4.11 fw190 fm
 

What is exactly you changed?

so far i have only noticed the engine overheat changes. but thats general.

someone was saying that its top speed had been reduced.

they nerfed a lot all of the 190 speed, for example, in 4.10.1(Still FM oleg)
the fw190d9 could reach 730 km/h at 5000-6000 meters, now only reach 670-680 m/h and the fw190d9late reach 695 km/h at 5500 meters.

I wasnt tested now, but with IL-2 compare 4.11 you know all the changes, at least expect with this nerf, they put the real acceleration, bnz characteristics, becouse now, the mustangs, p47 are overkill.

This is a quote from the 4.11 guide:

Fw 190

''For the whole series handling and performance have been changed.
A new model has been made, a fully rated A-4. The derated model is now simulated by using the same engine with a limited throttle. (88 percent)

The A-5 and A-6 no longer have the erhöhte Notleistung. The A-5 1.65ata boost system onlyworks at low altitude now.

The D-9 1944 has been modelled to 1900hp version performance, the D-9 45 remains with the 2150hp MW50 injection performance.

The Ta 152 H-1 now has working GM-1 injection.''

Basically, the whole Fw 190 family has been re-done to match the characteristics of the real thing more precisely, also several mistakes have been fixed as described in the above paragraph. (e.g. versions with WEP)

I agree the information is rather vague but I believe that any 190 jockey will notice and appreciate these changes. This doesn't mean the plane is better now, it simply feels different by a margin. Best thing to do is go and give it a shot and check the loadouts, too. ;)

I did a lot of testing in the A-4 and A-4 1.65 ATA (due to bug in the A-4 throttle max of 88%) yesterday and the changes are big!

First of all it does not feel so stiff in the control. In the 4.10.1 all the Fw190 feel very stiff in their controls.

The don't bleed energy like they use to.

Now you have a chance against a Spitfire Vb in a A-4.
In QMB a veteran Spitfire Mk. Vb (1942) I am consistenatly able to hold my own; I would say that survival are 70/30 to the 190A-4. This is new for me. The Spitfire IXc (1942) are a real challenge and survival feels like 40/60.
In the 4.10.1 you had to dispatch the Spit IXc in within the first pass in a 1vs1.

The Spit Vb still turn better but at a price. Engine overheat.

Landing in the Fw190A have become a challenge. It seems to be without drag and will not drop speed even with gear and flaps fully out.


BTW: EAF is an allied Sqd so this change is not welcome seen from an egotistic point of view:rolleyes:. I must be a traitor since I love it :grin:

The 88% is not a bug, it's a feature as stated in the guide. ;)

with such change(top speed has 30-40km/h decreasing at altitude regarding to compare data), LW cannnot fly on east front after 1943 anymore. no chance to deel with Las, yaks from altiude to bottom. at beginning bf109, now Fw190......., I am tired, I'd better focus on other things from now on.

when I come back to my city I will provide some info from dietmar hartman book, Im sure TD have wrong data.

I would to see the references for these changes... its is possible? ;)

Will not upgrade until the hotfix comes out. A few questions:

1. Do we still need Manual Prop. Pitch to get better acceleration in Antons?

2. Is there any improvement in Antons' low-speed (0-150 km/h) acceleration performance?

If the Kommandogerät now work properly, then we should have the advantage in manouver fight, we should have the advantage in acceleration, and finally the PP works wellm if not we are screwed

No problem. You can run both 4.10.1 and 4.11 simultaneously, though...

Hotfix out btw: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29039

No.

Yes.

In the real Fw 190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeug-Handbuch (december 43), the "erhöhte Notleistung" is used below 1 km flight altitude by Jabo with de-rated engine. Then the two option should be proposed... ;)

That's what the 1.65 ata Fw 190A-5 is for.

Roger! Out... :rolleyes:

Just a quick question to those that clearly know the FW190...

Anybody know the correct syntax to create a skin folder for the new FW190-A4 1.42ATA?

If anyone has access to the air.ini they no doubt have it....I have tried various entries without success.

Sorry to hijack your thread...but you chaps seem to know these machines.

Nicholaiovitch

Fw-190A-4FR

Ah, we forgot to add void for that one. I believe we made the same mistake for some planes in the previous patch...
Anyway, the answer to your problem is:
Fw-190A-4FR
as in fully rated, I suppose.

Thank you so much Caspar and Microwave....

Great work you have produced for the Community.

Nicholaiovitch

PS. Back to your thread chaps.....sorry to have interrupted things.

Can someone please explain to me why the 190s don't slow down at all? Landing is a pain when you're going in level flight, full flaps and gear, 0 throttle and still do around 300km/h and it does not go any slower. The damn thing just doesn't seem to produce any drag. Doesn't look too realistic to me, especially the 0 throttle approach and landing.

This is because the Kommandogerät reduces prop pitch to minimum as you throttle back. A windmilling prop is one of the biggest drag sources, and this way it is eliminated. You will get equally poor deceleration from other clean, heavy planes if you reduce pitch to 0% while landing. Try the P-51 with 0% pitch, it's hardly any different.

