Does the FW190 FM need reevaluation?

[LukeFF]

 

 

As far as I understand the poll result 85 percent want a revision, not only him.

 

85 percent of (at the time of this post) 137 people that have voted. I pity you if you think that is a valid sample size on which the team should make a decision. 

[StG2_Manfred]

85 percent of (at the time of this post) 137 people that have voted. I pity you if you think that is a valid sample size on which the team should make a decision.

Your agenda is more than obvious, no need to pity me. Everybody in this forum is free to vote, so in first place 85 percent are still 85 percent. Not more than 137 people have voted yet, yes. This should make you even more thoughtful. It's a trend, if they think not enough have voted they could make a greater survey for example.

 

In my business you wouldn't work in customer service or sales marketing for sure

[AndyJWest]

Sorry, but the last thing the developers should do is base FM revisions on forum polls. 

[LukeFF]

Your agenda is more than obvious, no need to pity me. Everybody in this forum is free to vote, so in first place 85 percent are still 85 percent. Not more than 137 people have voted yet, yes. This should make you even more thoughtful. It's a trend, if they think not enough have voted they could make a greater survey for example.

 

My agenda is that all planes are modeled to the best of the developers ability, based on the references and data they have chosen to use. Nothing more, nothing less. Demanding FM changes based on a rubbish poll is the height of foolishness. 

 

Sorry, but the last thing the developers should do is base FM revisions on forum polls. 

 

Exactly. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Sorry, but the last thing the developers should do is base FM revisions on forum polls. 

To a major extent I agree. The original data should be the primary resource for all of the aircraft performance in game. The problem, however, is this; There are multiple layers of interpretation involved with what appears on screen.

 

The first layer is of the original documentation. There are multiple documents presented here and elsewhere which show slightly different data for the Fw. Some of that data is of captured AC, some is of factory fresh AC and some is of slightly different versions of the AC.

 

The next layer is the interpretation of that data by the DEVS. I am absolutely convinced they have done their level best to interpret it correctly. They are human and mistakes can and possibly have been made. The DEVS were sure the last iteration of the Fw was correct but then it was updated. There is nothing to say it could have been interpreted incorrectly this time as well or better data points exsist. I honestly believe they think it is correct now. I also think it could be tweaked again to stay true to the available data and have an AC we can all believe in. There is wiggle room in the data for sure.

 

The next layer is in the programming. The game engine must then interpret the data input into it and spit out it's best approximation of what the AC should do in relation to the physics it attempts to recreate on our screens. Everything we get on screen is an approximation along with a variety of compromises for computing/gaming purposes.

 

So, I voted yes. It is worth another look. The reason why is this; The AC does not, in fact, live up to the anecdotal information we have grown up with for roughly 75 years in the West. The Russian anecdotal information is different. Not biased but different. They encountered the AC under vastly different circumstances. The Fw, in game, is a fine AC. It is my primary ride and I do well with it - both as a lone wolf and as a dedicated pair. I am only shot down when I make a mistake, almost exclusively.

 

With that said, the final interpretation of the data is with the user. The aircraft should conform to the user's expectation (interpretation) of all of the above points.

 

The anecdotal information should be the LEAST important of all the data used by the DEVS in their final analysis.

 

BUT it should not be completely excluded either.  The aircraft should conform to the user's expectation (interpretation) of all of the above points. (Yes, I repeated that on purpose.)

 

That is why I advocate here and elsewhere to have the stall characteristics, and those characteristics alone, be redone as they do not conform to just about any pilot accounts of the aircraft in combat. The stall characteristics in the previous iteration were sudden and seemed reasonable. The new stall is nearly instantaneous and ahistorical from everything I have ever read. I'm less vociferous about it only because I am tired. The debate is exhausting and the trolls on both sides somewhat insideous in their tactics. Some of the Luftie's claims are outrageous. Some of the detractor's claims are laughable as well.

 

The aircraft, honestly, ain't bad at all. It just isn't "right," either. It seems it would take an entire re-write, if I understand it correctly, to go deeply back into the coding. We can't just pick and choose a single aspect of the FM to tweak. It is part of the reason why adjusting the "fineness" improved some aspects and degraded another. Frankly, I'd pay for the programmer to go over the data again personally if that's what it'd take.

Edited September 14, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[BMW801]

I'd pay for a programmer to go over the data again too

[Art]

[Edited]

 

Next personal attack to any member and I will lock this one. It has been said several times.

