Does the FW190 FM need reevaluation?

[Crump]

That´s a good point, but I´m going to try to give you a historical wrap up of what´s happened

 

1) FW behaves all good

 

!! 2) Ppl in community find out Climb is wrong b/c plane has been calibrated at wrong power setting

 

-> 3) Devs change climb AND "fineness ratio" ---> PATCH 2.003

 

-> 4) FW becomes the brick we have today

 

Why the change in fineness ratio? What does fineness ratio even mean in the context the devs are using it in?? No one knows and devs won´t tell

-> See the problem? Makes it hard to present primary information that supports or is against the current set up.

 

 

 

 

The change in fineness ratio reduces the lift production and aligns the FM with the zero thrust polars.  That is not a condition of flight for the aircraft as the airspeed is too low to sustain flight.  A Reynolds number analysis or drag force development analysis quickly confirms that fact.

 

So if you know that it - namely the developers posting their in-game and target numbers as I stated in my post - has already been done already but lost in the commotion, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=336140

[unreasonable]

Thank you. But that is from Feb 2016, since then we have had a revision mentioned in DD131 which seems to have caused the complaints:

 

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);

 

So my request remains - we simply need a developer test of in-game critical AoA  vs reference data with the current build. What we do not need IMHO is dozens more pages of charts.

Edited September 11, 2016 by unreasonable

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

The change in fineness ratio reduces the lift production and aligns the FM with the zero thrust polars. That is not a condition of flight for the aircraft as the airspeed is too low to sustain flight. A Reynolds number analysis or drag force development analysis quickly confirms that fact.

 

Yes, what I meant to say is that they are not proving direct numbers, but you can deduce that it is not correct --> AOA calc provided by you.

 

 

 

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);

 

No, you must have misread, DD 131 actually refers to what they did in February. Check the title of the section

 

"But today we'd like to summarize for you what work has been done during this very summer. In the beginning of 2016, in January, we published a list of physics model changes and improvements we wanted to complete during this year. The list was long, but most of it is already done and many additional improvements were introduced. Take a look. We think the list is impressive and worthy to note that we continue to strive to make a great simulation product."

Edited September 11, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Crump]

 

 

Yes, what I meant to say is that they are not proving direct numbers, but you can deduce that it is not correct --> AOA calc provided by you.

 

Exactly!  It is not Rocket Science....well maybe some Rocket Science....

 

  

[unreasonable]

No, you must have misread, DD 131 actually refers to what they did in February. Check the title of the section

 

"But today we'd like to summarize for you what work has been done during this very summer. In the beginning of 2016, in January, we published a list of physics model changes and improvements we wanted to complete during this year. The list was long, but most of it is already done and many additional improvements were introduced. Take a look. We think the list is impressive and worthy to note that we continue to strive to make a great simulation product."

 

That does not seem right: DD123 with the performance details was dated Feb 2016. DD131 is September - a full 6 months later, and specifically refers to "work that has been done during this very summer". Feb in Russia is certainly not summer.

 

In January they made a wishlist, in Feb (edit) they released the in-game data at that time, over the following summer they modified things in accordance with DD131 and what we have now is not, in certain respects,  what was recorded in DD123. That is the only natural reading of that set of documents.

 

Nevertheless, whichever is correct, the quickest way to resolve this never ending saga would be for Han&Co to re-release whatever the current critical AoA is for the 190, and justify it, since that single data point seems to be the source of most of the complaints.

Edited September 11, 2016 by unreasonable

[Crump]

 

 

Nevertheless, whichever is correct, the quickest way to resolve this never ending saga would be for Han&Co to re-release whatever the current critical AoA is for the 190, and justify it, since that single data point seems to be the source of most of the complaints.

 

Not really as that is a symptom.  

If they just go back to the old FM....then you will have L/D curves that are derived from using the wrong power available to power required data.  That is what happened when they used the wrong power vs a measured performance data point.

 

The effect is to shift the L/D curves and lose the distinct Lift to Drag relationship that is uniquely a Focke Wulf FW-190.  Continuing to band-aid that error will only compound it.

