Wulf Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 This is exactly the kind of garbage unsubstantiated and evidence-free post that gets people reacting..... ......but I'm not going to. Conspiracy theorists - I love them. Just because an observation is unsubstantiated doesn't necessarily make it wrong. At this stage it is simply a thesis that he has put forward that is, as yet, unproven. Unless that is, you can prove him wrong. Well can you, or is your post just unsubstantiated garbage? Where is your evidence?
3./JG15_Kampf Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 It's worth buying the fw190. It is also my passion. The stall is a problem in an abrupt firing correction, in rolling shears, in barrel roll. But as a turban speaks, I see other problems with fw 190. In berloga, a yak followed me from the deck until 6k even though I was flying 3 minutes in emergency, and then 1.3 ATA. My climb was 400 km / h, and the yak remained about 1500 meters behind me until the fuel was gone (is that correct?) Yak remains maneuverable even at 90km / h on a vertical ascent to the stall. Already the fw ?????? I also think it's strange how Russian fighters gain energy in a very short time after a vertical climb up to the stall
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 I have seen none hardcore defenders to the FM of FW 190 here , I personally reject to the fact that so many is so helpless that they claim in one Also in this case were only emotions I have never seen to fly Focke or to be an aces with this airplane those who said that Focke FM was fine and that we didnt had complain about FM calling us luftwhiner... ...but maybe I need glasses
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 ...but maybe I need glasses I think it is more the general tone, yak with its ufo flaps and something wrong with the 109 and this never ending story about the 190. Yeah feelings you are right. Bottom line is I am too old for this
Sunde Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Also in this case were only emotions I have never seen to fly Focke or to be an aces with this airplane those who said that Focke FM was fine and that we didnt had complain about FM calling us luftwhiner... ...but maybe I need glasses I'd probably refer to some of the ITAF guys as luftwhiners, simply because how you guys act online. Its truly saddening the tone you bring into the chat when in game. Off topic, but i had to say it, next time i might record it.
Gambit21 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 That's too bad. One thing about our old CoOps - we had a great group of people. Whenever someone joined who brought that undesirable element, I simply booted them. Looking forward to CoOps coming back.
Capt_Stubing Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) The classic arguments keep coming back. If you complain the FW is not where it needs to be you're a luftwhinner and you need proof. Well proof was given hence a change in the FM. The argument is over period. Stop saying anything bad about folks that have an issue with the current FM. Having flown the FW for the last decade and numerous changes to the FM via mods and official patches in IL2 1946 this A3 we have is a lot more of a handful to fly successfully. Anecdotally speaking when I merge co-e with a Yak or worst yet an LA5 you have a very tough time on your hands because you just don't have the real advantage the FW had in match. It's main advantage was the ability to extend and superior roll rate. My gut tells me the acceleration is a bit off as well but take that with a grain of salt as I haven't tested anything. If you're careful and patient in the current version you can at least make it a neutral fight. Try climbing you will die. Try diving and you will die eventually. Try turning you will die. Make a mistake and spin you will die. Does that make it impossible to be successful? Of course not come into a fight with superior E and positional advantage you can be successful. But all things being equal we are not able to use the normal tactics the plane did provide in RL to be successful. The A3 was built to be a Dog Fighter. Jabo came later because the war had shifted to different priorities as things progressed. Just look at the transformation of the 109. It was not the pure fighter later in it's life cycle. Oh and my credentials... I'm a RL Pilot and Airplane Owner. These observations are just from flying the sim Online. I haven't done testing. Edited January 7, 2017 by 14./JG5CaptStubing 1
ShamrockOneFive Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Also in this case were only emotions I have never seen to fly Focke or to be an aces with this airplane those who said that Focke FM was fine and that we didnt had complain about FM calling us luftwhiner... ...but maybe I need glasses There were lots of people running around with their emotions. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem but lots of us were trying to get it through to everyone that only evidence, not emotions, would solve problems. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... but it constantly is.
