OK - continuity between online and offline- scrap that, its fine with me. Like I said it was only one of my two arguments about changing FM. Your reasoning against it is perfectly sound.
(I also would like to again reiterate that I am enjoying this converstaion and I do not imply that CirX or anybody else
must prove something to
me- SAS team do not ow me anything at all, it is the opposite I ow SAS.)
I did say (i think it was in the post that was deleted) that I also long to experience planes as close to their real counterparts as the sim will allow, to get a better feel for the air war of WWII.
Which leads to my point number two (basing FMs on numbers only, or at least NOT on descriptive popular literature/tv).
I am becoming suspicious that this is becoming a philosophical dispute on "ghost in the machine": "yes, I can see players throwing the ball and running, I can see them talking, but where is the
teamwork?" "yes, I can see the faculties, departments, walking professors, student union building, but where is the
University?" "Yes, there are numbers for speed, turning rate, acceleration and roll, but where is the
magic of flight, the feel of FW190?" etc etc
Maths is a human language, just like English - it is used to describe and communicate (among other things). Yes, one can say- its luke warm, its hot, its bloody scorching, but wouldnt maths describe this more precisely (34C, 50C, 80C)? The numbers would be especially more meaningful when you are communicating temperature to someone, far more precise. Because luke warm may mean to another person 10C, or even 40C (if it's water), but if you say 34C - you are understood pretty well.
Lets say we read pilots interview how FW was almost as good at turning as a Spit. Lets imagine that this pilot implied that at speed 550km/h his FW had a turning radius of 100m, compared to Spit's 90m radius at 600km/h - all at an altitude of 3000m. But if we simply read " nearly as good at turning" without the numbers detail, would it not be easy to make a conclusion that FW turning radius ~= Spit turning radius? WE never flew either, and how would we argue against a pilot who said what he said?
This is the danger here! Common language is too imprecise for that sort of thing, and instead of flying planes that are as close to reality of WW2 as IL2 will allow, we may start flying smoething that is completely different, some (this is just an example) "FW" that always turns nearly as well as Spitfire.
With that in mind:
However, I think she snap-stalls way way too fast. The FW was said to be a smooth turner (even if not a specialist dogfighter), and whould give you plenty of warning before a stall. So, in short, she is a bit finciky for me
Smooth turner at what speed, at what angle, at what throttle? These are all variables, and of course
at some values ( eg 500km/h, 20 degree angle)
FW is a smooth turner already. So in that regard IL2 is not contradicting say Krupinsky. Are current values too tight? Do we want FW to turn smoothly at (eg) 350 km/h and 40 degrees - this might might feel smooth and even magical to someone here. But is that justification (to ourselves, not to some "authority", to us looking for simulating real WW2 feeling of controlling FW)?
This leads to "conflict" like this:
CirX says :
I think she snap-stalls way way too fast. The FW was said to be a smooth turner (even if not a specialist dogfighter), and whould give you plenty of warning before a stall.
Karaya says:
What the FW190 could NOT do:
- 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
...
Acceleration does not aften appear in the graphs, so the FM is "graphically" perfect, but the pilot (in game) will notice something TERRIBLE has been lost.
That is the real problem it seems to me. We have SOME data available (weight, speed,stall speed) but not enough - you say that acceleration graphs are missing and also roll rate for different speeds? turning rate for different speeds? Same for different alt?
It seems strange to me that such info is not out there - its not classified any more, and the planes were exhaustively tested and studied back in the day and even now by restoration people and historians. Surely it is available somewhere? And is finding the missing parts of the data puzzle really impossible?
Summatively, it seems like we are justifying using relaxed interpretations because no actual numerical data is available to fill all the gaps/points where we distrust current FM. Is it right though?
EDIT: Another factor is
"Has anyone here considered the idea that it's not the planes fault, more pilot error?"
.
Especially when one is discussing if FW/Ta was better dogfighter than 109, and
With the 109´s they always made one pass and away, but with the Fw 190 A they often beagn to turn with the Spits.
(Boelcke post page one of this thread). I'd just add that against ace AI I have no second thoughts in entering turning battles with spits/109G2s or any contemporaries -even with current FW FM. The way FW can turn defence into offence is is quite awesome.
Author
Topic: About the Ta152H1 (Read 18141 times)
