PDA

View Full Version : The Glass FW's are back!



Pages : [1] 2

Codex1971
10-24-2005, 07:38 PM
...and that€s not all...the magic fuel leak is back!

Is the 4.02 patch a 3.0 patch in disguise...?

The FW's are now made of glass, one hit the controls are gone, or the wing comes off, or the magic fuel leak gives you 2-3 min flying time.

What€s Happened Oleg? Why are the FW€s so weak now, they're like the 4.01 P-47's.

LEXX_Luthor
10-24-2005, 08:04 PM
Excellent, as it should be! http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

Evil.Merlin
10-24-2005, 08:13 PM
You do know that historically the FW190's especially the later war units were not very tough? Especially against typical late war British and American armament...


Yes I know I am noob, but go read:

Fock-Wulf Fw190 by Malcom V Lowe (Osprey)
The Focke-Wulf Fw190 by Swansborough & Green (out of print but worth it if you can find it).

HeinzBar
10-24-2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Evil.Merlin:
You do know that historically the FW190's especially the later war units were not very tough? Especially against typical late war British and American armament...


Yes I know I am noob, but go read:

Fock-Wulf Fw190 by Malcom V Lowe (Osprey)
The Focke-Wulf Fw190 by Swansborough & Green (out of print but worth it if you can find it).

S!,
I have both of these books. Could you please quote where it says that late in the war that the FW became structurally weak? Or do you mean that due to the lack of experience fw units were easy kills? To be honest, I can't recall anywhere in either book that states that FW "was not very tough".

HB

PS, I hate to agree w/Codex (not because your a bad guy Codex LOL), but the FW is a poor caricature of it's former self as to make one puke. The 4.01 FW was too strong, no doubt. We can all feel better now that this 'wet paper bag' of an airplane is easy to shoot down and nothing more than a lame aerial target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Codex1971
10-24-2005, 08:58 PM
I think your mistaken...as Heinz stated, the losses of FWs by the end of the war were mainly due to inexperienced pilots. The FW was one of the toughest planes in WW2, even the Dora was hard to kill, the FW's are comparable to the P-47's in their structure.

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2005, 10:09 PM
You put green pilot and the bullets that could not penetrate suddenly could?
Or you put the experten and he flys so as not to be hit so much?

Were any FW parts near war end made of wood?
Was any armor removed so as to use less fuel and allow more attacks on bombers
before the stocks at base were gone?

Are people used to having FW's shake off hits for months just not flying like
they might take damage now?

And you know, I've been reading the same from P-47 fans -- my plane should absorb
hits better!

Daiichidoku
10-24-2005, 10:20 PM
max, IMO MOST 47 fans are pleased with the damage it can take...and it does take a lot!

recently, there was a squabble about jugs breaking in half, but that is merely a "cosmetic"...break in half, split in two, implode, rust...whatever it looks like, its still takin a lot to bring it down


IMO your mistaken about "jug DM whines"


now, the R-2800 DM, thats another story altogether.....

Codex1971
10-24-2005, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Are people used to having FW's shake off hits for months just not flying like
they might take damage now?

And you know, I've been reading the same from P-47 fans -- my plane should absorb
hits better!

The FW's did take damage before 4.02, its juist that there was no fuel leak or fires with the DM, which is something I felt was needed. What I'm peeved off at is that with each patch the DMs seem to go from one extream to the other and there is never any randomness to it. Case in point the magic fuel leak, I agree that fuel leaks should occur but not with so much consistancy and all having the same resault - less than 2 min flight time, all this happening from a 0.5sec burst from a P-51. Another thing is the PK's - 3 in a row from dead six hits...give me a break.

Codex1971
10-24-2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
I hate to agree w/Codex (not because your a bad guy Codex LOL)...

You sweat heart you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IIJG69-Niklaus
10-25-2005, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by WWWMaxGunz:
Were any FW parts near war end made of wood?
Was any armor removed so as to use less fuel and allow more attacks on bombers
before the stocks at base were gone?

May be, but thinking as you, early and mid war Fw190 should be stronger as the extreme late war Fw190...