Wulf Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 There were lots of people running around with their emotions. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem but lots of us were trying to get it through to everyone that only evidence, not emotions, would solve problems. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... but it constantly is. Gee, if only us ordinary folks had managed to rein our emotions in long enough to listen to the words of wisdom from the virtue signalling 'rent a denier' crowd. Hey, maybe next time. Two points to note. Firstly, not everyone here has a tertiary education in the aeronautical sciences. Let's put it another way; if I purchase a product that appears defective, as a consumer; am I not allowed to raise the issue with the manufacturer until I've, what, fully researched the science. Seriously, is that what you're suggesting? Secondly, don't you find it odd that most of the people who actually fly/flew the 190 (so then, not that bunch of phonies who profess an interest in the aircraft but in reality have probably never flown it) just intuitively knew there was something seriously wrong with the model, but the people who actually put the thing together apparently couldn't see it to save themselves. Amazing. 2
Dakpilot Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 You do not need a tertiary education, degree in aeronautical science or even to speak English as a first language to be constructive and polite Cheers Dakpilot 8
Hoots Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 You do not need a tertiary education, degree in aeronautical science or even to speak English as a first language to be constructive and polite Cheers Dakpilot This. A thousand times this. Something I've brought my kids up by. 1
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) I'd probably refer to some of the ITAF guys as luftwhiners, simply because how you guys act online. Its truly saddening the tone you bring into the chat when in game. Off topic, but i had to say it, next time i might record it. That reference did you say with the subject matter? Nothing!!! It is true that for frustration happens to write things online (sometimes also true things), as can happen during a football match or any other sport. We are human and can make mistakes like everyone. Where were you when someone said that italians were Mussolini's son? Why didnt vote to ban him as I did? Next time think before you talk nonsense OT Someone writes in chat things that you dont you like? Well, dont read them and try to fly with the Focke instead of reading the chat. We expect that records your performance with the Focke! If to discredit a thesis need to discredit those saying, I think that obviously the thesis is right... S! and sorry for my fluent English Edited January 7, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao
Finkeren Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Aaaaaaaaaand we've got another Fw 190 thread circling the drain. Too bad, it started out well enough. 1
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) It is the way of the Wulf to send both our enemies as well as our forums down in flames. It'll be nice when the Spit enters and the Fw Is fixed. Then the Spit boys can take over the Department of Perpetual Whining. Edited January 7, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf 1
216th_Xenos Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Guys... Paradigm shift. The question is a different one alltogether. It isnt "is the FW good enough for my Bling." its more like "am i skilled enough for the FW" and at the risk of grossly over-generalising, i would say GET IT AND FIND OUT. people spend more money on tobacco, hookers and booze every week than the 190 costs. so get the Piece and give it an honest shot - some 5-10 hours flying time. You got nothing to loose but some booze you can not pay for. and some STD´s you might dodge. just sayin' +1
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) There were lots of people running around with their emotions. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem but lots of us were trying to get it through to everyone that only evidence, not emotions, would solve problems. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... but it constantly is. However, the same should also apply to those who say that all is well, they too are based on emotions There are positive and negative emotions, but you ask just to show evidence of negative emotions... If I say that in P40 there is something wrong,you ask me the tests, but if I say that the P40 FM is great none asks me the tests... But the real question is: Did motoadve buy Focke? We look forward to know S! Edited January 7, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao
Dakpilot Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 However, the same should also apply to those who say that all is well, S! Please will this group of people step forward and let themselves be known... So far they are a mystery to me and I imagine many others, a secret unknown '3rd force' hiding in the shadows disrupting all FW 190 threads Cent' anni Dakpilot
Willy__ Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Gee, if only us ordinary folks had managed to rein our emotions in long enough to listen to the words of wisdom from the virtue signalling 'rent a denier' crowd. Hey, maybe next time. Two points to note. Firstly, not everyone here has a tertiary education in the aeronautical sciences. Let's put it another way; if I purchase a product that appears defective, as a consumer; am I not allowed to raise the issue with the manufacturer until I've, what, fully researched the science. Seriously, is that what you're suggesting? Secondly, don't you find it odd that most of the people who actually fly/flew the 190 (so then, not that bunch of phonies who profess an interest in the aircraft but in reality have probably never flown it) just intuitively knew there was something seriously wrong with the model, but the people who actually put the thing together apparently couldn't see it to save themselves. Amazing. +1