They need to reset that L/D curve by correlating the correct power available with the corresponding measure performance.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

That does not seem right: DD123 with the performance details was dated Feb 2016. DD131 is September - a full 6 months later, and specifically refers to "work that has been done during this very summer". Feb in Russia is certainly not summer.

No, the list summarizes their plans and includes things that they have done over the year. Why do you refer to DD123??

 

Check this out

 

September

 

DD 131

 

"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);"

 

And from March

 

DD 125 from March 11th

 

"Fw 190 flight model was also corrected (thanks to [i.B.]ViRUS for his cool finding of additional Fw 190 A-4 Lift-Drag curves) so its turn tume and climb rate correspond to the reference better."

 

which corresponds to the following update that followed March 31st

 

See update notes 1.201

 

16. 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);

 

---> It is even the exact same wording. Nothing has been changed AoA is still at 15. something

Edited September 11, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[9./JG27golani79]

You don't have the plane.

 

And what did you do when you didn´t have the plane?

All you did was posting the the FM was ok - even if you didn´t own the plane at that point.

 

So maybe you shouldn´t point at others while you didn´t do anything different until lately when you finally decided to get the plane.

[Luft1942]

So it's clear this plane needs reevaluation judging by 85% of people who have voted so far. I wonder what's going through the devs heads as they read all the drama about this plane.

[Jsun-El]

They probably wish they never put it in the game.

[Turban]

And what did you do when you didn´t have the plane?

All you did was posting the the FM was ok - even if you didn´t own the plane at that point.

 

So maybe you shouldn´t point at others while you didn´t do anything different until lately when you finally decided to get the plane.

 

I flew against it. And I was clear the pilots were the problem. Some would be sitting duck others would be untouchable.

 

Anyway. I also knew it was more an attempt to silence me. You guys never said anything to crump , despite the fact that he doesn't even have the game.

 

And I have the plane now. It's my daily driver. So what's the next excuse?

[Art]

You don't have the plane. You don't have the game. You based your idea of what the plane is on... what exactly? Your imagination ? Forum gossip ? 

 

And of course you expect us to believe you know all about the science ?

 

[Edited]

 

Please do not get personal. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bearcat

[Luft1942]

Omg kid ..You dont have the only evidence of it is the correct  "plane!" And LukeFF give you plus.  This ****** "TESTER"  did not  a single test that proves your claims.

 

No need calling people kids now. Generally the ones who do that are kids themselves; )

[F/JG300_Gruber]

One step forward to the closing of this thread...

[Turban]

Omg kid ..You dont have the only evidence of it is the correct  "plane!" And LukeFF give you plus.  This ****** "TESTER"  did not  a single test that proves your claims. 

 

I don't have any problem with the plane. I think it's great.

 

My position :

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that.

 

It's people who think it's broken who have explaining to do. Show ingame fooatge proving the plane is wrong and it's not a pilot mistake.

 

I know I can be honest. When something happens ingame, it's always my fault. Not everybody here is like that. People rather blame the plane. That's too easy.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr_Molem]

My position :

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that.

 

It's people who think it's broken who have explaining to do. Show ingame fooatge proving the plane is wrong and it's not a pilot mistake.

 

Meanwhile i'm still waiting for you to quote me some "mentions" of pilots saying that the plane easily enters into accelerated stall at high speed, as it is now the case ingame. 

 

Why not also give some proofs that 1G stall speed should be 183 kph (that you refute btw, still without telling us what speed you got). 

[Turban]

 

 

Meanwhile i'm still waiting for you to quote me some "mentions" of pilots saying that the plane easily enters into accelerated stall at high speed, as it is now the case ingame. 

 

Why not also give some proofs that 1G stall speed should be 183 kph (that you refute btw, still without telling us what speed you got). 

 

 

As if I'm hidding something.   the drama .. 

 

1) Are you new to the FW discussion ? Genuine question, since it's been discussed a lot in the previous FM threads that are now locked. (not my thread, the others). Check it out. That stall, people talk so much about, occurs depending on the AoA, not the speed. I get tired of repeating things.

 

Ok, I'm a nice guy here is a quick one. For the 100th time : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

Read G and H. They talk about the low speed stall then about an accelerated stall that occurs if you pull too much.