So I assume manual pitch is the solution, since you generally want that 100% pitch in case stuff goes bad, right? :)

Use your rudder and/or circle before landing. How hard can it be to adapt?...

Combine manual PP and slip.
I even use manual PP to land the 109 - it's an excellent airbrake.

I suggest you guys fly, or better; land the Arado234 a bit more. :cool:

I have no trouble landing the plane, it's just weird how it doesn't slow down the way it use to. The 109 also has Kommandogerät and does not suffer from this.

Thanks Robo ;)
For not letting me look like a fool for reporting a feature as a bug :grin:

I have always spent the majority of my IL2 time flying for the Luftwaffe or the US Navy. With the previous, my aircraft of choice was the 109G-6A/S. This is the pinnacle of 109 development IMHO, as she still has some of the maneuverability of her predecessors, and the gun package of her successors. This was the case, until 4.11 that is!!! I took the up rated 190A-4 out for a spin, and fell in love. I had always read pilot accounts of the 190 and the previous FM just didn't jive with what was stated. Maneuverability and Fw190 go hand in hand in those accounts, but didn't in IL2. The 190 is now a real fighter. You still don't want to hang her on a wing at low alt with no speed, just like any other fighter. But with some E, she will turn like nobodys business. Your first few circles in an angles fight will surprise you, she doesn't buffet at the slightest elevator movement. The flight is smooth and you can really get maximum performance out of her. I am about to start a new career as a 190 pilot, and my namesake will be proud with the multitude of aircraft I destroy in it!!!

Good point.

One more thing about this - Kommandogerät was a kind of automatic gearbox, keeping the engine RPM within optimal values to avoid overheating the engine. If I throttle back fully, the engine goes to low RPM, why would the prop pitch go down? There is no risk of overheating.

@Kittle, I'm no expert on WWII war-birds, but all those people who used to complain about the 190s just couldn't fly them right. The accounts say it was a manoeuvrable and fast fighter, true. But manoeuvrable is subjective. It was manoeuvrable for a boom and zoom fighter which it was, at high speed and high altitude with insane roll-rate. All that was true with the previous versions of the game, if anyone thought otherwise, they were probably doing it wrong. If you get into a turn fight with a spit, you're dead meat. Now... well the 190s seem more like the Lavockins now, overpowered.

One has to understand that the way most people play the game, was not the way Luftwaffe pilots flew, the manuals said clearly, pilots are advised not to get into a fight unless from an advantageous position (high and fast). Boom and zoom was the German doctrine since WWI.

Just flew the non-boosted A4 in a couple career missions. I found that in a fight, I can cut the throttle in a dive and gain speed like I chopped the prop pitch too. The way it seems to me, the pitch and throttle are connected. You reduce power, pitch is reduced to match. Honestly, I am not as skilled at CEM as I need to be, so I don't know if this is proper or not.

I can say, the flying a fight ability has been multiplied 2 fold. I got 4 kills in the first two mission. One of which was on an I-16 that avoided my first burst during a bounce. He made a sharp right hand turn, and I followed at high speed. I stayed right with him and nailed him with a deflection shot a 170 meters. Total for this scramble, 2x I-16, 1x Yak-7B.

Next mission, we met 8 P-39N-1s at 3000 meters or so. Again, with my speed high enough, I could turn inside any P-39 that avoided my initial attack. Used the sun and the lower read blind spot to sneak up on and explode in midair the only kill I got on this mission, I really love the new spotting routines. You know when you are behind a rookie, as they might just fly straight and level when under attack, twitching the wings while freaking out!!! ;) You also know when you meet a vet, the flight pairs that split up to sandwich you when you attack them. Yeah, IL2 is going to see a lot more play time from me, that's for sure!!!

@ mmaruda - You are correct about the tactical doctrine for the LW in WWII. What I was referring to is the pilots saying that, under the right circumstances, they could turn with and inside any soviet fighter aircraft. I am not talking about a fur ball here either, I am talking about BnZ. When you make your attack, if the enemy sees you, maneuver becomes necessary. I could not coax the 190 around more then 90 degrees of turn at speed before. If I eased her enough to not have an accelerated stall, the turn rate was so bad it wasn't usable for me in BnZ. Now, if my quarry sees me during the attack and breaks, I can stay with him long enough to kill him and not loose all my E. Granted, I am not going to try to dogfight I-16s at 200km/h on the deck and expect to win. But I can stay with their 300 km/h turn when I am at 500km/h with no problem, just how it should be IMHO :)

because, and im not really an expertee on the matter, the behavior you are trying to describe is the one of a CSP. in A CSP as you lower the throttle, the engine revs will try to keep up in the assigned value by reducing the blade angle. in the kommo.thing.rat, thsi is not the case. in 100% the engine will always try to go for the best REV solution to your current speed / attitude. and if you lower the throttle, it will no longer try to get the maximum but a relative to the performance. so if you are at 50% throttle, it will try to for the best settings to that power, but since 50% is a cruise, they will go for the best settings for cruise. its like in a automatic car. if you go 50% throttle, the engine will shift gears very soon as if you were driving very calmly in a manual car, but if you got full throttle, it will behave like a race car and go to maximum REV's before shifting.