In the game, all Fw190 lose their fuel as before 4.01, not only the extreme late war Fw.

And I think we have not theses wooden Fw, may be at the end some FW had parts in wood, but in the game we have it as they were in 1944, so no wood on them ( a part the A9 which as a wood propeler).

Nubarus
10-25-2005, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
You sweat heart you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Better get some good deodorant for that, fast!

269GA-Veltro
10-25-2005, 03:38 AM
190 is unflyable as soon as it takes some hits......
....one hit and the controls are gone....

True.

I don't care anymore of these problems, i'm really very tired, but the 190 is quite a ridiculous aircraft in FB.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-25-2005, 03:43 AM
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) so they decided to make it glass.

You're right - it's back to it's old self - i.e. whined into oblivion.

I was flying a P47 with no wingtip yesterday. Flew and handled a lot better then the 190 with a mg hole in the wing.

It is, as said, ridiculous.

Ta,
Norris

FltLt_HardBall
10-25-2005, 03:50 AM
To me the FW-190s seem too easy to kill now.

Maybe it's time for a clean install?

quiet_man
10-25-2005, 04:52 AM
hmmm,
maybe some remember my post from general forum. After some more tests I have to admit that I'm now completely confused about IL2 DM.

I used an I-16 to test MG damage at:

A6M5, FW190A5 -> easy burning
BF109G6, K61HO -> good burning

P51B -> easy engine quit(when hit), no fire
La5FN, SpitMKVII -> engine Damage, no fire

Yak9U, P47D27 -> no engine damage, no fire


I'm done with testing this stuff, if someone else wants to try:

[MAIN]
MAP SandsOfTime/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
player g0100
army 2
playerNum 0
[Wing]
r0100
g0100
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 2
Class air.I_16TYPE18
Fuel 100
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
NORMFLY 18814.46 30894.78 1900.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 48012.85 31306.02 1500.00 300.00 &0
[g0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_47D27
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0100_Way]
NORMFLY 19277.12 30946.19 1500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 48064.25 31254.61 1500.00 300.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

save to a file "test.mis" at "\missions" folder

1 Open mission at FMB, select airplanes
2 select play mission at FMB
3 set full realism but with external view and icons
4 start mission, go to externals and keep the attacker at the distance you wish

Regards,
quiet_man

IVJG51_Swine
10-25-2005, 05:55 AM
I have also gotten pretty tired of the extremes with the 190. It's either on or off with the patches. This has actually made me become a big fan of the 109.

Roast
10-25-2005, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Excellent, as it should be! http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

Hehehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Roast

Hetzer_II
10-25-2005, 07:55 AM
is there any other ac in the game which looses fuel such quieck after beeing hit? I never ran out of fuel in a spit,51,47,38,jak,lagg,la when i get hit.. but itself with 100% fuel my 190 tank is dry after 2 minutes?

Kwiatos
10-25-2005, 08:17 AM
Surly Fw190 is not easy to shot down in 4.02. Is one of the hard plane behind P-47. I must waste many 20mm Hispano from Spitfire to shot down Fw190. Only bug is probably fuel leak. The rest is ok for me.

Hetzer_II
10-25-2005, 08:22 AM
Yeah in average it can take some beating.. i see no problem there... but the fuel bug is such anoying again that i realy think about switching to 109 again.... normaly i hate 109s but what else can i do..

Bartolomeo_ita
10-25-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
...and that€s not all...the magic fuel leak is back!

Is the 4.02 patch a 3.0 patch in disguise...?

The FW's are now made of glass, one hit the controls are gone, or the wing comes off, or the magic fuel leak gives you 2-3 min flying time.

What€s Happened Oleg? Why are the FW€s so weak now, they're like the 4.01 P-47's.

happened becouse some yankee cried http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vrabac
10-25-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Muahaha, indeed. Once on WC I had a mustang on my six, and I got so desperate that I started scissoring at below 300kmh... and in the end i killed him. Was it his fault? Nooooo, it was the overmodelled 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Warcoulds, home of true aces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But seriously, if magical fuel tank is back... Well I actually missed it in a way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Willey
10-25-2005, 09:56 AM
http://home.arcor.de/eldur/smilies/hammer2.gif

Chuck_Older
10-25-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
...and that€s not all...the magic fuel leak is back!