 

Don't make me dig up more references... It's everywhere..

 

2)What speed I got ? Well if you bring it to the stall nicely (rudder and wings level), you get around 176 km/h in clean configuration. 183 if you just pull the stick straight, not leveling the wings or applying rudder. I think that's how they measured 183. Landing configuration at least 10k lower, as expected.

[LuftManu]

Just stop posting.... Use the poll to help the devs to make other tunning on the Fw 190 but don´t feed the trolls, they want this thread locked.

[Dr_Molem]

As if I'm hidding something.   the drama .. 

 

1) Are you new to the FW discussion ? Genuine question, since it's been discussed a lot in the previous FM threads that are now locked. (not my thread, the others). Check it out. That stall, people talk so much about, occurs depending on the AoA, not the speed. I get tired of repeating things.

 

Ok, I'm a nice guy here is a quick one. For the 100th time : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

Read G and H. They talk about the low speed stall then about an accelerated stall that occurs if you pull too much.

 

Don't make me dig up more references... It's everywhere..

 

"The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall.  Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls."

 

From your link. 

 

And "If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning." (notice, which speed it happens is not specified) followed by... "Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control."... Woops... BTW we are talking about a FW-190G-3 here. 

 

2)What speed I got ? Well if you bring it to the stall nicely (rudder and wings level), you get around 176 km/h in clean configuration. 183 if you just pull the stick straight, not leveling the wings or applying rudder. I think that's how they measured 183. Landing configuration at least 10k lower, as expected.

 

So, according to you, devs lie when they say in DD123: Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h

 

? 

 

EDIT: Or maybe you simply don't know how to mesure an 1G stall speed..?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[Luft1942]

If the Fw 190 is truly broken, keep in mind I have no clue what it was like before the patch, than maybe the only people who say it isn't are Soviet pilots who were getting shot down by it too much and now they like that it's "porked". Whatever that means.

 

This is just a thought and really any opinion of mine is invalid since I just started using the plane. I still stand on it being a pain in the arse to fly but it is kinda of enjoyable if you fly in a straight line or strictly boom and zoom without turning like your wings are about to fly off xD

[Turban]

"The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall.  Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls."

 

From your link. 

 

 

Yes. It's exactly what we have ingame.

 

 

And "If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning." (notice, which speed it happens is not specified) followed by... "Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control."... Woops... BTW we are talking about a FW-190G-3 here. 

 

I understand your enthusiasm, but's it's true of every other FW out there. That little G isn't going to save your case.

 

 

 

So, according to you, devs lie when they say in DD123: Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h

 

? 

 

EDIT: Or maybe you simply don't know how to mesure an 1G stall speed..?

 

I clearly stated what I think. I don't see what justify the use of "lie". Create drama ? 

[Dr_Molem]

Yes. It's exactly what we have ingame.

 

Looks like most people who voted this poll do not agree with you. 

[Turban]

Looks like most people who voted this poll do not agree with you. 

 

I'm starting to realize that maybe some people are not familiar with the fact that there are different kinds of stall that happen in different situations with the plane reacting differently etc...

[II./JG77_Manu*]

[Edited]

 

Do not get personal.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bearcat

[unreasonable]

No, the list summarizes their plans and includes things that they have done over the year. Why do you refer to DD123??

 

Check this out

 

September

 

DD 131

 

"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);"

 

And from March

 

DD 125 from March 11th

 

"Fw 190 flight model was also corrected (thanks to [i.B.]ViRUS for his cool finding of additional Fw 190 A-4 Lift-Drag curves) so its turn tume and climb rate correspond to the reference better."

 

which corresponds to the following update that followed March 31st

 

See update notes 1.201

 

16. 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);

 

---> It is even the exact same wording. Nothing has been changed AoA is still at 15. something

 

I refer to DD123 because that is the DD Crump referred me to, and the DD which contains the only numerical performance data, originally from game tests made in February - in the case of the Fw it says "Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 15.5°"

 

I missed the part in DD125, thank you, but I think the key point is the part which you did not quote, that says "In addition, last week our engineers tested the planes turn time and climb rate, so we updated the Dev Diary #123 with the corrected data. "

 

Given that, it may well be the case from that that the AoA data in DD123 was also adjusted and the 15.5 degrees therefore corresponds to what we have now, in which case DD123 is still the authoritative source on what the game is actually doing - although not, unfortunately, what the reference data is.