Edited September 14, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

My agenda is that all planes are modeled to the best of the developers ability, based on the references and data they have chosen to use. Nothing more, nothing less. Demanding FM changes based on a rubbish poll is the height of foolishness.

 

If that´s your agenda, then you are on the same page with people who voted yes on the poll

Edited September 14, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

85 percent of (at the time of this post) 137 people that have voted. I pity you if you think that is a valid sample size on which the team should make a decision.

 

Talking about sample size and statistics... . Using simple statistics and mean testing you can say that with 95% certainty at least 80% of all players are in favor of a change. (To be fair, that is assuming there is not bias in the sample)

Edited September 14, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Irgendjemand]

If that´s your agenda, then you are on the same page with people who voted yes on the poll

BAM - good one!

[Brano]

If you want to know details about what data has been provided to devs for update of Fw,contact russian forum member. 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/user/422-ibvirus/

If you have any datas worth checking,contact Andrey 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/user/25-anpetrovich/

Stop accusing devs of bias towards this aircraft. No namecalling,you know who you are. It leads nowhere...in fact it leads to one direction. You will be ignored thus frustrated even more. 

Not gonna post in these threads anymore cause its like falling into tar pit.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

If you want to know details about what data has been provided to devs for update of Fw,contact russian forum member.

 

Done!

 

Before everyone runs off and bothers ViRUS,, here is a link to what he told me is the data he provided to the devs. (I paraphrase him here, he said just a graph with L/D ratios. Look familiar?)

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149411

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Done!

 

Before everyone runs off and bothers ViRUS,, here is a link to what he told me is the data he provided to the devs. (I paraphrase him here, he said just a graph with L/D ratios. Look familiar?)

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149411

 

hmm maybe i am too blind, but i can't see anything about A3 in this

[Dr_Molem]

Better ask Petrovich, he's an FM engineer.

[Stig]

I don't have anything against a revision of the Fw190 FM; it's my favourite plane too. In this case the devs could probably get away with doing it on the basis of the poll, given that there is a large percentage majority of a small sample, The problem is that by doing so, they then extend this possibility to all other aircraft FM's, and we could possibly see many polls.  So what happens when there is a poll with lots of votes, one that could be considered representive,  but this time the result is 55/45? How would they avoid not alienating a large part ot their customer base?  

[WWChunk]

They're never going to satisfy everyone, but they should at least take note of this poll.  Whether or not they act upon it is a different story.

[ZachariasX]

They're never going to satisfy everyone, but they should at least take note of this poll. Whether or not they act upon it is a different story.

If one is looking for satisfaction, then one should visit a different shop.

 

It is up to the devs to deliver the best they can and it is up to us to support them in doing so.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ZachariasX

[WWChunk]

I do support them, and I expect nothing but their very best.

[Holtzauge]

At the time of writing its 148 members who have cast their vote and it’s all of 86.5% who are in favour of a revision which is pretty conclusive IMHO. Of course, one could always argue about how representative that is for the IL-2 customer base at large but even if it is representative I think one could bring forward yet another argument why the developers should heed this wish even based on this sample: Most people who are active in the WW2 aviation forums are in my experience pretty knowledgeable and well read up on WW2 aviation in general. Now as has been pointed out a number of times, many of us have a hard time reconciling the current BoS Fw-190 post stall characteristics with what we have read which is exactly what we are seeing in the poll numbers I think. So of course this is no rock solid evidence but it is still noteworthy that such a large portion of the community who are arguably knowledgeable on the subject have cast their votes in favour……..

[AndyJWest]

At the time of writing its 148 members who have cast their vote and it’s all of 86.5% who are in favour of a revision which is pretty conclusive IMHO. Of course, one could always argue about how representative that is for the IL-2 customer base at large but even if it is representative I think one could bring forward yet another argument why the developers should heed this wish even based on this sample: Most people who are active in the WW2 aviation forums are in my experience pretty knowledgeable and well read up on WW2 aviation in general. Now as has been pointed out a number of times, many of us have a hard time reconciling the current BoS Fw-190 post stall characteristics with what we have read which is exactly what we are seeing in the poll numbers I think. So of course this is no rock solid evidence but it is still noteworthy that such a large portion of the community who are arguably knowledgeable on the subject have cast their votes in favour……..

 

148 people isn't "a large portion" of anything. And basing FMs on the subjective opinions of forum members is just plain wrong. If there are 'knowledgeable people' who have evidence that the FW 190 FM needs revision, they should provide the developers with the evidence, as has been requested. Because you can't be 'knowledgeable' about the subject without such evidence. Where else would they be getting such knowledge from?

