Jump to content
Gavrick

Developer Diary, Part 145 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, we continue work on Fw 190 A-5. While being very similar to Fw 190 А-3 visually, it will have significantly different features and peculiarities in loadouts and handling.

 

Interesting, any ideas?

Obviously the usual optional wing-guns and centreline bomb rack.

MG151 gunpods?

Droptanks?

Wing mounted SC50s?

C3 injection? :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dive acceleration is a combination of many things, you cant just change it but it will probably have changed. Lets wait and see. Keep in mind though that many russian fighters were not bad in diving either.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Gavrick and all the team, :thank_you:

 

i'm impressed by the very high quality of your work: this sim is really fantastic, i cannot tell you how much fun i get from IL2!

 

Many thanks for the news: you guys rule the combat sim world!

 

Keep doing good, many of us are already impatient and wanting to buy another chapter of this game and more collector planes. :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, any ideas?

Obviously the usual optional wing-guns and centreline bomb rack.

MG151 gunpods?

Droptanks?

Wing mounted SC50s?

C3 injection? :3

And my armor please.. :)

Edited by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo Gavrick,

what about the dive acceleration? Has it  been modified in the new revision of the flight model?

+1

 

 

I have no expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good that changes are coming but im bit sceptic about prop thrust reduced to achive 500m ground roll for take off and 18 sec in A-3?

 

It would be good if Gavric would answer if he mean 500m and 18 sec for  total  take off distance to 20 m alt ( like in RL German data)  or only ground roll 500m and 18 sec,

 

Cause if only ground roll would take 500 m and 18 sec it would be mean that BOS A-3 is slowier in acceleration comparing to RL data ( 300 m ground roll) and REDUCED prop thrust was wrong idea again?

 

 

RL A-3 at 3850 kg - ground roll 300m

RL A-5 at 4100 kg - ground roll 395 m /   take off distance for 20m alt - 600 m  

 

 

Reduced prop thrust mean worse acceleration and climb rate surly.

 

So it would be really good to check things before relase fix to avoid another mistakes and errors.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just it would be nice if Gavric would explain things to avoid another issues - not see much problem here.  I think most here want A-3/A-5 at least to be finished correctly and neverending dissucions would stop

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man this stuff really never ends..

Come on... He normally asked. If you do not like it do not read it.  It is normal discussion. I find it interesting.  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news. Thanks for keeping work hard on my favourite sim.

Edited by F/JG300_Touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on... He normally asked. If you do not like it do not read it.  It is normal discussion. I find it interesting.  :salute:

Most importantly, references, calculations and analysis should be sent in a proper manner to the devs. There is not so much time to lose in discussions for those building a sim and of course for all those waiting for a more accurate FM. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on... He normally asked. If you do not like it do not read it.  It is normal discussion. I find it interesting.  :salute:

Well, I read it since ten years over various sims with this plane. I agree that if there is something wrong it needs to be corrected. The problem is jumping to assumptions here.

Firstly, how was the takeoff roll measured, in clean configuration, engines in boosted mode or with flaps? what weather conditions (assuming standard atmosphere here) and at what loadouts (what is standard)? What and when was measured? etc, etc.. I am with JtD and Kwiatek here, but not on the other stuff posted here by some. We also don't know how much prop thrust was reduced, maybe just slightly.

Speed and climb was quite correct before as far as I am aware, so I don't see a problem there.

 

This plane will be properly tested, if you can provide any useful data in the fm forums: even better.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found from A-8 manual

 

Take off is made with 12 deg flap ( take off position), ISA, no wind

 

So procedure should be the same for 300m A-3 ( 395 m A-5)

- take off power, flaps take off positon, ISA, no wind

 

300m and 500m it is huge difference in acceleration. So it would be good in Gavric could precise if he mean 500m 18 sec ground roll or take off distance for 20m alt above runway. At least here German data are very precise for conditions.

post-1014-0-65161200-1485004110_thumb.jpg

post-1014-0-58158500-1485004124_thumb.jpg

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man this stuff really never ends..

 

Better to discuss the uncertainties now than when the damage is done. The questions and objections here are legitimate. Or do you have any problems when this aircraft is finally implemented correctly? Such comments as you make here are out of place and annoying and not the questions of the posters.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man this stuff really never ends..

 

Of course not. As long as it remains constructive... That is a very good thing! It means people are engaged, interested, and willing to dig for sources and materials to make sure things are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I apologize for my comment. I might have been a little fast here, feelings sometimes get over you..

Reviewing the thread I read more into the comments before than there was in.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo Gavrick,

what about the dive acceleration? Has it  been modified in the new revision of the flight model?

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dive acceleration is a combination of many things, you cant just change it but it will probably have changed. Lets wait and see. Keep in mind though that many russian fighters were not bad in diving either.