Is the 4.02 patch a 3.0 patch in disguise...?

The FW's are now made of glass, one hit the controls are gone, or the wing comes off, or the magic fuel leak gives you 2-3 min flying time.

What€s Happened Oleg? Why are the FW€s so weak now, they're like the 4.01 P-47's.

happened becouse some yankee cried http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What utter BS. Don't tell me you're joking either, that's what you say every time, and you do this often.

It's funny that most US members don't bash anybody's country or nationality, even when joking, but folks in other places seem to feel entitled to say whatever they want about the US. Way to go, you're cool.

Loki-PF
10-25-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:

happened becouse some yankee cried http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bite me Eye-Tie

Buzzsaw-
10-25-2005, 11:00 AM
Salute

Just for those who do not fly P-47's info:

The weak tail DM remains. Very few hits and the tail comes off.

Danschnell
10-25-2005, 11:12 AM
I think P-47 damage model is good, except the 'automatic pilot death' that occurs when hit by anything anywhere. I remember why I stopped flyin git before. Its very tough structurally, except it doesn't matter because the pilot dies about 10 times more easily than in any other plane.

As for the 190, it does seem weaker. I think the 190 has always been badly modelled in IL2 except in 4.01 when it was passable. The 190 has nearly always been modelled worse than every allied plane in all respects. 190 pilots can only get kills with height advantage (like any plane can.)

Rollrate is the least import aspect of performance, even if it is better than most planes. The advantages of the 190 have never been apparent. Vertical manouverability was historically a strength, but that has never been modelled. Loops just as fast or worse than any other plane, especially as it looses energy so quickly in a loop. La7 can just loop forever. Structural strength was historically a benefit too, but fuel leak bug and one mg hit to the wing ruining stability bug have meant that this advantage too has never been modelled.

Kwiatos
10-25-2005, 11:17 AM
I think the 190 has always been badly modelled in IL2 except in 4.01 when it was passable.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

lbhskier37
10-25-2005, 11:41 AM
The squeaky wheel gets the oil, and the squeakiest crowd here is by far the latwar airquake guys and their k/d ratios.

anarchy52
10-25-2005, 11:50 AM
Let's try to avoid this thread turning into Yanks vs the world.The subject of porked focke in 4.02 is flamable anough by itself.

The facts are:
FW-190 in game has voulnerabilities which are inconsistent with real-life facts and also other fighters in the sim. Yes, focke was severely "downgraded" in this patch.

- Firehose fuel tank leak - no other plane in the sim leaks up to 3 liters per second when hit by machine gun fire (one of the yaks could looong time ago, but it was fixed, now even 20mm won't make it leak out). FACT: Hitorical testing of FW-190 done by the british reveals that it was very resistant to heavy MG fire (rifle caliber being completely ineffective) from behind.
real DM test (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/190vunerability2adj.jpg)
Real DM test (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/190vunerabilityAdj.jpg)

- Amazing fact is that FW-190, despite armour and self sealing tanks, can be can set on fire by rifle-caliber MGs. Most other planes can not(excluding japanese which can be set on fire by looking sharply at them).

- No other plane except Zero loses so much in terms of lift (wing dip) and drag (speed loss) when hit by MG fire. Half a dozen fifties and it flies like half of it's wing area is gone. FACT: you wouldn't notice a dozen hits until you landed (unless one of them hit something important).

- No other plane has such a poor power/acceleration. Let's get real - focke had 1750-2300 HP max. power and heaviest antons (A8/A9) weighted about 300kg more then let's say a P-51 D. (empty weights).
Large part of those 300kg was armour. (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/190-armor-1.jpg) Focke needs very long runway for takeoff in clean
configuration. Loaded with bombs it can barely take-off from in-game runways. Fact: FW-190 could carry 100kg of ordonance, special mods could carry even more.

