FW190 FM Change

[mmaruda]

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.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

Good point.

[mmaruda]

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.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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.

[jermin]

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.

[mmaruda]

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 ) 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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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.)

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mmaruda

That's why the Germans had absolutely no problems outfighting the Soviets.

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 . . .

[SturmKreator]

@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.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

I'm still not convinced to the 190s.

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

Originally Posted by mmaruda

1. they counted the planes destroyed on the ground

No they did not, Abschuss was Abschuss.

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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' , but I believe it is certainly modelled better than it was in 4.10.1

[swiss]

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.