I would say the deacceleration performance of Fw-190 is overmodeled and its acceleration performance (especially at low speed) is undermodeled. Before 4.11, 50% power can hardly push forward an A9 with radiator closed and boost enabled on the ground. And that was nearly 1000hp.

Dora has the same power ouput as A9 and not so diffenrent weight and areodynamical setup. But it climbs, accelerates and turns much better.

I haven't tried late-war Antons yet. So I was only talking about previous games.

I'm still not convinced to the 190s. I always loved this plane, spent more time with it than anything else in IL-2. I admit it's a killer now, but before 4.11, it was a killer as well, just less forgiving in a dogfight. As for the manoeuvrability vs. Russian planes, I think the discussion here is a bit pointless. The German pilots on the eastern front got insane amounts of kills. There were several reasons for this:
1. they counted the planes destroyed on the ground
2. kill confirmation was not as rigorous as in the RAF - the British had to have a witness to officially get a kill, and if 2 guys shot the same plane, each would get half a kill, with the Germans, both pilots would get a kill - it was a policy that generated great propaganda.
3. the most important reason, the Soviets had mostly crap pilots in crap planes made out of plywood and mama Galina's knickers. The test numbers were good, but production quality was terrible. Many planes would simply fall apart in high G manoeuvres. That's why the Germans had absolutely no problems outfighting the Soviets.

Now, IL-2 is sort of a propaganda game when it comes to Russian gear - all planes comply with the official numbers and don't suffer random failures. It's hard to say how the planes handled in real life, since all accounts are not objective. Americans will praise the Mustang, British will say Spitfire was the best, Russians still claim that La-7 was the best fighter in the war (I recommend watching Wing of Russia - great documentary on their aviation with a ton of propaganda :D) and so on.

Still, I think something is not right with the 190 - at least with the way it bleeds speed, or rather doesn't. I'm not good at finding legit data on the net, but what we need is some hard data on the plane's performance and the changes that were made in the sim.

Do you have a source you can cite for this claim?

My understanding is that the Luftwaffe set high standards for claiming kills, with visual confirmation by a second source being required in order to claim a kill, and that only one pilot/crew could claim a kill in the case of shared kills. (The exception was that against Allied heavy bombers, pilots could get credit for both knocking a plane out of formation and for actually shooting it down.)

IL2 actually models this to some extent. For example, the various versions of LaGG-3 model problems with plywood & resin construction. What isn't modeled, for any of the planes in the game, is reliability. This aids both Axis and Allied pilots, since many planes on both sides were known to have problems with various systems (e.g., engine fires on early production B-29, poor quality airframes for late war Bf-109, crummy engines in late war Japanese planes).

It's also possible to have bad engines, bad airframes or other problems even on planes known for their reliability. For example, a fair number (3-10%) of B-17s launched on any mission had to scrub due to mechanical issues.

There's also factors such as early war Soviet tactical doctrine, lack of reliable radios (or any radios) in many Soviet planes, more experienced German pilots for the first couple of years of the war, and the fact that German fighter pilots got the bulk of their kills against light bombers and ground attack aircraft. But those are unimportant . . .

@mmaruda The FW190, before patch 4.11 was far away close from reality, if you read anything else without count wikipedia, like dietmar hartman books(the best of 190) you should learn a lot.

The books descrive every part of the plane, was a fast plane, hard to take off and land, this plane had a insane manouverability at high speeds, you could outturn any allied fighter at high speed (over 450 TAS), and if you want break the combat and run, becouse you accelerate more faster and reach your top speed more faster, you are able to use the emergency power for 30 min, that mean the maximum engine output for 30 min.

The plane had high load wing, so taking off and landing mean you require more carrer to do the job.

Many FW190 pilots use the plane in horizontal fights at high speeds, but was not advisable.

I am not tested the game now, but in two weeks i will arrive to my home, and make a complete review from this plane, but I can say with all the security, the FW190 before 4.11 was the biggest joke from oleg team. They make every FM with russian data, so you could expect planes more OP than other cause the allied propaganda.

Regarding Luftwaffe kill confirmation - can't cite anything ATM, as it's been long since I've read anything on WWII planes. But if you read the last interview with Erich Hartman, he mentions, that his score was questioned at some point in the war (if confirmation was rigorous, why would anyone question and on what grounds?), so they sent a guy with him to report on his combat flying and he confirmed that Hartman actually was THAT good (again why would they need to do that if confirmation was rigorous?). On another occasion, Hartman mentions that he went behind three IL-2s and shot one in the radiator, the Russians panicked and the whole flight crashed into one another - Hartman states that this counted as 3 kills (though he actually only fired at one, which is what he would get by RAF standards).