- Focke has disasterous turn rate in 4.02, it bleeds a lot of energy even in mild turns. I'm not aware of any fighter in the game that can be
outturned by 190(OK, maybe Zero at 500+ km/h). Historical documents reveal FW-190 to be notably more manuverable then P-47 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/p47-fw190-4.jpg). It could both in 4.01 game and IRL follow Spitfires quarter of a turn in high speed turns.
now it handles like it has permanent invisible SC500 attached to it.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-25-2005, 11:56 AM
^ What he said.

Ta,
Norris

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-25-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
is there any other ac in the game which looses fuel such quieck after beeing hit? I never ran out of fuel in a spit,51,47,38,jak,lagg,la when i get hit.. but itself with 100% fuel my 190 tank is dry after 2 minutes?

Fiat Cr 42 !

True ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-25-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Just for those who do not fly P-47's info:

The weak tail DM remains. Very few hits and the tail comes off.

Yeeeees ... agreee 100% (Tagert mode http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

So it deserve a P47 weak tail thread, open it!

faustnik
10-25-2005, 12:01 PM
Yeah, us Yanks are always badmouthing the Fw190, it's just our nature. Here is a Yank pilot named Kit Carson putting down the Fw190:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Fw 190A

A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.
</span>

Mysha76
10-25-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
- Amazing fact is that FW-190, despite armour and self sealing tanks, can be can set on fire by rifle-caliber MGs. Most other planes can not(excluding japanese which can be set on fire by looking sharply at them).


Mark Gustin-expert on guns:
"While a plain metal fuel tank was very vulnerable, it was surprisingly difficult to set fire to a well-designed self-sealing fuel tank. Such tanks not only had self-sealing material in their walls, they were also designed to be flexible enough to absorb shocks without tearing and rupturing. To avoid sparks, they contained as few metal fittings as was possible and often were supported away from the metal of the fuselage bays that held them. The fuel tank of a Fw 190 is a good example.
Such a tank could successfully absorb damage from .30 or .50 hits; US Navy tests showed that it could even survive a hit from a 20-mm explosive shell, on condition that it exploded deep enough inside the tank to avoid a large hole."

4,01 DM for FW was a joke. After 4,02 patch is joke again...

lrrp22
10-25-2005, 12:40 PM
Faustnik,

Don't you know you're not allowed to quote Leonard 'Kit' Carson on these boards? Everyone knows he's just a typical know-nothing Yankee blowhard. After all, all he ever did was shoot down 18.5 Luftwaffe fighters (all false claims, no doubt) and become an aeronautical engineer after the war. What would he know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, us Yanks are always badmouthing the Fw190, it's just our nature. Here is a Yank pilot named Kit Carson putting down the Fw190:

quiet_man
10-25-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Surly Fw190 is not easy to shot down in 4.02. Is one of the hard plane behind P-47. I must waste many 20mm Hispano from Spitfire to shot down Fw190. Only bug is probably fuel leak. The rest is ok for me.

you use the wrong weapon, take MGs to down 190

see me previous post, the issue is MG damage and it seams wrong all over the board

or why do only axis planes burn at MG fire???

quiet_man

Vrabac
10-25-2005, 02:06 PM
Here is a Yank pilot named Kit Carson putting down the Fw190

Obvious luftwhiner. Never saw him in Warclouds, must be a n00b. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The thing is that 190 was ******ed in all versions of the game since I remember it. In some fashion. Come on, you wouldn't love it as you do if it wasn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142_Astro
10-25-2005, 03:02 PM
Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits....

He has no way of knowing how many hits. Gunnery could have been off that day. At any rate, it's interesting to see that lufties gleefully accept this anecdote but ignore the one about the 1-oH-whine.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

anarchy52
10-25-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits....

He has no way of knowing how many hits. Gunnery could have been off that day. At any rate, it's interesting to see that lufties gleefully accept this anecdote but ignore the one about the 1-oH-whine.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Interesting to see yankwhinners doing the same.
Doesn't change the FACT that focke is porked

faustnik
10-25-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits....