ShamrockOneFive Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Gee, if only us ordinary folks had managed to rein our emotions in long enough to listen to the words of wisdom from the virtue signalling 'rent a denier' crowd. Hey, maybe next time. Two points to note. Firstly, not everyone here has a tertiary education in the aeronautical sciences. Let's put it another way; if I purchase a product that appears defective, as a consumer; am I not allowed to raise the issue with the manufacturer until I've, what, fully researched the science. Seriously, is that what you're suggesting? Secondly, don't you find it odd that most of the people who actually fly/flew the 190 (so then, not that bunch of phonies who profess an interest in the aircraft but in reality have probably never flown it) just intuitively knew there was something seriously wrong with the model, but the people who actually put the thing together apparently couldn't see it to save themselves. Amazing. This requires some subtlety... Yes, folks can say "Hey, something is wrong." No, folks cannot say "OMG, Russian bias, they porked the FW190!!!" I'm exaggerating a bit on the second one but you know its not far from what was being said in this forum. It lacked all rationality and it distracted from the real research efforts being done and that's what ticks me off about the whole thing. On the second point, no I don't find it odd. They are doing a complex flight simulation and when you have wind tunnel data that appears to be in good standing telling you that your info is incorrect... you change it and can make a reasonable assumption that now it is more accurate than before even if it seems objectively wrong. And this is where it is hard for developers doing this kind of work - You have to trust in data and numbers. When those numbers are proven to be wrong or inaccurate... then you need to make a change. I'd also point out that its a dev team of 23 people. How many of them are able to make flight model changes? I'm guessing maybe a small handful of guys at the most. Obviously its busy enough for them that they will be making changes at the same time as working on the FW190A-5. That makes sense to me from a Project Management perspective and it gives us insight into just how time constrained they are. Aaaaaaaaaand we've got another Fw 190 thread circling the drain. Too bad, it started out well enough. Every time. The FW190s stall thread rivals the original FW190 stall thread from the original IL-2. It's closing in on the "FW190 bar" and ".50cal are porked" threads from the original too. The community is just so dramatic sometimes. I'm assuming that this is, in the grand scheme of things, a good thing if we're measuring up to the original! :D However, the same should also apply to those who say that all is well, they too are based on emotions There are positive and negative emotions, but you ask just to show evidence of negative emotions... If I say that in P40 there is something wrong,you ask me the tests, but if I say that the P40 FM is great none asks me the tests... But the real question is: Did motoadve buy Focke? We look forward to know S! It's called burden of proof. When you feel that the established status quo is wrong, you are then burdened with providing proof that it is wrong. Edited January 7, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive 6
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 It's called burden of proof. When you feel that the established status quo is wrong, you are then burdened with providing proof that it is wrong. Few Comments more true than this one.
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Two points to note. Firstly, not everyone here has a tertiary education in the aeronautical sciences. Let's put it another way; if I purchase a product that appears defective This really the point I have been disagreeing in all the way, with you and hairy I did not and do not expect a 100% real FW 190 from a combat flight simulator, I do it in DCS whee I pay for the one plane for the same price as this game. How could you expect a fully simulated airplane in a simulated war game. Personally I think we get more than we paid for. This is a evolvement from old IL 2 a game that is simulating war, not only the plane. Your expectations is something no one can take away from you, but at some point you need to ask yourself, are those too high? Ok you want it as real as it gets, fine with me. But the approach that you have been scammed and fooled into pay a fortune for a product not worth it is taking it too far Edited January 7, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte 4
ZachariasX Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Personally I think we get more than we paid for. +1 1
StG2_Manfred Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 It's called burden of proof. When you feel that the established status quo is wrong, you are then burdened with providing proof that it is wrong. This burden of proof I was asking for when people write here it's a great fighter.
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 This burden of proof I was asking for when people write here it's a great fighter. My point is try out the LA 5 or LAGG , MIg or IL 2 . These planes do the same thing as the FW 190. Now tell me that the FW 190 can not compete with those. I have flown these planes lately and compared them with the FW 190. The 190 manage to destroy approximately the same amount of things on the ground as the IL 2, If anything I think that the FW 190 is just as good weapon platform as the IL 2 in this game. And that must be the powerful heavy engine, and forward momentum, because the IL 2 should be better at it. Compared to the LA 5 I can fly the FW faster and better in low altitudes, might be wrong. I can go on and on, The FW 190 is not a bad plane, it is in my mind better than it should be in some areas . But it is not modelled compared to real thing, that is quite something else. It is in my mind and experience with Russian planes a very good plane to fly in this sim. But the FM is still wrong, I think when it is revised it might loose some of it capabilities as a weapon platform , it will be more agile and less stabile. But I am not a FM expert. I do not have the sudden stall, when I get it I expect it, and that might be me more used to planes that stall easily like the I 16
Dr_Molem Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) But the FM is still wrong, I think when it is revised it might loose some of it capabilities as a weapon platform , it will be more agile and less stabile. But I am not a FM expert. I do not have the sudden stall, when I get it I expect it, and that might be me more used to planes that stall easily like the I 16 It will be more agile and more stable, much more stable. One does not even have to read the DD140 to know that. Also, a well modelled 190 (let's hope) will no longer "compete" against a La-5 or LaGG-3, but it will completely outperform them and you will even be able to literally 'turnfight' these planes at most altitudes without problem. However, there's something i don't understand... People here are still talking about the 190's FM while it will be reworked within 2-3 months, can't you just forget it until its new FM is released ? Does people forgot that almost all (if not all) fighters in this game roll far too well and especially at high speed (109s, La-5 and LaGG-3 roll like 190 and nobody seems surprised), just saying. Edited January 7, 2017 by Dr_Molem
216th_Jordan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Also, a well modelled 190 (let's hope) will no longer "compete" against a La-5 or LaGG-3, but it will completely outperform them and you will even be able to literally 'turnfight' these planes at most altitudes without problem. Don't mess with a La-5 down low, it will be faster.
