Jump to content
Gavrick

Developer Diary, Part 145 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Kwiak, there is a proper channel to i quire about FM.

 

If you have issues or questions, why dont you take it fwd in pm?

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.

 

Great informative post JtD. Thanks. One thing that confuses me though:

 

"if high speed thrust was reduced as well while speed remains almost the same, we'd see better dive acceleration."

 

Can you explain why this would be the case. Not trying in any way to be difficult. Just genuinely interested as it seems counter-intuitive to me. 

 

Thanks

Edited by kendo

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.

 

I would say that, judging from past situations like this, it's probable that 'answer some very simple question' turns into something more approaching endless debate... slippery slope :)

Edited by kendo

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

Agreed the only reason we have never ending debate about the FW-190 is because the fm was not right .!!!!!

 

 

 

This 190 fiasco has been going on for long enough its time to make it stable and flyable . Historic of course .   :cool:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great informative post JtD. Thanks. One thing that confuses me though:

 

"if high speed thrust was reduced as well while speed remains almost the same, we'd see better dive acceleration."

 

Can you explain why this would be the case. Not trying in any way to be difficult. Just genuinely interested as it seems counter-intuitive to me. 

 

Thanks

What I think he means is that since at maximum speed drag and thrust are in balance, if one gets lowered while the max speed remains unchanged the second one must be lower as well. In this case the thrust was lowered which also means that the drag would be lower.

While thrust remains about the same threwout the speedrange drag increases with the square of airspeed. If you go twice the speed your drag quadruples.

That means that the lower drag helps to accelerate faster at high airspeeds with greater effect than the lowered thurst.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would say that, judging from past situations like this, it's probable that 'answer some very simple question' turns into something more approaching endless debate... slippery slope

 I would say that not answering "a simple question" is what makes discussion in the forum interminable. We go to 10 months with broken FM 190 and a "simple question" can make the new FM more correct and avoid further discussion in the future. Maybe this page is not appropriate. Better would be in the FM session or a PM maybe. Anyway, great work team il2

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that the developers are doing an fm revision for the 190, is because of people continuing to ask questions... this proves that changes were needed.

 

I hope that people in the know will continue this trend for any aircraft that is suspect, not just the 190.

I also applaud the developers for continuing to listen, regardless how long it takes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving the center of gravity forward in the A3... the A5 moved the center backward to restore balance. Should be interesting. Regardless, I am looking forward to trying the revised flight model on one of my favorite planes. S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving the center of gravity forward in the A3... the A5 moved the center backward to restore balance. Should be interesting. Regardless, I am looking forward to trying the revised flight model on one of my favorite planes. S!

didn't they move it forwards in the A-5 to allow for higher payloads?

 

edit:

 

found it, they lengthened the engine mount and that shifted the CoG forward

 

 

1920px-Fw_190_A4_A5_Wiki.jpg

 

 

i edited so it's easier to see the difference between the two. the blue is the A-4:

 

zX2n6dl.jpg

 

 

 

also, does anyone think we might see the U9 modification for the A-5? (that's 13mm MGs replacing the 7.92s)

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar
  • Upvote 2

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.

 

Excellent post. Well said, JtD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the A-5 had its fuselage lengthened by approx 6'', so that should affect things :)

I was aware. Interesting how it affects the developers in the Sim as it did (it seems) irl. :)

Edited by Beazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally was never checked out and signed off to fly a real FW 190A-3 in combat, so I can only go by what the devs put in the sim. Some people would argue 'well, there is an operational "______" (insert WW2 aircraft type here) flying with "____ museum" why not ask them for data?'. Well, most flying WW2 aircraft are not operated on the edge of the envelope like they were 70 years ago. These ships tend to be babied as the repair, parts, and overhaul costs on these craft are staggering, and many of these outfits operate on donations. On top of that, airshow pilots are not fighting for their own survival. They are putting on a show that pleases the audience and keeps themselves, the aircraft, and the spectators safe. As it stands now, we can only go by historical data and/or personal accounts on performance. The latter should be taken with a grain of salt. I think the devs are doing an amazing job with data they are given!

 

To me, I am happy to see further development and transparency from such a small team on anything, whether it be from the 190 FM being tweaked to a brand new FM for a flying watermelon. These guys are second to none. Thanks for the update team, I am eagerly awaiting the tweaks and the Bf 110G-2!!! :drinks:

Edited by II./ZG1_CG_Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news there. Lets see the product.