He has no way of knowing how many hits. Gunnery could have been off that day. At any rate, it's interesting to see that lufties gleefully accept this anecdote but ignore the one about the 1-oH-whine.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Jeez, nice attitude. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why don't you read the thread for context of that post?

It is interesting how some people see a/c modeling purely as "us against them" with no regard for history. I guess it's just a gamer mentality?

MatoKKK
10-25-2005, 04:08 PM
Anarchy,

very good and inteligent post full of relevant facts. Thanks. I can only strongly encourage you to send all the listed documentst to Oleg. Yes, I completely agree. It is very annoying seeing some planes going from one extreme to another after every patch release.

BTW, I am also quite disappointed about the energy bleed for some planes.

Just try this:

Do a HARD LEFT SUSTAINED TURN below 400km/h in Bf 109 G-6 Early. Then try it in Lagg-3 version 35. Don't focus on the better turning, but rather notice the behavior of each plane... I will rather not comment it...

GR142_Astro
10-25-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Jeez, nice attitude. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why don't you read the thread for context of that post?

It is interesting how some people see a/c modeling purely as "us against them" with no regard for history. I guess it's just a gamer mentality?

Nah, you're just having a bad hair day. It is a fact that folks accept only what agrees with what they think in advance. (to a degree)

As far as the "us against them" I have no comment for you. I just have Zero percent interest in flying either 190s or 109s. None, nada, zilch.

So, with that it mind it stands to reason that having watched a number of 190s flying around on servers shrugging off everything thrown at them, I have a slight interest in possible over/under modeling aspect of "blue" planes.

It seems the 190 is a bit twitchy now and the forward view still blows. OTOH, the 151 is a bit too strong and the roll rate seems excessive.

For the 109, it simply turns too well and like the 190 I firmly believe that the blackout values are purposefully lessened for both these ac.

Don't ask for exhaustive testing or stupid tracks. I don't care enough and I don't care. What can I say, I'm in advertising. My job is to get the message out and someone else can flog the numbers.

Still a fun game though.

Game.

Manos1
10-25-2005, 04:32 PM
I am appalled about all this whining here !

Why does always somebody complain about the negative things without paying any attention to the positive?

Human nature I suppose...

Just to cheer you up...
"How many loopings can a LA-5FN do?"

(do not bet money on this; You may lose it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

LOL, I have not had this laugh since the days of EAW....

faustnik
10-25-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:


Don't ask for exhaustive testing or stupid tracks. I don't care enough and I don't care. What can I say, I'm in advertising. My job is to get the message out and someone else can flog the numbers.

Still a fun game though.

Game.

Oh, I see, it's just a clown act. Maybe you can find a quake arena deatchmatch or something where it will be more appreciated.

Good luck!

Chuck_Older
10-25-2005, 04:49 PM
OK, objectively:


Why should any aircraft be able to absorb hits from a .50", 20mm, 37mm, 7.9mm or any other caliber weapon with no ill results? Think about it. A bird strike can down a WWII vintage aircraft.

Why should the Fw 190 be a lead sponge? Because a few times, it took a beating and made it home? How many times? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000 times?


So did P-47s and B-17s. They were tough aircraft too

How about this as food for thought:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the planes that made it home with lots of damage got ooohhhed-and-ahhhed over. They were an exception to the rule: the other ones that took a beating were shot down and nobody saw them again</span>

Which was more common? A plane that took 200 .50 cal hits and made it home, or a plane that took 200 .50 cal hits and crashed and burned? The plane that had incredible battle damage and returned to base was the rare occurance, beleive it


P-47 has a glass jaw too. I can set fire to B-17 engines easily. P-40? Hell, I can get lit on fire in any P-40 by a Ki-43 with only two rifle caliber weapons on it. I can pour lead into a Zero in an F4U before it bursts into flames sometimes, too. And yeah, I'm a good shot. better than most here judging from the number of ".50 cals are porked" threads, I never, ever had a hard time getting victories with .50 machine guns, on ANYthing

EVERY plane in this sim is vulnerable. Try to not get shot in the first place! planning on catching lead is....well, a bad way to plan


No aircraft in this sim should be invulnerable. they weren't in real life. The Fw-190 got shot down, regardless of pilot skill. Why? They weren't flying tanks. the most skilled pilot in the world makes not one shred of difference if 50 pounds of lead gets blasted into the plane. At that point, the plane is taking damage, period

Is the FW 190 too 'weak' now? How should I know. I never really shot one. Anybody here have? No?


