FW190 FM Change

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault;

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

I'm sure for some aircraft no test data is available or it is incomplete so they just had to do their own modelling, and/or use estimated/predicted performance figures or even plausible guesstimating (and nobody blames them for that). (Lershe, Ta183? they were never built, let alone tested)
We do appreciate their work and we are grateful for it. Personally I find the 6DOF support fantastic.
I would't say the game is dying either. It is still the best WW2 Air Sim.
But there is always room for improvement - including the FM department.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

This is not gut reaction/feeling, we give figures to support our observations, and use very basic and general logic (the "if a>b and b>c then a>c" kind). For example we've established that in the game FW190D9 MW50 overheats and its engine fails faster than La7s even though Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min. So you'd kinda expect D9 should take longer to overheat than La7 but this is not the case in the game.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.

If you believe some source is unreliable - you need to specify which one, and why. Otherwise this sentence is meaningless and has no substance.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.

In case you were addressing me - see my earlier posts comparing the data pulled from test reports and FW figures with the Il2 compare figures.
And I am using sources that at least look reliable: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...326#post434326

[K_Freddie]

Reliable sources or not.. One thing that can be more or less factual and is represented in the game (and improving over time) is the relative performances of each aircraft, it's advantages and disadvantages - this has always seemed to fit the bill, and quality control of these features are important, if you do not want to destroy the online game.

Sure minor hiccups here and there, but essentially it has taught those who have taken the time to know their favourite a/c, how to fly it to it's max. In this, IL2 has been more satisfying than any other flight sim.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Z1024

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

I bet, they would rise up instead. Talking about FMs is one thing, talking about sources the next. They would be questioned anyway. It would be like opening a can of worms. In the end we would have to deliver proving stuff for all we change - order to stop discussions - as long as the change doesn't please anyone.

However, thats not up to me, as I do not own the references about FMs (I'm a cockpitmaker guy).

[JtD]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

References 1
References 2
References 3
References 4
References 5

Going through just 100000 pages of the above sources should give anyone a fairly accurate impression of the Fw 190. While the discussions would hardly stop, they at least become interesting and useful.

[Shardur]

How do you afford all those documents and books? Do you actually have to spend hundreds of bugs to get good data?

I'd gladly spend some of my free time studying the technical specs and performance data of fighter aircraft, but I'm a student and I can't afford all the reference data.

[JtD]

It's expensive but even more time consuming. Someone has to go through the pages and find out what's useful and what's not. But I guess for the TD members who do the research, it is a hobby anyway. There's also good support from a few community members.

Imho, it never hurts to read something. In the worst case it is junk, but then one at least knows where some folks get their funny ideas from.

[1984]

Originally Posted by Z1024

Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min.

you not right...

m-82a have 5-7 min "forsazh" (in fact, sometimes, pilots used forsazh 10 and more min if this was need and sometimes kill engine, of course)...

forsazh for m-82a = nominal power m-82f, so la-5f's have good perfomance with 550-560 km/h at SL for good plane and without any really hard time limits (in tests F have some problems with cooling cylinders, but if you see "problems", this not mean problems not solved)...

m-82fn can work on forsazh 10-15 min - this have in ALL la-5fn and la-7 manuals and you can see this here - "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" and "Температура головок цилиндров - 250° (не более 15 мин)"...


EDIT

after all i read FN-manual again, some things remembered, do some little research and what can say now - m-82fn, like m-82f, can work on forsazh all time of flight if aircraft have good cooling of engine (like with full or just open all "radiators" or in winter)... all veterans talk about this too...

10 min max for critical oil T and 15 min max for critical cylinders T from manual, with or without some cooling, this is limits for one use without serious after-effects...

and phrase "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" - maybe this is what i write about temperatures, maybe it's + and next thing - resource of m-82fn was 100 hours (or something like this), and engine only 6 hours from 100 can work on forsazh... of course, can more, but in this case engine need to be repaired or he not work good all 100 hours... so, this is cautions for long life of engine and cautions for one sort of pilots ("культура эксплуатации двигателя")...

so, something like this... maybe i somewhere little wrong, maybe no (i think no), sorry for mistake if what...

[Nicholaiovitch]

In response to several posts concerning the new drag profile of the FW190 and the suggestion that a test be carried out, I have produced the following results of deceleration rates and ROD's in the landing config. versus the Bf109

They are in no way scientific, but do show that there may be an issue with the current coefficient of drag setting applying to the whole flight envelope including rates of descent in the landing config.

I do believe that the current settings provide a good dogfighting FM and in no way would it be necessary to change that. However, some tweaking of the drag coefficient to produce more drag in the landing config. may add to realism as currently it does seem to be a little in error.

Nicholaiovitch

Here are the results of the suggested tests:-

Please note error in ROD:- Should be "mpm" (metres per minute) not "mps" (metres per second)