Anyway, this is not the issue here. I agree that the 190 was a great plane and manoeuvrable at high speeds (450TAS as mentioned seems legit), the thing is, now it's quite manoeuvrable even at 300km/h at 1000m and just seems a bit odd. Not to mention it won't slow down. :D

sure. :rolleyes:

To support your claim that the current Fw 190 overmodelled you are starting that silly old "the Germans were known for overclaiming"-discussion again? :-x
/facepalm

Look at prop pitch indicator (it looks like clock). It explains a lot why FW190 does not want to slow down with throttle cut on approach and why FW190 is sluggish on taxing.

Can you please provide any numbers / charts, or did you commit any in-game testing tu support this statement?

No they did not, Abschuss was Abschuss.

Also untrue, the Germans were actually very strict about confirming aerial victories. Please have a look at the amount of unconfirmed victories (e.g. reported but not accounted for) or just read some kill reports.

This is true somehow in the very early stage of war, but the Russian side certainly improved on tactics and pilot quality. Anyway, this has got nothing to do with the Fw 190. Btw try to find Russian isights on German fighters on Eastern Front and see if they have had greater deal of respect of 190 or 190 ;)

As for the Kommandogeraet, it's not really to be described as 'automatic gearbox' :-P, but I believe it is certainly modelled better than it was in 4.10.1

Dear Team DT
I really started to love the new fm(chapeau!), however this "zero drag aka cant slow down" feature doesn't feel too right, to be honest.

I just thought; what if you increase the drag for flaps. Wouldn't this solve most the problem?
Maybe even exponentially for landing flaps.

:confused:

Have tried the new A4 in the Alex Server in Russia. I failed to see any improvement upon the A4 in 4.10. The new FM has changed the butcherbird for worse.

Then you really don't notice much, its acceleration has changed for the better, by bucket loads.

Yeah, but's insane now - you can slightly climb at 60% throttle and it's accelerating! Still all the 190's are crap against late war russian Yaks na La-5/7s regardless of altitude.

Just one more thing on slowing down on landing, prop pitch and all, yeah right, tried it with engine off - still hard to slow down (full gear, flaps, radiator), it's as if flying in space. No way to touchdown sooner than in half runways, unless you want to frog jump and crash. The FM generally feels good, but something feels wrong about it, when you compare with other planes.

I agree about the landing. I hadn't noticed this in previous tests but when I went to look specifically for it I was surprised at how difficult it was to slow down. Prop pitch, engine off, it was still going quite fast. Very odd for sure.

That said the FW190D-9 and A-9 have always (except in the very early IL-2 Forgotten Battles days) been competitive in late war scenarios. Doesn't matter if I have a Yak-3, Yak-9U or La-7 I've always held a great degree of respect for a FW190 as they are dangerous foes. Particularly with a good pilot employing some boom and zoom techniques. Difficult to defend from that... even with the best Russian fighters.

.

60% throttle is about 0.9ata on a 1.42ata A-4 version and the acceleration is not happening for me, not even in straight flight. I tried all variants but could not confirm your statement. The acceleration and KG operation is modelled better as it was in 4.10.1 imho hence the more lively Wuerger.

This all depends very much on tactics.

Yes, the FW 190 is also different to other planes - it has got Kommandogeraet. It is perfectly possible to land this plane normally (beginning of the runway). I agree it might produce more drag with flaps out and landing gear down (but this is the case for every plane in Il-2), I prefer to land in manual prop pitch mode, just to double check if we're all using prop pitch to brake the plane on landing approach (as you mention that even with your engine off it's still a bit too fast etc. - well it bloody should be in that case!)

With your propeller on 'coarse' low throttle setting or with your engine off you simply don't brake at all. What we need to do is to watch the propeller setting gauge (looks like a watch) and have it manually set as fine as possible = as close to 12:00 as possible with your throttle (MFP) way down, slow down and land at some 250km/h. That is with 100 percent prop. pitch, not 0. I am not sure how exactly the KG and manual mode worked and if that's correct in game, but I'd assume there might be some problem with manual PP at the moment.

Slow down to some 300km/h, prop pitch 100, low throttle, land.

@Mustang - what is your point exactly?

Just my two cents about landing... If you take the time it takes to make a landing approach, any plane in Il-2 behaves like it should. What was irrealistic is that "dive landing" approach that people tend to use in dogfight servers.

I generally get criticism even from my squad mates for my long approaches, but I almost never fail landings, since I got plenty of time to correct and touch the ground with less than -5 m/s vertical speed.

About the rest of the issue... we are having an internal "riot" in my squad about this FM stuff, so Team Daidalos gave us something to talk about at least :D.

BTW, I must confess that the changes introduced seem fine to me up to now. Not only the 190 or the F4U have been altered, every plane has to be flown in a different way now. It's like a new game.