So we have pilot's accounts as 'proof' the Fw 190 is a 'tough airplane'

Great! Ask all the dead pilots whose Fw 190s got shredded how tough their planes were. I bet their opinion would count if you could ask them, too. But unfortunately, we have the recollections of the lucky ones who took the golden BB up the yingyang and lived to tell about it- and that's it


So we read this stuff, and assume the Fw 190 was some sort of juggernaut. Look at the other side of the coin for a change and consider how these planes really did get shot down. if you were to do that, I can't see how anyone could disagree that the planes must be vulnerable to damage of the sort we can dish out in this sim.


is the FW 190 damage model wrong? I'm sure it's not 100% correct to real life. Just like the P-47, B-17, P-40, and every other plane has errors in damage modelling

Hell, Saburo Sakai made it home with a chunk of his skull blown off and a badly damaged Zero, but nobody complains the A6M DM is bad. Hellcats came back to their carriers with pistons visible bopping up and down in their broken heads, and the pilot thought nothing was wrong. But is the F6F DM porked? Mustang can take a few hits and people say "ooo, bias, the Americans must have paid off Oleg". What a pantload. Nothing is perfect in this sim.

Fw DM is probably wrong- just like ever other plane's DM. How can it ever be 100% right? What's Oleg gonna do, get an Fw 190 and start shooting it up with various caliber weapons to see what breaks, from all possible angles, and at every possible point? No. But he can find out the alloys used in the plane's construction, the method of fabrication, the location of critical components, and the fragility of internal systems

Anyone else bothered to even discover the grade of Aluminum used in the Fw 190? Or the thickness of a fuselage skin?


I've got U-boats that can shoot down an H8K posing as as a Sunderland in 10 seconds flat. I've got an H-81A-2 that has almost 30 mph missing from it's top speed if you research the AVG planes, I've got 7.9mm weapons that can score lucky hits on critical systems every time if you let them, I have enemies that can see through clouds and gunners that can fire at me through their own airplane with no ill effects

But the Fw 190 is made of glass now? It can join the club of glass aircraft in that case. Don't get shot is my advice

Comswim
10-25-2005, 06:27 PM
I think the FW damage Model is good now. It still has emense killing power with its arsenal of weapons. Still a very formidable fighter to contend with.

S!

geetarman
10-25-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
is there any other ac in the game which looses fuel such quieck after beeing hit? I never ran out of fuel in a spit,51,47,38,jak,lagg,la when i get hit.. but itself with 100% fuel my 190 tank is dry after 2 minutes?

Yes - an F6F or F4U - try them, you'll see

geetarman
10-25-2005, 07:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anarchy52:



Half a dozen fifties and it flies like half of it's wing area is gone. FACT: you wouldn't notice a dozen hits until you landed (unless one of them hit something important).


That's a problem with the modeling right there. ANY WWII fighter hit squarely with a solid burst of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SIX</span> 50's, should fly like ALL of it's wing is gone.

Viper2005_
10-25-2005, 07:41 PM
A bird strike can down a WWII vintage aircraft.

A birdstrike can down pretty much any aircraft. Birds are rather heavier than bullets...


Great! Ask all the dead pilots whose Fw 190s got shredded how tough their planes were. I bet their opinion would count if you could ask them, too. But unfortunately, we have the recollections of the lucky ones who took the golden BB up the yingyang and lived to tell about it- and that's it

We've also got all the gun camera footage to show that 190s burn like nobody's business.

Seems to me that you're just saying that history isn't objective; I agree. But there are (at least) two sides to every story.