Edited September 14, 2016 by AndyJWest

[LuftManu]

148 people isn't "a large portion" of anything. And basing FMs on the subjective opinions of forum members is just plain wrong. If there are 'knowledgeable people' who have evidence that the FW 190 FM needs revision, they should provide the developers with the evidence, as has been requested. Because you can't be 'knowledgeable' about the subject without such evidence. Where else would they be getting such knowledge from?

Everyone is a large portion, and more if it costs 20$..

[Holtzauge]

148 people isn't "a large portion" of anything. And basing FMs on the subjective opinions of forum members is just plain wrong. If there are 'knowledgeable people' who have evidence that the FW 190 FM needs revision, they should provide the developers with the evidence, as has been requested. Because you can't be 'knowledgeable' about the subject without such evidence. Where else would they be getting such knowledge from?

 

OK so you dismiss anecdotal evidence for stall characteristics? Tell me, I understand the concept of hard evidence when it comes to climb rate and speed etc which can be measured but how do measure stall? Stallimeters? Stallipoundinches? Do we need a chart for that? I would be very interested how you come up with other evidence for stall characteristics other than anecdotal evidence from those who have flown the planes? When I say knowledgeable I mean that WW2 sim people in general are quite well read up on pilot opinions and test reports and stuff like that and nowhere ever have I seen a pilot account that comes close to the describing the crazy superstall we have right now........

Edited September 14, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Art]

148 people isn't "a large portion" of anything. And basing FMs on the subjective opinions of forum members is just plain wrong. If there are 'knowledgeable people' who have evidence that the FW 190 FM needs revision, they should provide the developers with the evidence, as has been requested. Because you can't be 'knowledgeable' about the subject without such evidence. Where else would they be getting such knowledge from?

Are you new here? It has long been done and proved ..

Edited September 14, 2016 by Art

[AndyJWest]

It is probably worth mentioning that contrary to what Holtzauge suggests above, the poll doesn't actually ask for FM revision. Making claims that the majority of those voting support revision (rather than ('re evaluation', which is what it actually says) questionable. Nobody is going to suggest that if there is evidence, the devs shouldn't evaluate it. It is their position however that they make the final decision, based on their best assessment of the evidence.  A position that seems to me to be the only sensible one, when trying to create a historically accurate simulation. 

OK so you dismiss anecdotal evidence for stall characteristics? Tell me, I understand the concept of hard evidence when it comes to climb rate and speed etc which can be measured but how do measure stall? Stallimeters? Stallipoundinches? Do we need a chart for that? I would be very interested how you come up with other evidence for stall characteristics other than anecdotal evidence from those who have flown the planes? When I say knowledgeable I mean that WW2 sim people in general are quite well read up on pilot opinions and test reports and stuff like that and nowhere ever have I seen a pilot account that comes close to the describing the crazy superstall we have right now........

 

Nowhere have I dismissed any evidence. Please don't put words into my mouth.

[Holtzauge]

It is probably worth mentioning that contrary to what Holtzauge suggests above, the poll doesn't actually ask for FM revision. Making claims that the majority of those voting support revision (rather than ('re evaluation', which is what it actually says) questionable. Nobody is going to suggest that if there is evidence, the devs shouldn't evaluate it. It is their position however that they make the final decision, based on their best assessment of the evidence.  A position that seems to me to be the only sensible one, when trying to create a historically accurate simulation. 

 

Nowhere have I dismissed any evidence. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Well excuse me for getting carried away! I now see the error of my ways and humbly concede that it was only a vote to re evaluate the Fw-190 FM. So we can at least agree to that yes? There is an overwhelming desire in the forum to re evaluate the Fw-190 FM?

 

And I don't believe I put words in your mouth? I simply asked what you would consider as evidence in this case?

[Turban]

Accelerated stall was a known occurence in WWII.

 

Real pilot died because of it.

 

Yet people don't want to have it happen to them when they pull too hard. In a sim.

 

Go figure.

[Irgendjemand]

@Moderator: Please if people attack eachother personal please dont punish THE THREAD for this. Rather punish the people that misbehave!!

Might be just me but i think this poll is important and shouldnt be locked just because some may want it to be closed.

 

Thank you!

Edited September 14, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[AndyJWest]

...

I simply asked what you would consider as evidence in this case?

 

Actually, you didn't. But now you have, I will answer. In order of preference:

 

(a) Primary sources: data from tests etc.

