Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karaya]

Guys I agree that the FW190 FMs could need a bit of a polish, especially when it comes to slow speed acceleration but please do not expect the aircraft to do things it just could not!

From a realistic point of view

What the FW190 could do:

- It had excellent firepower throughout all versions
- It was very fast at low and medium speeds for the most part of the war
- It had excellent control response at high speeds combined with low stick forces
- It was second to none in regards to rate of roll, only few fighters could match it

What the FW190 could NOT do:

- It had an average climbrate at best at all altitudes
- It had a sharp stall behaviour without much forewarning and a tendency to enter spins when treated harsh
- It was outclassed in terms of slow speed handling and maneuvrability by all but the heaviest of fighters
- It had unspectacular high altitude performance up to and including the early Dora versions, this was not rectified until the implementation of the Jumo213F on the D and the introduction of the Ta152

As regards to comparing the maneuvrability of the Bf109/FW190: It is somewhat silly to suggest that the 190 could outturn a contemporary 109 at anything but high speeds. You guys seem to read more into pilot statements than there actually is. Most times the FW190 is credited with "superior maneuvrability" over the 109 the author actually means its superior rate of roll which is an important aspect of maneuvrabilty as it allows to change directions more quickly. But when it comes to horizontal flat turns there is no doubt that the Bf109 dominates the FW190.

[Karaya]

Also having said that I have sent Cirx a whole bunch of FMs covering the whole FW190 and Ta152 family that should rectify some of the most glaring issues about them such as:

- The abysmal slow speed acceleration that is most noticeable at takeoff
- The awefully off takeoff weights of some models (A-5 being too heavy by 200kg!)
- The A-4 being a castrated eastern front Jabo version

I hope he is having a look at them and considering them for the SAS buttons file!

[Borsch]

Also having said that I have sent Cirx a whole bunch of FMs covering the whole FW190 and Ta152 family that should rectify some of the most glaring issues about them such as:

- The abysmal slow speed acceleration that is most noticeable at takeoff
- The awefully off takeoff weights of some models (A-5 being too heavy by 200kg!)
- The A-4 being a castrated eastern front Jabo version

I hope he is having a look at them and considering them for the SAS buttons file!

The second and third corrections are easily checked and sound reasonable. The first correction (acceleration) is not so reasonable without some supporting data, so I hope that
this buttons FM will be optional

Peace

[Shido]

it's not about Ta152H1

but

FW190A

climb - level acceleraion - dive - zoom climb - tight turn

[Shido]

[Borsch]

...

Well, nobody owes ME anything, I never implied that somebody must provide ME with some support data:)

I am only representing a point of view of people who fly IL2 and love UP3 and DBW and like to get as close to reality of air combat of WW2 as this great sim will allow. According to
point of view that I try to represent here, the best way to achieve this would be to rely on hard data on these planes, not vague verbal adjectives.

1) uh? Sorry, I don't see why the other 2 would be reasonable without data.

Karaya's 2nd and 3rd points implied data backing - he mentioned specific 200kg over weight, he mentioned specific problem with A4.

He did NOT mention any specifics when mentioning acceleration - is it 1m/s^2 or 5m/s^2 less than it should be? And is it numerically really different at all to waht it should be?
 Numbers are needed here.

To make realistic changes in FM you need  measurements of real characteristics and then match in-sim chars with real ones.

I think what I say makes sense, but of course you do all the work on Il2 for free (for which I am hugely grateful!), so you are perfectly entitled to just ignore my reasoning and do anything as you please.

 Edit: Nice job, Shido! This is much more like it!

[Karaya]

Nice scans you have there, lots of interesting information, it's a pity though that the exact configurations of the listed aircraft is not given, some of those weight figures do not seem to be for a clean fighter. The P-40E weight for example seems to include a 500lbs bomb whereas others are lighter than usual.

[Borsch]

If you are looking for weight figures for FWs, I was just flicking through a 2007 russian book about Butcher Birds, and although I did not see anything on initial acceleration or turning stats, there were figures for empty/loaded Fw and Ta for most configs. I could look them up tomorrow.

[Karaya]

Oh I have a lot of scans of original documents that cover weights, speeds, climbrates, etc. of all FW190 and Ta152 models, I was merely talking about the figures on the previous page regarding the US and British fighters which have no mention of the aircraft's configuration!

[Borsch]

Ok, Cool!

Do you have similar info for 109? I 'm just trying to understand how you figure out FM changes... I would find ratio of (say) real FW acceleration to real 109 (or any other plane in IL2) acceleration, and then just apply the same ratio to in-game acceleration units. (although that involves accepting one of game's values as the base- a downside)

Cause I dont suppose you can enter actual values into FM? Just curious here

[brat]

What about we put this discussion in "WIP-FM Discussions"
I am not getting much positive response in regard to fm's to help with my directional stability tail-wagging frustrations at above.

[Screwball]

Remember, I am not talking about performance stats here, I am talking about the way the plane moves.

I always thought, and still think that the FM of a given plane should ALWAYS been done by someone that not only has some knowledge but also absolutely LOVES the plane he will model. Otherwise you get trash, and I mean it.

The FM won't be biased either, because if you LOVE a plane, you will also love its flaws and shortcomings which are part of its personality. 

So...

Isn't the thrust of this idea to be able to move beyond the 'cold' stats and figures of aircraft, to be able to give us simmers the subjective, personal and immersive feel of flying a particular aircraft? "Accurate" FMs have been available in different sims for a decade plus, and yet it's not controversial to say that FMs have improved immeasurably over this time in terms of giving the sim pilot an ever-closer proxy to the real pilot's experience. The numbers are not the whole story, and those endless arguments on FM threads plainly show that they are far from indisputable. Nobody here has suggested figures be ignored, simply that they alone aren't always enough to really give us the spirit of an aircraft, and there is room for anecdote and love in an FM. Isn't this quite a cool step forward? What's not to love? 

Just a spot of support for what I reckon is a great idea 

Screwy