VW-IceFire
10-25-2005, 08:48 PM
I vote for a halfway compromise between 4.01's concrete and 4.02's flame-o-fest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And fix the Corsair with the same problem while your at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
10-25-2005, 10:03 PM
Most a/c in this sim have faulty DMs. Aircraft with the R-2800 have paper engines, Mustangs and P-40s lose their engines to the moral equivalent of a spitwad and a cross look, and the FW has been yo-yoed (too strong-too weak-too strong-too weak) so many times I've run out of fingers and toes (and you don't want to be in the room when I take off my shoes...).

The 109, well, it's always been fun and easy to fly (and nothing like the treacherous diva I read about-but it might be that it just matches my air combat 'personality'), but a bit too hard to take down, unless I'm shooting at it with another 109.

Offline, any fighter loses to any gunner shooting rubber bands from 600m away.

I think it may be a global issue.

cheers

horseback

fordfan25
10-25-2005, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
...and that€s not all...the magic fuel leak is back!

Is the 4.02 patch a 3.0 patch in disguise...?

The FW's are now made of glass, one hit the controls are gone, or the wing comes off, or the magic fuel leak gives you 2-3 min flying time.

What€s Happened Oleg? Why are the FW€s so weak now, they're like the 4.01 P-47's.

yet there DM is still stronger than the p-47,hellcat and corsair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

IvanoBulo
10-26-2005, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
We've also got all the gun camera footage to show that 190s burn like nobody's business.
That gun camera footage only shows final burst and you won't be able to see how many hits that FW took before that.

WOLFMondo
10-26-2005, 12:47 AM
Agreed. 190's are great until they get hit then there totally out the fight, even a couple of .50's can simply remove 80kph speed and get the plane to list to one side or even completely remove control surfaces. They used control rods, not wires!


Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

For the 109, it simply turns too well and like the 190 I firmly believe that the blackout values are purposefully lessened for both these ac.


How? You say you don't fly these planes? How can you know? :P

Fly the plane you moaning about for at least a few weeks then judge them.

polak5
10-26-2005, 01:34 AM
In warclouds i would fly the 190, about 80 percent of the time. Everytime i could depend on it getting me home. Now im not soo sure, even dough i havent been using it much since 4.02 came out. I would be slightly inclined to believe it has become weaker, more on this later.
Anarchy that is some good info u posted my friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, hopefully Oleg will see it and take action according to his judgement.

269GA-Veltro
10-26-2005, 01:35 AM
4.02m? 2.04! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif The same numbers....the same patch... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

...."You kid....you got it"....

Thank you, really a nice patch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...."tuned FM"..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...

Badsight.
10-26-2005, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I just have Zero percent interest in flying either 190s or 109s. None, nada, zilch.........

the 151 is a bit too strong ..........

I firmly believe that the blackout values are purposefully lessened for both these ac........

Don't ask for exhaustive testing or stupid tracks. I don't care enough and I don't care. you have got to be kidding me


your so sure the MG151 & FW190 is too strong about that are you ?

im sure you know EXACTLY what its like to see a Yak-3 absorb multiple Mk108 & multiple MG151 & masses of MG17 & yet still escape & fly home to base

yes you Know EXACTLY what that is like dont you Astro

you know that although they took all that in the Past they didnt fly like new dont you , im also sure you know next to NOTHING about what the guys flying the planes you shoot at are having to deal with as well as they try flying off

WTG with the assumptions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WTF would you know about either plane in FB with your obvious bias , of course they are overmoddeled if they manage to get shots on you , what was Maddox Games thinking not giving you instant 7-kills/sortie aceness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif why do you even bother posting this load , its so laughable

this is seriously the most stupid attempt at FM/DM discussion i have ever read here , you GR142 have to be the most full-of-sh!te guys in the whole community when it comes to LW planes

seriously

BigKahuna_GS
10-26-2005, 02:37 AM
S!