(b) Assessments by recognised experts on the subject. And no, I don't consider forum members to be in this category.

 

As for 'anecdotal evidence', this may on occasion be the best that is available - in which case it needs to be very carefully scrutinised rather than taken as gospel. Anyone with any familiarity of discussions of WW2 aircraft performance will be well aware that it is entirely possible  to find entirely contradictory anecdotes, from what might seem impeccable sources: for example ace pilot 1 states emphatically that aircraft X can out-turn aircraft Y, while ace pilot 2 tells us instead that aircraft Y out-turns aircraft X. If one is to consider anecdotal evidence at all, one needs to be very careful not to put too much weight on a single source, and even more careful not to work from cherry-picked sources. And even then, one needs to beware of inherent sampling bias: if aircraft X has extremely questionable handling characteristics on landing say, one should probably take into consideration the fact that anecdotal evidence may be biased towards pilots who actually managed to land the thing without killing themselves: an extreme case maybe, but worth bearing in mind.

[RAY-EU]

By this way I would recommend real experts for subject & to solve this dilemma :like NASA or AIRBUS or both, to resolved this discussion ...

 

Whatever etc ..... (We send e-mail ,see what happens! , we need help , we are lost in 1942 any time any where ,?!).

 

because by this way obviously no one could do better to solve it , like Them & The best by this Way .....

Edited September 15, 2016 by RAY-EU

[Kurfurst]

Well said, AndyJWest. Looking at those threads I cannot see any real, compelling evindence presented.

 

Speculations, semantical arguements, pseudoengineering, waving of charts, appeals to alleged authority, dubious conclusions from the utterings of pilots ('Jerry stays to fight' - SEEEE?' type) yes, there is a lot of these but it's not convincing at the least for the devs and I think with a pretty good reason.

 

Polls, oh yes, lets interview the medieval men on whether the Earth is flat or not and then burn the naysayers based on the so called 'public opinion'.

[unreasonable]

OK so you dismiss anecdotal evidence for stall characteristics? Tell me, I understand the concept of hard evidence when it comes to climb rate and speed etc which can be measured but how do measure stall? Stallimeters? Stallipoundinches? 

 

 

Critical AoA? We have an actual number for the current build, 15.5 degrees. Most of the other fighters are in the 17-20% range, (except the poor old P-40)  so if 1CG's numbers in DD123 are correct and up to date, it is an objective fact that the Fw190 in-game is easier to get into an accelerated stall in game than most other fighters.

 

Post stall characteristics are a whole different issue, which would matter much less to people if the plane was harder to stall in the first place. It is probably best to leave the anecdotes out of this.

 

I appreciate the issue that has been raised elsewhere:  assuming that the critical AoA is an output of the FM rather than an input, juggling the input numbers to match all of the expected output numbers may be very hard.

 

That is why I can see only two possible "resolutions" to this controversy. 1CGS can say:

 

1) 15.5 is correct, because x,y,z - and provide documentation and their reference number. Or:

 

2) 15.5 might not be correct, but it is the best we can do, give the need to  juggle complex variables to match an array of performance outputs.

 

I think doing either of those would count as a "re-evaluation" for most people.

[Kurfurst]

I don't think the burden of proof is on 1CGS to prove that 15.5 degrees stall angle is correct. Honestly, is there anyone here who actually believes they just came up with a random number for the stall angle, and did not give ample consideration to that to best of their professional capacities and available documentary evidence..?

 

Its simple a logical fallacy. The claim is that the Fw 190 stall characteristics model is wrong, but this claim somehow it does not require any proof by its claimers to be true, so unless the devs can disprove it, it has to be true. Its faulty, but comfortable position in any dispute, but it never works.

 

No, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the 15.5 degrees stall angle is incorrect and should be corrected to XY angle. Problem is that AFAIK evidence to that end could not be supplied so far. So what's there to 're-evaluate'? Loads of pages of heated, ad hominem arguments without much, if any, actual substance to them? I think we have had enough of those and it should be not surprising that things like this got the claim to no-where.

 

In order to change the 190 FM, something is clear and convincing substance has to be presented to the Devs. No amount of voting, debate will substantiate that.