 

My fundamental point remains, however: only the developers can state what their reference data is and why 15.5 degrees is acceptable to them, and only them doing this can ever halt this flood of complaint and counter complaint.

 

Personally I no longer give a flying Focke-Wulf what the "right" answer is, I just want the endless bickering and posturing about this plane to stop entering every thread!

[Irgendjemand]

Just stop posting.... Use the poll to help the devs to make other tunning on the Fw 190 but don´t feed the trolls, they want this thread locked.

This:)!

[Art]

I refer to DD123 because that is the DD Crump referred me to, and the DD which contains the only numerical performance data, originally from game tests made in February - in the case of the Fw it says "Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 15.5°"

 

I missed the part in DD125, thank you, but I think the key point is the part which you did not quote, that says "In addition, last week our engineers tested the planes turn time and climb rate, so we updated the Dev Diary #123 with the corrected data. "

 

Given that, it may well be the case from that that the AoA data in DD123 was also adjusted and the 15.5 degrees therefore corresponds to what we have now, in which case DD123 is still the authoritative source on what the game is actually doing - although not, unfortunately, what the reference data is.

 

My fundamental point remains, however: only the developers can state what their reference data is and why 15.5 degrees is acceptable to them, and only them doing this can ever halt this flood of complaint and counter complaint.

 

Personally I no longer give a flying Focke-Wulf what the "right" answer is, I just want the endless bickering and posturing about this plane to stop entering every thread!

Ach .. mby they wrote it. But it is not true ... nvm.

[II/JG11_ATLAN_VR]

it absolutely does!

i fly  the 190A3 many many times.

 

since the last fm change the fm becomes incorrect.

 

it a shame for such an important luftwaffe fighter which is proven better or equal to the 109.

 

waiting for correction from the devs also when the 190 A5 will start in Kuban .

Edited September 12, 2016 by II/JG11ATLAN

[Turban]

I am starting to realize that Turban has no idea about this plane what so ever, neither IRL (characteristics),nor in the game (proper testing like AoA, stall speed, dive acceleration, max dive speed....). Luckily almost all of the people get it that the plane is wrong. So i guess it's really best this Turban guy gets ignored. Otherwise he will just get another thread (5., 6.?) locked.

What makes you think you can tell me my opinion is invalid? You have nothing. And funny how the response I get when I start to give references is "oh, just ignore him!" 

You realise you got more threads locked than me, including my own thread? You couldn't have a thread with someone showing the plane ingame is good. You did everything you could to have it lock.

You do want to silence me apparently, as you now clearly admit, but it ain't gonna work.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Turban

[coconut]

There's an option that's missing in the vote. I picked "I don't care", but it should really be "I don't know". I've noticed the FW190 can be a treacherous plane at low speed, but I don't know if it's my fault or not. If there's something wrong, I'm all for the devs to fix it. But if there isn't, the devs shouldn't tweak the thing just to please customers, however loud they might be.

 

Edit: Ha! With my vote I just doubled the numbers of "don't care/don't know"

Edited September 12, 2016 by coconut

[Trinkof]

Voted I do not know as well.

 

Annectodic reports from pilots compared to online situation will never convice me . someone ridiculously laughed earlier about bots, they are less fun and challenging but certainly more accurate regarding the average level of soviet pilot of 42.... And the average battle versus bots in BOS is so easy in a FW (much more than in most of the other planes IMHO)

 

If it is wrong regarding hard facts , it needs change, if no hard facts, no changes.

 

I admit it was a much easier plane pre patch... But I never flew one IRL, and I am no aerodynamics expert ... So I do not know

[Venturi]

It will be interesting to see how people react to a well-constructed P39 FM...

[GridiroN]

I don't have any problem with the plane. I think it's great.

 

My position :

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that.