With Blackfox here. I have flown all the aircraft that have had 'controversial' changes and I have no complaints. The instantaneous turn rate of the 190 and F4U have been improved. Straight line acceleration isn't a big issue to me, since I spend most of my time climbing or diving. I have no complaints. A proper landing approach is a must to get a good gauge of how the aircraft handle in that part of flight, run the pattern like you should ;)

@Robo



erhöhte Notleistung boost not is MW 50 .

FW 190 A4 No boost
FW 190 A5 No boost
FW 190 A6 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 A7 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 A8 MW 50 boost
FW 190 A9 MW 50 boost
FW 190 D9 1944 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 D9 1945 MW50 boost

Its a fact
IMHO.

.

MW50 - Water / Metanol tank
erhöhte Notleistung boost - spray gasoline into the supercharger.

FW 190
A4
A5
A6
A7

Dont use MW50 is OK

But about erhöhte Notleistung boost...

AFAIK Erhöhte Notleistung was used on the A-8 and A-9(?), but not in earlier fighter subvariants.

Low altitude C3 boost was used only on some fighter-bomber variants...

So there is some incorrect infomation in our airplane books? I have encyclopedia of WWII planes stating 190A4 had mw50 boost?
Also states that LA5 1942 engine had a carbareta instead of direct fuel injection, dunno if it suffered from -ve g cut out though.

The FW190A-4 was, to the best of my understanding, the first model of FW190 equipped that would be able to take advantage of MW50 boost. But that feature was never used operationally until much later and certainly not in the earlier A-4/5/6.

Thanks for clearing that up, there is alot of info & its difficult to find out real world performance.

I second that

Sorry, A5 / A6 had "boost" - improving at any height IMHO.

FW 190 A5 - 10-7-1942


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...otoloco1/5.jpg


ZOOM


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...otoloco1/6.jpg



FW 190 A5/A6

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...otoloco1/1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...oloco1/2-1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...oloco1/3-1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...otoloco1/4.jpg

This is not true. The 4.11 190A8 and 190D9 are just as fast or faster than the La7 at 5000 meters altitude and only 10km/hr slower at sea level. The Yak3 is 30km/hr slower than either at those altitudes and the 1944 109s are all faster than the Yak3 and the La7.

The first 4.11 plane I flew online was the FW190A8 and I did not have any problems landing it, it is much easier to land now than it was when Forgotten Battles first came out nine years ago!

The only thing I thought was sort of odd was that the 44' 190D9 does not seem to be faster than the A8 at 5000 meters where I thought that at high altitude it was supposed to be a little bit faster. But I am not a history major or the best test pilot out there.....

You didn't have trouble getting it to slow down? I've been using my tried and tested FW190 landing techniques that I've relied on for years and I do find it is now rather difficult to get it under 300kph on my final approach. I'll have to adjust a bit... but it does seem a bit... extreme? I honestly hadn't noticed until someone pointed it out so I may be extra sensitive.

The Fw 190 does seem reluctant to lose speed, but I've always slowed to about 230 kmh or so before dropping the gear and flaps anyway - a curved approach help a lot with visibility too.

Engine settings in game are historical:
A-4: derated 1.42 ata by limited throttle, max. 1.35 ata 2450 rpm (basically combat setting)
A-4FR, A-5, A-6: 1.42 ata / 2700 rpm (=Notleistung setting)
A-5 1.65 ata: 1.65 ata/2700 rpm 1st gear, 1.42 ata/2700 rpm second gear (C3 Einspritzung)
A-8: 1.58 ata /2700 rpm 1st gear, 1.65 ata/2700rpm second gear (erhöhte Notleistung)
A-9: 1.65 ata/2700 rpm, (Notleistung for -TS engine, it's not a -D any more)

Notleistung isn't emergency power?
I'm a bit curious why TD removed the 110% power on the A-4 FR, ecc

I believe that's because you now get full MFP/RMP at 100%.

The 110% was a bit of nonsense anyway... As for the other changes and erhöhte Notleistung, it seems to be in good match with historical reality accorting to what JtD wrote.

I'm a pilot and it would surprise me very much if the power-computer-thingy would have the prop in any other position than fine (low pitch) below 50% throttle. Seriously. Hydraulic CSP governors lose control below 50% and their props drop to fine pitch (as do American electrics, can't say for other electrics but I would expect the same). One big reason for this, beside the mechanical limitations of the system, is if you need to suddenly tap full power the prop is right there waiting for it.

As for flaps, beside reducing stall speed and decreasing stall pitch angle probably the biggest thing they do for fighters of this era is create drag, and the highest drag flap there is is the split flap. It has always felt to me that split flaps perform no differently than other flaps in the game. Just my opinion.

Could I add +1 to this post from IceFire.

I have no intention of adding to the posts on whether the FM for the the 190's is more realistic or better in terms of RL as I just do not have the knowledge that some of you at TD have.

However, in terms of general handling and the drag curve especially in the landing configuration, the 190 does not in any way resemble a relatively high wing loading a/c.