Edited September 15, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[303_Kwiatek]

I think Crump made a raport which showed that clmax and critical angle of attack is not correct. I dunno if critical angle of attack and clmax wasnt the same in A3 like before "fineness ratio" change. We dont know what exacly dev changed but conlusion is that after these acceleration and stall characteristic is much worse

[unreasonable]

I don't think the burden of proof is on 1CGS to prove that 15.5 degrees stall angle is correct. Honestly, is there anyone here who actually believes they just came up with a random number for the stall angle, and did not give ample consideration to that to best of their professional capacities and available documentary evidence..?

 

Its simple a logical fallacy. The claim is that the Fw 190 stall characteristics model is wrong, but this claim somehow it does not require any proof by its claimers to be true, so unless the devs can disprove it, it has to be true. Its faulty, but comfortable position in any dispute, but it never works.

 

No, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the 15.5 degrees stall angle is incorrect and should be corrected to XY angle. Problem is that AFAIK evidence to that end could not be supplied so far. So what's there to 're-evaluate'? Loads of pages of heated, ad hominem arguments without much, if any, actual substance to them? I think we have had enough of those and it should be not surprising that things like this got the claim to no-where.

 

In order to change the 190 FM, something is clear and convincing substance has to be presented to the Devs. No amount of voting, debate will substantiate that.

 

I am not claiming that it (15.5 degrees) is wrong, I am claiming that only by addressing this head on will the controversy go away. This is not a court of law, and on one level it does not matter who is "right". What matters is how to calm everyone down and stop the arguments, more importantly encourage people to stay with the game.

 

Your approach - and AndyJWest's - seems to be to say that people should just shut up and accept that 1CGS knows what is best. This is the appeal to authority, which really is a logical fallacy. Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else.

 

If there is widespread dissatisfaction with an element of any product or service, it is up to the provider to justify their choices sufficiently to gain acceptance, or see people drift away. I do not want 1CGS to base their choices on uninformed and subjective input, but I would hope that they would communicate clearly about what choices they make and why, when those choices turn out to be controversial. If they do not they will lose customers, which I imagine none of us want to see happen.

[Irgendjemand]

I am not claiming that it (15.5 degrees) is wrong, I am claiming that only by addressing this head on will the controversy go away. This is not a court of law, and on one level it does not matter who is "right". What matters is how to calm everyone down and stop the arguments, more importantly encourage people to stay with the game.

 

Your approach - and AndyJWest's - seems to be to say that people should just shut up and accept that 1CGS knows what is best. This is the appeal to authority, which really is a logical fallacy. Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else.

 

If there is widespread dissatisfaction with an element of any product or service, it is up to the provider to justify their choices sufficiently to gain acceptance, or see people drift away. I do not want 1CGS to base their choices on uninformed and subjective input, but I would hope that they would communicate clearly about what choices they make and why, when those choices turn out to be controversial. If they do not they will lose customers, which I imagine none of us want to see happen.

*applaud* very well said!

[Holtzauge]

+1!

[II/JG11_ATLAN_VR]

+1!

[Dr_Molem]

I am not claiming that it (15.5 degrees) is wrong, I am claiming that only by addressing this head on will the controversy go away. This is not a court of law, and on one level it does not matter who is "right". What matters is how to calm everyone down and stop the arguments, more importantly encourage people to stay with the game.

 

Your approach - and AndyJWest's - seems to be to say that people should just shut up and accept that 1CGS knows what is best. This is the appeal to authority, which really is a logical fallacy. Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else.

 

If there is widespread dissatisfaction with an element of any product or service, it is up to the provider to justify their choices sufficiently to gain acceptance, or see people drift away. I do not want 1CGS to base their choices on uninformed and subjective input, but I would hope that they would communicate clearly about what choices they make and why, when those choices turn out to be controversial. If they do not they will lose customers, which I imagine none of us want to see happen.

 

Well said.

[AndyJWest]

Ok, that's the second time I have been misrepresented in this thread. I'm done here.  It is all rather pointless anyway, since the developers aren't going to put FM revisions to a vote. Though what the hell you think you are voting on anyway I have no idea, since you don't have access to the FM, and accordingly don't know what would need changing.

[unreasonable]

Ok, that's the second time I have been misrepresented in this thread. I'm done here.  It is all rather pointless anyway, since the developers aren't going to put FM revisions to a vote. Though what the hell you think you are voting on anyway I have no idea, since you don't have access to the FM, and accordingly don't know what would need changing.

 

It is crystal clear what the majority of complainants think needs changing, or at least justifying: the 15.5 degree critical AoA. 

 

I think most of us understand (or believe, since we do not have access to the FM) that this is an output number rather than something that is just typed in.

 

And no, I did not misrepresent you one iota, as this post confirms.