 

But dont expect to have a magic aircraft, The 190 is a difficult plane to master and the compressor is not optimiced for fighting at 2000-3000 m a quite frequent alttitude to fight on the game tl hunt rus planes so i expect the 109 to keep the superiority with the 190.

 

Kampf i hope to see new videos soon about combats in the new foke. For sure you can surprise a lot of yaks on high speed manouvers.

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 3

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.

 

 

 

Sry JtD but im not such optimist with acceleretion A-3 in BOS. I think Gavric probably mean 500m and 18 sec ground roll rather then 500m and 18 sec for take off distance at 20 m height. But surly we will know in close future. Fact is that A-3 got ground roll  in 300-350m depend of runway surface.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sry JtD but im not such optimist with acceleretion A-3 in BOS. I think Gavric probably mean 500m and 18 sec ground roll rather then 500m and 18 sec for take off distance at 20 m height. But surly we will know in close future. Fact is that A-3 got ground roll  in 300-350m depend of runway surface.

 

Based on past events, I think you are right Kwiatek... :(  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Kampf i hope to see new videos soon about combats in the new foke. For sure you can surprise a lot of yaks on high speed manouvers.

 Maybe some unsuspecting yak my friend. Let's wait for the new FM. fingers crossed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the questions and discussions in the thread, I'll just keep it short and say:

 

Thank you for reworking the FW and hopefully we will get a better FM out of it. Keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on past events, I think you are right Kwiatek... :(  

 

Like past events of listening to user input which gave us the current universally disliked FW-190 FM

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like past events of listening to user input which gave us the current universally disliked FW-190 FM

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Exactly.

+ this game has other 21 aircrafts and a whole bunch of fixes to be done (see DD120) As much as I appreciate the work on Fw-190 FM,I dont want devs to spend yet more time with it,eating precious manhours that could be better invested to improve gameplay for everyone = DD120 points 10,11,17-21 and 25 as the most needed IMHO. There is a good debate on russian forum about las DD. But it is more constructive then here. Users are focused on the global problems of the game. Andrey even challenged them to pick one priority out of DD120 to focus on. He has only 2.5 months dedicated for that in year 2017.

So be careful what you wish for. And dont be selfish with your requests.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that I could read Russian.

I often wonder what the other half of the community is talking about and asking for,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

+ this game has other 21 aircrafts and a whole bunch of fixes to be done (see DD120) As much as I appreciate the work on Fw-190 FM,I dont want devs to spend yet more time with it,eating precious manhours that could be better invested to improve gameplay for everyone = DD120 points 10,11,17-21 and 25 as the most needed IMHO. There is a good debate on russian forum about las DD. But it is more constructive then here. Users are focused on the global problems of the game. Andrey even challenged them to pick one priority out of DD120 to focus on. He has only 2.5 months dedicated for that in year 2017.

So be careful what you wish for. And dont be selfish with your requests.

which is why it's good that people point out that possible source for errors BEFORE it is to late and another borked FM is released

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a good debate on russian forum about las DD. But it is more constructive then here. Users are focused on the global problems of the game.

 

How is the discussion on DD 145 then? DD 145 is about the FW 190. If they discuss global problems they are simply off topic or the russian forum gets a different DD. Also nice to hear (if it s true) that the russian forum gets to choose what they want work to be done on.

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry JtD but im not such optimist with acceleretion A-3 in BOS. I think Gavric probably mean 500m and 18 sec ground roll rather then 500m and 18 sec for take off distance at 20 m height. But surly we will know in close future. Fact is that A-3 got ground roll  in 300-350m depend of runway surface.

 

Based on past events, I think you are right Kwiatek... :(  

 

which is why it's good that people point out that possible source for errors BEFORE it is to late and another borked FM is released

 

What REALLY puzzles me in this thread is how you can take what Gavrick ACTUALLY wrote in the DD - which to my eyes is wholly positive - and construct something negative out of it. It's an amazing act of interpretive distortion in many ways - almost like you lot want to keep inhabiting your own little bubble of Fw-related pain and misery and nothing will bring you out of it.

 

Once again Kwiatek - you can only interpret what Gavrick actually said in the way you do by discounting completely the bit about it 'corresponding to the historical data'!!??