I would hope that a future change in the drag curve could maintain what TD is trying to achieve in terms of fighting ability but also correct the now unrealistic drag with gear and flaps in the landing configuration.

Nicholaiovitch

The Kommandogerät reduced rpm to 400-500 at 0% power. Seems to be a good enough match in game.

I think I have to repeat myself - try landing another heavy, clean plane with 0% pitch (say P-47, P-51). The Fw 190 is nothing out of the ordinary.

When I am landing any aircraft in IL2 I figure a big part of it is slowing the aircraft down, so I drop landing flaps and gear as soon as my speed is low enough so they will not break off.

When flying online combat no one wants to spend a lot of time landing, they want to get down and get back up quickly. Once in a great while I will do a drawn-out text-book landing just to show myself how well I can still do it, but that is not too often. I would bet that in WWII there were many situations when pilots did not like dawdling around landing at low altitude and speed also?

I will line myself up with the strip as best I can, drop flaps and gear as soon as I can on the approach. Usually the gear will not break if your speed is below 400-350km/hr somewhere. If I do not think I will be able to touch down at 200km/hr then I will scrub off some speed with a hard S turn or some other E-burning slow maneuver. If I am going so fast when I drop the gear that it breaks then that too is the ground crew's problem to fix the pancake damage.

The FW190 was a hot plane with a high take-off and landing speed wasn't it?
I have never taken the time to see how fast I could touch it down without it disintegrating and blowing up, but it might be fun to try landing at 250, then 300km/hr etc. and find out what the limit is....

Addition: I never used much or any flaps taking off in the 190, it was always faster not to and it always seemed the aircraft was pretty easy to lift off the ground at 200km/hr. So it makes sense that if you try to land at over that speed the aircraft will try to stay in the air. I don't know why I always tried to take off and land at around 200km/hr no matter what I was flying, it just seemed to always work well. If I had a lot of time and enjoyed it more, I might land slower or use flaps on take off.

The jamming the flaps on landing was bad advice as it just makes it harder to land. If I am taking the time to actually land, of course you want to raise the flaps as soon as you touch the ground.

I will admit that often on dogfight servers where I want to spend the most time in the air with ammo and fuel to try and meet victory conditions before time runs out, I will skip landing altogether and either pancake the aircraft in, or just bail and get a new plane. Points-whores will not like that idea though.....

+1 Jumo. Also, personally, if I find I am too high or too fast I usually just go into a drastic sideslip until I am not. Not an answer to anyone's questions about the realism of the 4.11 FM but it certainly solves the problem. I haven't actually flown it yet in 4.11 so I can't really comment, but maybe people are just used to the 190 decelerating too quick? I dunno, probably time to try it out. :)

Side slip on final approach is the most effective maneuver to do if u want to drop speed faster than usual. Just try it and you'll see the effect. I've used it all the time for my landing and never had any kind of problem about slowing down to the right landing speed.

I finally got used to the new FM, no problems with landing (I can actually land better now). The trick is to begin your approach early to loose speed so when you level over the strip you are at 200-220kph. Still I think flaps should produce a bit more drag with this plane since compared to other aircraft, they have a minimal effect on speed.

Would you agree it is a big change to the old drag curve prior to 4.11?

Nicholaiovitch:!:

PS This is I believe an FM discussion and not one on how to land!

No, I wouldn't.

Even in dogfight servers I prefer to do a proper landing... not so much for the points but for the sense of completion. Oddly I sometimes find people watching my carrier landing approaches as apparently I do it fairly well. That is to say that most people crash into the deck or superstructure so I'm a cut above catching a wire and pancaking on the deck :D

I do the rudder slide or some S turns to try and bleed off speed as well... maybe I was having a bad night the last time I tried it but it did seem harder than usual. I'll fly a proper mission and see what the experience is at the end.

OK....I would agree that this issue is very subjective.

The fact is that several chaps have pointed out that the drag in the approach configuration with gear and full flaps is not really very realistic (this is apart from the issue of deceleration and nothing to do with prop pitch).

The basis for drag on approach with any a/c is to fly at 1.3VS in the approach config. and a 3deg (maybe slightly more for a high performance fighter) with stable power.

With the current drag profile of the FW190 this gives a very low power setting not representative of the wing loading and drag that this a/c should generate.

This is the limit of my knowledge and I certainly believe that the chaps at TD know a lot more than I do. However, I and few others also believe that this feature needs a little work to make it better.

That's all. Have fun!

Nicholaiovitch:)

A quick comparison between 4.101 and 4.11:
Fw 190A-5, 0% throttle, auto pitch, 100% fuel, standard load out, rads closed, flaps and gear down, gliding at 250IAS

4.101: ~20 m/s descent, 1450 rpm
4.11: ~15 m/s descent, 700 rpm

same thing engine off, prop at 0% pitch

4.101: ~16 m/s descent
4.11: ~16 m/s descent

-> It's the prop.

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Funny how in another post on this forum someone said their FW190As weapons seemed to be much weaker.

