maybe?) driven. This was a huge benefit that reduced the amount of pressure exerted by the pilot to obtain enough positive control to preform maneuvers. This is what gave the 190 its amazing high speed handling (which our lovely A3 has in this game).

Huh? Where did you read this? Close that book and never open it again.