 

It's probably really foolish of me to post this in this thread but it just amazes me really. And I post not in defense of devs or against getting the Fw 'right' - really right - but solely because of the distorted logic and evidence-free reasoning in here.

 

Anyway, won't post again in here. And hope I haven't offended anyone, but guys....really...get a grip!

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

+ this game has other 21 aircrafts and a whole bunch of fixes to be done (see DD120) As much as I appreciate the work on Fw-190 FM,I dont want devs to spend yet more time with it,eating precious manhours that could be better invested to improve gameplay for everyone = DD120 points 10,11,17-21 and 25 as the most needed IMHO. There is a good debate on russian forum about las DD. But it is more constructive then here. Users are focused on the global problems of the game. Andrey even challenged them to pick one priority out of DD120 to focus on. He has only 2.5 months dedicated for that in year 2017.

So be careful what you wish for. And dont be selfish with your requests.

Brano, could you link the Russian discussion or post excerpts from it? Would be interesting to read their point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What REALLY puzzles me in this thread is how you can take what Gavrick ACTUALLY wrote in the DD - which to my eyes is wholly positive - and construct something negative out of it. It's an amazing act of interpretive distortion in many ways - almost like you lot want to keep inhabiting your own little bubble of Fw-related pain and misery and nothing will bring you out of it.

Currently 190 can be followed or catched up in speed by his opponents which should not be possible in the current version of the russian fighters. And he announced speeds will not be optimized .

Edited by Otto_bann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

+ this game has other 21 aircrafts and a whole bunch of fixes to be done (see DD120) As much as I appreciate the work on Fw-190 FM,I dont want devs to spend yet more time with it,eating precious manhours that could be better invested to improve gameplay for everyone = DD120 points 10,11,17-21 and 25 as the most needed IMHO. There is a good debate on russian forum about las DD. But it is more constructive then here. Users are focused on the global problems of the game. Andrey even challenged them to pick one priority out of DD120 to focus on. He has only 2.5 months dedicated for that in year 2017.

So be careful what you wish for. And dont be selfish with your requests.

 

+1

 

This alone (is already promised for this year):    10. Additional research of airplane sideslip angle influence on plane roll;

 

is changing the realism of all planes much more than any tweak of a single plane FM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logged in to the Russian forum and voted in that poll Brano was talking about https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5420-120-e-dnevniki-u-vas-tolko-odin-patron-vash-vybor/ 

 

Numbers of the fixes are the same as in DD120 so it`s easy to pick even if I don`t understand Russian. 

 

I chose 10. Additional research of airplane sideslip angle influence on plane roll; 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What REALLY puzzles me in this thread is how you can take what Gavrick ACTUALLY wrote in the DD - which to my eyes is wholly positive - and construct something negative out of it. It's an amazing act of interpretive distortion in many ways - almost like you lot want to keep inhabiting your own little bubble of Fw-related pain and misery and nothing will bring you out of it.

 

nobody "constructed" anything. Gavrick gave one number that was hard fact, that's the take off time with the new model. and someone pointed out that Fw has a unique way in testing and documenting that. Just to make sure we don't get a wrong FM because of that uniqueness. After the developers decided not to give any feedback on that, people got nervous since mis-interpretation of sources can lead to wrong flight modeling. nobody, talks about ill intent, or nerf or anything. it's just some community member trying to help not to make an avoidable mistake

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A DD to make Fw-190 great again"

Only? I wonder what happen if all planes get this change

- Wing twist change that the stall at high angles of attack will begin near the wing root and not on the entire wing surface at once, "resulting in softer stalling"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A DD to make Fw-190 great again"

Only? I wonder what happen if all planes get this change

- Wing twist change that the stall at high angles of attack will begin near the wing root and not on the entire wing surface at once, "resulting in softer stalling"!

 

Were you sleeping during all these 2 last years ?

Edited by Dr_Molem
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope english speaking community would be asked to decide same as Russian was.

 

About FW-190, considering how many answers they are providing on the Russian forum, Petrovich first of all, i think we can (could) ask now for this:

 

1) can we have an answer about the missed FW diving acceleration? (!)

 

2) can we have an answer about the new "glasses" FW DM?

 

...or is too much difficult in English?

 

Thank you.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Upvote 1

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...