If the flight model was changed I am not sure how that would change the requirement for weapons convergence, it may not or maybe the attitude of the aircraft at speed is different, I might just be a crazy old man......

Though of course a well flown up-gunned A8 always could do that.

Back too prop Pitch, which has apparently become important now, though I always was manipulating it for what seemed best performance, then 100% in combat, but I digress, I read that you should lower prop pitch when landing. I looked for document, as I read these pages, and waited for next to load, but could not find, and I digress again.

Game is way better, gonna Take 190 up for spin, see if I can shoot down 16 b-17's by my self in QMB.

Thanks TD ~S~

I call this the placebo effect :)

A new patch comes out and random occurrences that they would have otherwise written off are now considered features/changes/modifications to the way things used to be.

I don't think anything has changed regarding weapons. Maybe you were having an off day... or your preferred firing distance has changed over time.

When people go looking for changes people will often find them even if they aren't there. Nobody is immune :)

Yup, been there, done that, lol :cool:

BTW: I've noticed that the maximum RPMs for FW-190s is supposed to be 2700. However, this corresponds to about 80% power in the D-9 (which I just flew, haven't tested others yet). At 100% power, the engine sounds like it's about to blow up.

So does this 80% correspond to max power, and 100% to emergency power?

I'm quite sure 2700 it's only for the A version ;)

So what's your convergence settings now?

Talking about convergence in general... Is vertical convergence considered in the game?

I made a few tests and it seems the bullets have the same vertical angle when fired, despite having a convergence of 100 or 1000 meters. For a ballistic trajectory, there should be a different vertical angle also I believe.

But then again... I'm not a physics expert, so comments are welcome.

Sure.

Go tanks busting with a bk, open fire at 1k, change settings an see what happens.
;)

I did end my statement with the possibility I was a crazy old man.

My real reasoning was that if your favorite aircraft's flight model was changed, that it might throw off your aim for a while, maybe until you got used to it at least. Could happen. Changing the convergence might be something I happened to do at the same time I automatically adjusted to something else, a coincidence.

I always was a fan of really close convergence and shot taking, but that can have it's disadvantages. If you get used to always taking shots while very close to your opponent, you run the risk of collisions and also of having your aircraft damaged or destroyed if their aircraft explodes in a spectacular fashion.

In light of this for some time I have been trying to remember to take shots earlier which not only gives more time to make them but gives the possibility of landing more hits. For years I had my convergence at 150m, but I thought it would be fun to try and stretch it out by 50 or 100 meters.

190A shotmaking:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../0/AqIvrh7tdQY

Yes it is. Its the same as horizontally range.

At the end of all the flight model as regards the landing is right and what is the procedure?


Thank's

I've seen that bullets fall as they fly... but if convergence is set to... say 1000m, shouldn't the bullets describe an arc above the reticle, so as to cross the sight at 1000m?

I haven't seen this effect in the game, that's why i'm asking. It's an important factor when fighting against level bombers.

Again, I may be mistaken, just trying to confirm.

They do fly in an arc.

Ok, me bugging again. I can be a nuisance, I know.

But please bear in mind that i'm just concerned about the things that could be improved in a future release. So this is not plane criticism, I really appreciate the work TD has done so far and I'm confident that the game will get even better thanks to them. And of course I'm ready to aacept that I'm wrong on this one.

What I see in the game is this:
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/...os/impacto.jpg

What I think it should be is this:
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/...ahnFW190A6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/dieg777/fw5.jpg

But again, I have been wrong so many times that once again won't have much impact :D.

Yes. You can easily see this if you look at tracks of planes firing low muzzle-velocity guns from a stationary view.

For that matter, you test it yourself. Aim directly at a non-maneuvering target 600 meters out at your 12 o'clock level. Shoot a long burst. Quickly switch to exterior enemy view (Ctrl-F2). Watch the bullets pass beneath your target.

Or just fly straight, slow and level over water. Shoot your guns. Watch as the bullets hit the water.

Well, considering the longest distance that you can set your convergence in the game is 1000 metres, the bullets won't rise all that much above the aiming line at that time.

If you want the maths, here goes:

The muzzle velocity of most weapons in the game is somewhere between 500-1000 m/s:

540 m/s for MK108
720 m/s for MG151/20
850 m/s for Browning .303-cals
890 m/s for Browning .50-cals
960 m/s for MG151/15

The bullet drop distance is simple to calculate:

y = ½ g t²

where

g = 9.80665 m/s²

t = bullet travel time

Notwithstanding the drag that the bullet experiences, which slows its velocity, we can still get some guidelines by assuming that the bullet travels at its muzzle velocity the entire way from the muzzle to the target.

So if we look at the slowest projectile here, MK108 grenade, and assume that the average velocity is something in the order of 500 m/s, we can determine that the travel time for 1000 metres convergence is two seconds.

