FWs Durabillity

[falconilia]

I would like to see more realistic hits on Fws engine especially with 0.50 mgs.
Its impossible to set fire on this engine!!!
You can damage the engine,cut or destroy elevators/ruder,set fire on main fuselage tank but the engine will work unless it runs out of fuel.
For quick test just stay on A B17s rear and see!
Also i miss when i could cut his wing with a good hit even with P51s 4x0.50s
No matter how many hits are on its wing u see only holes.
Any Future Fix?

[gaunt1]

BMW radials were quite tough in RL too, so I think it isnt too much a problem.

If you have problems with FWs, dont shoot at their engine. Just a few hits, even with the weakest weapons, on their wings and they are barely controllable.

[IceFire]

FW190s damage model has always been a bit weird... it was concrete for a while, or the fuel tank leaked like crazy from a single light calibre hit, or it would do other weird things. For one patch version it would flame up like a Zero. It's been a long time since that... I'm not sure what the reason for all the weirdness is but I think its actually in a pretty good place considering what we used to deal with

[falconilia]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

BMW radials were quite tough in RL too, so I think it isnt too much a problem.

If you have problems with FWs, dont shoot at their engine. Just a few hits, even with the weakest weapons, on their wings and they are barely controllable.

True and i know pilots felt safer with this engine in front of them.
Even if one or more cylinders were out the engine was still running.
But in RL if for any reason was stoped the FWs characteristics was, as they say like a brick and they had to bail out.
In game expert players no matter how badly the plane is damaged they will find a close runway to land.
The only chance to confirm a kill is to find it at low alt,alone or having 20mm guns.
PS. Many opponents have RTB with 75 or more hits by my P51s 0.50s

[falconilia]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

If you have problems with FWs, dont shoot at their engine. Just a few hits, even with the weakest weapons, on their wings and they are barely controllable.

Thats why i use long distance convergence to hit only wings!!!

[KG26_Alpha]

For a front line fighter that was called the "Butcher Bird", it should be renamed the "Butchered Bird".

From its former glory of pre AEP release to its latest incarnation its a poor representation of the series and its compatible contemporary's.

Some common complaints >

Glued to the runway
Wings made of rice paper
An E bleeding turn rate

Advice once airborne with the Fw190A .......... hunt in pairs or more !!!



Ok next ac that's porked below please

No don't i'm joking ............


Seriously though the Fw190A has been messed around with so much over the years.

[Janosch]

The 190 we have now in Il-2 is a good fighter, with obvious strengths and weaknesses, making it a challenging but overally balanced plane gameplay-wise. As an added bonus, it's modeled in a historically accurate fashion. I can't really think of anything that's even remotely wrong with the 190s - maybe some variants are a bit optimistically modeled in terms of durability, but it's not a problem that's unique to the 190 series.

[Pursuivant]

The FW-190 model is fairly old, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were some oddities in its DM. The 4.13 patch finally fixed some serious and long-standing DM problems with the P-40, P-47, Spitfire, etc., so there might be further bug stomping to do on the FW-190's DM.

But, unless you've got evidence to back up your claims you're just whining.

This is my "DM test" which will prove the point one way or another.

In Conf.ini set "Arcade Mode = 1"

Start IL2. Set up a QMB mission with a flight of Ace Wellington III bombers as your enemies. (The quad .30 caliber tail guns spit out a lot of lead and don't shred your plane immediately, so you can see damage effects without getting shot down immediately. The Ace gunners guarantee that you'll get shot up.)

Choose the plane you want to test and attack the bomber flight using stupid tactics. (i.e., flight straight in from the bombers' 6 o'clock level).

Keep track of range as you close. When you get damaged, hit pause and use external views as necessary to see where you're hit and how badly. For anomalous results, take a screenshot.

Keep stats on where you get hit and why you ultimately get shot down. Refly the mission a couple of dozen times to get a decent statistical sample.

If you fly a FW-190 vs. Wellington III QMB mission a couple dozen or so times and you NEVER get an engine fire, then it's probably a DM bug. Otherwise, its probably good DM modeling, with the engine mostly protecting the fuel tank from the front. (Remember, the fuselage fuel tanks in the 190 are beneath the pilot, and the fuel lines to the engine are behind the engine itself. So, you're not likely to get an engine fire unless you happen to hit a fuel line.)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Janosch

I can't really think of anything that's even remotely wrong with the 190s - maybe some variants are a bit optimistically modeled in terms of durability, but it's not a problem that's unique to the 190 series.

I think that a number of planes in the game have FM and/or DM which are a bit overmodeled - in that they're based on data obtained from test pilots using aircraft which are in peak condition.

I don't know if it's possible, but I'd love an option in the FMB which allows mission builders to slightly reduce FM and/or DM to reflect "war weary" aircraft.

[falconilia]

Started QMB mission test vs 2 ACE Wellington III bombers and the results are not looking good....no fire at all,only minor damaged engine.
But VS 2 Ace B17 Bombers i had lot of main fuel tank fire.
Still no Engine fire.
Testing VS 3 or 4 Wellington now.