 

It's people who think it's broken who have explaining to do. Show ingame fooatge proving the plane is wrong and it's not a pilot mistake.

 

I know I can be honest. When something happens ingame, it's always my fault. Not everybody here is like that. People rather blame the plane. That's too easy.

 

Look, with how vehemently you're fighting this, I really can't believe you'd actually concede defeat no matter how many sources you're provided with....

 

I mean, why do you care so much? If the FW is wrong, the devs will hopefully fix it eventually, if the FW is right, then it won't and people will stop complaining eventually. You are not required to get involved every discussion...

 

On top of that, I know you fly Russian like 90% of the time on WoL because I see you, and dogfight you regularly, so it really just comes off like you have an agenda. 

[Turban]

Look, with how vehemently you're fighting this, I really can't believe you'd actually concede defeat no matter how many sources you're provided with....

 

I mean, why do you care so much? If the FW is wrong, the devs will hopefully fix it eventually, if the FW is right, then it won't and people will stop complaining eventually. You are not required to get involved every discussion...

 

On top of that, I know you fly Russian like 90% of the time on WoL because I see you, and dogfight you regularly, so it really just comes off like you have an agenda. 

 

I have simply not seen anything that shows that the FM is wrong.

 

My daily driver is now the FW 190, so.... pro-russian agenda you say? Try again...

 

As I told someone before, my only agenda is to prevent this sim from engaging in a race to the bottom when a FM is "balanced" to make it easier to some.

[Irgendjemand]

I have simply not seen anything that shows that the FM is wrong.

 

My daily driver is now the FW 190, so.... pro-russian agenda you say? Try again...

 

As I told someone before, my only agenda is to prevent this sim from engaging in a race to the bottom when a FM is "balanced" to make it easier to some.

And what if we tell you thats not our point? Anyone that wants it easier could just get into a 109 or a YAK-1. But we dont want that. We want an iconic plane that lives up to the expectations and performs how the available documentation and physics tell us it should. I am no aeronautical engineer but obviously the collected data says the plane performs not the way it should.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Stig]

And what if we tell you thats not our point? Anyone that wants it easier could just get into a 109 or a YAK-1. But we dont want that. We want an iconic plane that lives up to the expectations and performs how the available documentation and physics tell us it should. I am no aeronautical engineer but obviously the collected data says the plane performs not the way it should.

 

If it's so obvious, then why don't you collect the available documentation and provide the tests as the devs have outlined, and present it to them. If you want a revision of the FM, that's the only way you are going to get it. Why is that so hard to understand ? 

[StG2_Manfred]

As far as I understand the poll result 85 percent want a revision, not only him. And plenty documentation is within this forum already presented and I think also partly sent to devs. Plenty of game decisions are for one obvious and others have to be convinced. I think you know that as well and don't really need it explained. So, why is that so hard to understand for you?

Edited September 13, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[Stig]

Where do the devs say that they will revise anything based on a poll? Is it also your opinion that polls would be a good way for the devs to use as a guideline to whether they should revise the FM or not?

Mind that, this would not just effect the Fw190, but all aircraft in the game.

[Irgendjemand]

If it's so obvious, then why don't you collect the available documentation and provide the tests as the devs have outlined, and present it to them. If you want a revision of the FM, that's the only way you are going to get it. Why is that so hard to understand ? 

Because it has already been presented to the devs on more than one silverplate. No need to re gather everything. They have everything.

@ Stig: Nowhere. And who said that? The use of this poll is to show the devs how unsatisfied a big part of their customerbase is with the current FM of the FW 190 A3.

Its supposed to help creating a more satisfied customerbase and improve the already awesome product in one corner thats not yet perfect.

[StG2_Manfred]

Where do the devs say that they will revise anything based on a poll? Is it also your opinion that polls would be a good way for the devs to use as a guideline to whether they should revise the FM or not?

Mind that, this would not just effect the Fw190, but all aircraft in the game.

To be honest, yes. If the majority of a game are unsatisfied with a part of the game, why a dev shouldn't change it? If you are a dev or a game studio or a car manufacturer for example and people don't want to have your product for some reason, wouldn't it be clever to satisfy them?