Now we substitute this in the equation to determine how much the bullet falls during this time:

y = ½ * 9.80665 m/s² * (2 s)² = ½ * 9.80665 * 4 m = 19.6 metres

Now, to get how much higher the bullet must arc, you can divide this by two since the bullet first goes up, then down.

So, with the MK108 cannon, firing at level attitude to 1000 metres distance at 1000 metres convergence, the projectile should have peak altitude about 10 metres higher than the aiming line.

At 500 metres distance, 10 metres deviation above the aiming line is not easy to see, in fact on the computer screen it is not very many pixels; a single seat fighter aircraft's wingspan (or length) are of the same order of size, so there's your measure stick.

Note that the MK108 cannon is rather slow and you probably stand no chance of either hitting anything at that distance, or to accurately see the projectile arcing higher than the aiming line because the recoil will probably throw your sight around quite a bit.

With the faster projectiles, the effect is even less pronounced. The MG151/15 cannon projectile should pass the distance of 1000 metres in close to one second, and in that time, the projectile drop is only about five metres, and the peak altitude above aiming line is half that - 2.5 metres or close to that.

With MG151/20 projectile, you have muzzle velocity of 720 m/s; using nice round numbers we can say the average velocity for the projectile might be something around 700 m/s. That translates to about 1.43 seconds of flight time; rounding up let's say 1.5 seconds. 1.5 seconds gives a bullet drop of about 11 metres, and thus the peak altitude would be around 5.5 metres above aiming line.


Now, I don't know exactly HOW much the drag affects projectiles in distances below 1000 metres. If it's modeled physically accurately, then the heavier projectiles should technically retain their speed better while the smaller projectiles would decelerate faster due to their higher dragcoefficient/mass ratio (small stones have lower terminal velocity than big stones of same shape and density), but I don't think it will have that much of an effect on this rudimentary mathematics.

The point is, since maximum convergence distance is 1000 metres, the projectiles won't arc very much above the line of sight, with exception of the slowest projectiles. The situation would be different if you could set convergence to, say, 2000 or 3000 metres, but then this would only be useful if we had an A-10 Warthog in the game with its GAU-8 cannon...:grin:

I see now. Thanks a lot for the explanation. I really thought the vertical correction was more significant.

@Black Fox:
Thats quite funny since you posted those documents. :-)
See the 2nd one? That part with "Größte Höhe über Visierlinie" (75; 84; 82cm).
This translates into "max height (of bullet's flightpath) above your line of (aiming) sight.
Those MG rounds pass the LOS the 1st time at 30m and the 2nd time (when falling down) at 500m. Between 30m and 500m the max height above the LOS are those 75cm.

Since this is obviously not a conv of 1000m it isn't that much and pretty much reflects what Herra Tohtori said.

I don´t speak German. And some characters I just couldn't type in my keyboard (which is spanish, BTW, I'm from Uruguay). So the graphical message is the one I coul get. And curves seem to be greater than RL trajectories.

Anyway, I got a free physics lesson and now I understand better how it works. So in all, it was a good deal for me :D.

I found this note in web. I hope this help other people.:grin:
I resolve my problem about landing procedure.
Remember prop pitch set to auto and power at 20-30%. Altitude for landing circuit 400/500 m
Warning! the stall occours at left side below 160 km/h.


---Landing---
Lower Flaps and Gear under 300 km/h
(162 kt). Approach Speed is 210 km/h
(113 kt). Speed at Treshold should be
190 km/h (103 kt). Flare to Threepoint
attitude before touchdown. After
Touchdown use Rudder to keep the
Aircraft straight. Don't forget to release
Tailwheel lock ( Ctrl-l) before taxiing off
the Runway.

I've been out of practice for a bit, but the main differences in the FM I notice are
(Offline quick missions)
- The Yak3 not cannot get away that easily any more in any form of combat move. the FW is not bleeding too much energy.
- I can cruise in to land at around 200 (20% throttle) and the controls are still very light, and touch down (nearly 3 point - need more practice) at around 180.
This seems about right as the white flap/gear markers on the speedo are at around 220

It's still not a problem to throw around the sky, at any speed. I must just repair my pedals to test the finer points of 'airmanship' ;)

One quick note about the muzzle speeds - different types of ammo dont have same muzzle speeds. You can see this best with MG151/20 where the tracer APIT round flies a clearly more curved path and drops more per distance than the explosive shells. The weapons are apparently zeroed for the HE shells, too.

If I'm not mistaken [URU]BlackFox actually posted Images with graphs of the real numbers.

If those numbers are correct (which I have to assume at this moment) the bullet of a MG151/20 in the wingroot of a FW190A aimed at a spot 550m away starts out about 120cm below the aiming line, crossing it for the first time at 135m distance, then actually climbs up to 84cm above the aiming line (2.04m traveld upwards) where it will be at around 350m distance, before falling back to the aiming line and meeting it a second time at 550m.

This numbers actually show that Herra Tohtoris simplified math isn't far off for (relative) short distances. However if the distance becomes longer the projectile becomes slower and the drag becomes less marginal.