 

not bad accelerating but bad at high speed, at 650 km/h the planes started to disapear lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found from A-8 manual

 

Take off is made with 12 deg flap ( take off position), ISA, no wind

 

So procedure should be the same for 300m A-3 ( 395 m A-5)

- take off power, flaps take off positon, ISA, no wind

 

300m and 500m it is huge difference in acceleration. So it would be good in Gavric could precise if he mean 500m 18 sec ground roll or take off distance for 20m alt above runway. At least here German data are very precise for conditions.

 

Think you may jumping the gun just a little here and foreseeing an issue where it probably doesn't exist.

 

Gavrick said: "Takeoff run of the aircraft with standard loadout is roughly 500 meters and takes 18 seconds, which corresponds to historical data."

 

As you have pointed out the only option which 'corresponds to historical data' is for climb to 20m, so I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they are using that as their comparison.

 

They have taken so much grief over the 190 FM that I expect this time they will be checking, rechecking, and then checking again on this to get it as good as they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure cause take off run could mean ground take off run only or take off distance for 20m alt. Gavric havent answered these and precise still what he meant. Also you should know that there could be many historical data ( Ex. Germans charts or data from tested captured planes VVS got A-4 which got damaged prop and worse performance then german data)

It would be not good if after update A3 still lack of acceleration because of another wrong data used or missinterpretation of such, error which could be avoid in time expecially when we have really good data for these

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you may jumping the gun just a little here and foreseeing an issue where it probably doesn't exist.

 

Gavrick said: "Takeoff run of the aircraft with standard loadout is roughly 500 meters and takes 18 seconds, which corresponds to historical data."

 

As you have pointed out the only option which 'corresponds to historical data' is for climb to 20m, so I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they are using that as their comparison.

 

They have taken so much grief over the 190 FM that I expect this time they will be checking, rechecking, and then checking again on this to get it as good as they can.

I guess we ALL hope youre right. I certainly am.

Cant wait to fly it again. Right now the sim is shelved. Need a break

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News, we are on the good path since DX11 release ;)

Hope that the acceleration rate won't be Ignored and that the vmax even slightly corrected will be enough to come back on realistic basis. Based on that, only a LA-5 or Mig should be capable of closing the gap with the FW in certain circumstances and altitude.

 

Looking forward to fly again the Butcherbird online !

Edited by MadisonV44
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure cause take off run could mean ground take off run only or take off distance for 20m alt. Gavric havent answered these and precise still what he meant. Also you should know that there could be many historical data ( Ex. Germans charts or data from tested captured planes VVS got A-4 which got damaged prop and worse performance then german data)

It would be not good if after update A3 still lack of acceleration because of another wrong data used or missinterpretation of such, error which could be avoid in time expecially when we have really good data for these

True. Good point. I hope they will use german data.  Hopefully Gavric will answer. Maybe on monday ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if he would replay expecially he is involved in FM of Fw 190. Surly he read these topic but dunno why not answer yet

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if he would replay expecially he is involved in FM of Fw 190. Surly he read these topic but dunno why not answer yet

 

Gavrick is not getting involved in endless discussions on the forum. His job is to work on what he has been assigned. Myself and Han allowed him to write this DD so players could have an idea of what to expect and to demonstrate that some of the criticism about the 190 is being addressed as promised. However, engaging with you on every nuance of flight model building in a language that is not his native language is not his job. When the changes have been made and implemented you can see the result.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks like we're not getting an answer, so I'll try to answer that for myself with some speculation.

 

Right now the Fw needs about 14-15s to get to what was given as the lift off speed in Fw documents, which agrees with my estimate from Fw figures. Unfortunately right now it doesn't take off at that speed due to the low lift coefficient.

The lift coefficient will be increased to what looks like a reasonable figure, so we can expect lift off at the proper speed. Main problem solved, with a higher lift coefficient the proper take off distances would already be achieved.

 

In addition to that major change, drag at high angles of attack was decreased, which would, among other things, further reduce the take off distance. Compensating that a little, thrust has been reduced a little, which means these two things could pretty much cancel each other out.

So my expectation is to see the Fw190 get airborne within the distances given in the German documents.

 

In case anyone's interested:

Moving the CoG forward will, in addition to the benefits from a higher maximum angle of attack and a higher lift coefficient, as well as with 2° of wing washout implemented, give the aircraft better handling and less severe stalling/spinning characteristics.

The high lift coefficient in combination with the lowered drag at high angles of attack would tremendously increase turning performance, both sustained and instantaneous.

Reducing prop thrust will on the other hand lead to decreased performance in sustained turns and low speed acceleration. The way I understand it, nothing has changed for high speed flight, but if high speed thrust was reduced as well while speed remains almost the same, we'd see better dive acceleration.