Dr_Molem Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Don't mess with a La-5 down low, it will be faster. How so ?
216th_Jordan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) You are right, just checked, Fw-190 is 10 kph faster in emergency mode! I didn't know that.. But although it will be able to turn a lot better than now it has no guaranteed win mode. It was quite dangerous before the last fix and i expect it to be a bit better. Pilot still needs to be careful though Edited January 7, 2017 by 216th_Jordan
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) You are right, just checked, Fw-190 is 10 kph faster in emergency mode I reacted on this fact while testing LA 5 and FW 190, The FW was faster at low altitudes, I thought LA 5 for some reason was the one faster. Also, a well modelled 190 (let's hope) will no longer "compete" against a La-5 or LaGG-3, This is my point, stating the FW as a bad aircraft in current form like many does is plain wrong, compared to its opponents even I find use for it. In fact I find it the best multirole aircraft in game for my usage But I still do not and never has claimed it to be historical correct. I trust Wulf and Hairy on this point Edited January 7, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 It's called burden of proof. When you feel that the established status quo is wrong, you are then burdened with providing proof that it is wrong I would call it an act of faith or simply dogma... Np for me I have flown these planes lately and compared them with the FW 190. Where?
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 The FW and LA 5 in WOL server for many one mission attempts, got hurt badly in the LA 5 every time. bounced ofcource. But difference is the FW 190 is worth taking for a long trip ground pounding, the LA 5 not so much less ammo and smaller bombs. Remember I do not fly any of them as a fighter pilot, and that make some difference in perspective
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) The FW and LA 5 in WOL server for many one mission attempts Did you fly Fw 190 in WoL? Strange, in your stats it seems that you have never flown with the Focke... Edited January 7, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao
Lusekofte Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Strange because I have last time 2 weeks ago, Maybe a week ago I flew The LA 5 one time. But those flight was only to confirm my offline test. Did you fly Fw 190 in WoL? Strange, in your stats it seems that you have never flown with the Focke... Are you telling me I am lying , and for what reason? Do anything I wrote here seemed not plausible ? I fly very little BOS online, when I do I fly DED server, so me taking on WOL is simply for qa one mission type of thing and for test, I fine online gaming in this sim very unmotivated. Flying the planes I want to fly is just acting as a moving target. Anyway if you like me to record every time I fly I can do so, the stats and history of WOL server is not a issue I will or have interest of getting into
Crump Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 The biggest advantage of the FW-190 in IL2 is that it can absorb some pretty good damage. It is kind of neat to watch all the damage graphics in the game in.
ITAF_Cymao Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Are you telling me I am lying , and for what reason? Dont worry. I'm sorry if you feel accused of something, it wasnt my intent. But can we say that you dont know very well the Focke in Bos? There's nothing wrong. Probably like you I am (almost) sure that many of those who wrote their opinions about the FW 190, has never flown online or maybe only for a few minutes or maybe just offline! However, for those who actually fly the Focke nothing will change with the promised fix. We must always have the same approach to combat that we have now ... But above all we want to know if motoadve bought Focke. S! Edited January 7, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao
Danziger Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Dont worry. I'm sorry if you feel accused of something, it wasnt my intent. But can we say that you dont know very well the Focke in Bos? There's nothing wrong. Probably like you I am (almost) sure that many of those who wrote their opinions about the FW 190, has never flown online or maybe only for a few minutes or maybe just offline! However, for those who actually fly the Focke nothing will change with the promised fix. We must always have the same approach to combat that we have now ... But above all we want to know if motoadve bought Focke. S! So what you are saying is that people who fly only offline are not really flying? What are they doing?
Yakdriver Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 someone delete this thread.this is horrible.or maybe make it a sticky and a mandatory read for the newcomers.Just to let them know what kind of a cesspool they will have to deal with.FFS
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now