 

Personally I'm expecting a noticeable different handling, which imho was the main issue.

I'm also expecting somewhat better dogfighting performance, but it remains open how noticeable it is. As the improved handling will help a lot here, performance changes might go unnoticed, even if they are significant.

Imho, based on the available info, all changes make sense and will bring the aircraft significantly closer to what I consider historically correct - sounds like a job well done to me.

 

p.s. I would recommend people who want to know what changed to do some testing now, to have a basis for comparison once the changes get published.

  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Txs Jason for your Job on Fw 190..dive acelerarion was another point to check for FW 190 enthusiasts but I m pretty sure you will do a great job..

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 190 was a speed fighter first. The actual version of this plane is already missing a lot of speed. Correct the FM without change speeds it's let the plane just a little less castrated. This correction is disappointing for many 190 pilots.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gavrick is not getting involved in endless discussions on the forum. His job is to work on what he has been assigned. Myself and Han allowed him to write this DD so players could have an idea of what to expect and to demonstrate that some of the criticism about the 190 is being addressed as promised. However, engaging with you on every nuance of flight model building in a language that is not his native language is not his job. When the changes have been made and implemented you can see the result.

 

Jason

but isn't that actually counter productive? As you said yourself, changing a FM isn't just done and needs extra time set aside, that's why we get the new FM now, that the A-5 is being worked on, is it not? If FW 190 test parameters are that unique and there is a chance to actually mis-read data and get wrong performance in the game. isn't it good that people point that out BEFORE the new FM is released and again contains errors that could've been eliminated before hand? I know the team is very small so going through hundreds of pages of data for each plane isn't always easy or possible. Isn't it that much more valuable to have people who study data like that an can give inputs and help improve the Sim? Isn't that the ultimate goal all of us have?

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privet Roman,

Thanks a lot for finding the time on your bussy schedule to share with us the news about what's cooking in your "FM kitchen". Looking forward to try out the changes. I didn't expect such infos so early.

молодцы разработчики ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gavrick is not getting involved in endless discussions on the forum. His job is to work on what he has been assigned. Myself and Han allowed him to write this DD so players could have an idea of what to expect and to demonstrate that some of the criticism about the 190 is being addressed as promised. However, engaging with you on every nuance of flight model building in a language that is not his native language is not his job. When the changes have been made and implemented you can see the result.

 

Jason

 

nevertheless THX to Gavrik ! :biggrin:Спаси́бо.

Edited by II/JG11ATLAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gavrick is not getting involved in endless discussions on the forum. His job is to work on what he has been assigned. Myself and Han allowed him to write this DD so players could have an idea of what to expect and to demonstrate that some of the criticism about the 190 is being addressed as promised. However, engaging with you on every nuance of flight model building in a language that is not his native language is not his job. When the changes have been made and implemented you can see the result.

 

Jason

 

Jason it is good that Gavrick write DD about Fw190 fixes  very nice.  I think most here want Fw 190 FM fix once time to accurate level as possible ( e.x. like Yak-1s level - which never saw had problem with underperformacne in these game )

 

But i really don't understand what is a problem answer some very simple question about acceleration during take off Fw 190?  As You see i posted very detailed info  about acceleration of RL Fw 190 A-3 ( A-5)  during taking off and Gavric could compare these with his FM revision. I saw Gavric read these topic and probably he made his own conlusion about these but really i dont see what is a problem to write a few words about these here? It could be really also nice to see such response. I think that most here really want to avoid another Fw 190 FM issues to stop these never ending discussion in the future.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO we should be very happy that the developers have looked into this and are planning a release with a tuned Fw-190 A3. In addition they have been kind enough to provide a heads-up outlining the planned changes. Picking that info apart with idle speculation even before we have seen the results is counterproductive at best. Give the guys a break, be thankful this has been looked into and let’s see what we get before complaining…….

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason it is good that Gavrick write DD about Fw190 fixes  very nice.  I think most here want Fw 190 FM fix once time to accurate level as possible ( e.x. like Yak-1s level - which never saw had problem with underperformacne in these game )

 

But i really don't understand what is a problem answer some very simple question about acceleration during take off Fw 190?  As You see i posted very detailed info  about acceleration of RL Fw 190 A-3 ( A-5)  during taking off and Gavric could compare these with his FM revision. I saw Gavric read these topic and probably he made his own conlusion about these but really i dont see what is a problem to write a few words about these here? It could be really also nice to see such response. I think that most here really want to avoid another Fw 190 FM issues to stop these never ending discussion in the future.

 

You have a manual. Why not just PM Han and ask him if the team has that document, and if not send him a copy? Much more productive than forum posts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...