VW-IceFire
Tempest Maniac Posted Tue October 25 2005 19:48
I vote for a halfway compromise between 4.01's concrete and 4.02's flame-o-fest
And fix the Corsair with the same problem while your at it



Totally Agree Ice ! concise and to the point.

Also fix the flame--o--fest Hellcat. Two very tough Navy birds (F4u & F6F) that catch fire too easily, similar to a Zero with no self sealing fuel tanks.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
NorrisMcWhirter Posted Tue October 25 2005 02:43
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add ) so they decided to make it glass.
You're right - it's back to it's old self - i.e. whined into oblivion.
I was flying a P47 with no wingtip yesterday. Flew and handled a lot better then the 190 with a mg hole in the wing.
It is, as said, ridiculous.
Ta,Norris
Vrabac Posted Tue October 25 2005 08:11
quote:Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add )
Muahaha, indeed. Once on WC I had a mustang on my six, and I got so desperate that I started scissoring at below 300kmh... and in the end i killed him. Was it his fault? Nooooo, it was the overmodelled 190.
Warcoulds, home of true aces.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



It is really quite disturbing to read this type of inflammatory B.S. from our euro blue flyers anytime changes have been made. As you can see above I agree with Ice about the 190 DM and I cant think of any red pilots who wouldn't.

Question--Do you really think that the (4.01) 109 flying with a non-historical 3500rpms and 6000fpm+ climb rate (prop pitch exploit) and a 190 that could absorb an entire ammo load of .50cals without catching fire or going down is the "true representation of aerial warfare" ?

You boys need to read better history books from the non-fiction section !



___

Codex1971
10-26-2005, 02:58 AM
Ok thanks to you all for reading and posting in this thread. I started this thread in the hope that Oleg will do something about the incosistant DM's that come out in every patch, and to look at the possibility that the 4.02 patch has somehow been "infected" with the pre-4.01 DM's...I did NOT start this thread to turn it into an us and them argument, so please can we stop the bickering and concentrate on getting Oleg to at least have a closer look at the patch before all work ceases on FB/AEP/PF.

I predominately fly the FW's so I know what has happened to it, but I can't speak for the other planes I was hoping all of us, RED and BLUE, could have a close look at our favourite rides and make a plea to Oleg to fix it.

I would love it if we had a combination of the "glass jaw" and "iron butt" type DM's but make it across the board, and throw in a little randomness to the DM, that way no two "beat ups" would be the same.

The issue is this, as it stands the DM is way too repetitive: Take off, bandit on my six, small burst from bandit = PK repeat process 3 or 4 times in row, where's the element of chance? The fuel leak, you all know about that, not every fuel leak could have resulted in 2-3min flight time, some leaks were fast, some slow again the DM has no randomness.

Please, Oleg, take a look at it at least before you go full throttle with BoB.

Cheers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

bazzaah2
10-26-2005, 03:02 AM
190 does seem a bit fubar, tbh. And I say that as someone who likes shooting them down. I think the fuel tanks do leak easily but have now seen them stop after a minute or so maybe that's been addressed in some way?

A few shots to the wing though will see the AI controlled 190 crash and if you look at the visual damage (OK doesn't mean a huge amount) you'll often see gaping holes in the wing. Or maybe I'm just getting a lot of PKs, who knows?

DM globally ain't perfect though and we must necessarily accept limitations in game but there are a few outriders/oddities verging on bugs that would be great to see fixed, 190 amongst them.

WOLFMondo
10-26-2005, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

It is really quite disturbing to read this type of inflammatory B.S. from our euro blue flyers anytime changes have been made.

Most of the blue whiners are American! :P

Don't label everyone who's a 'euro' as some unobjective blue whiner. In the same token I could label yourself as a Red Ameriwhiner, bet you don't like that.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At least some of us bother to fly both sides and step outside this red vs blue BS attitude that this whole community seems to think there is.

Norris had a point, to many whines on here are down to bad piloting and people thinking there uber airplane should get them out of trouble, and when they can't shoot something down, its the planes fault, not there own.

KIMURA
10-26-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
It is really quite disturbing to read this type of inflammatory B.S. from our euro blue flyers anytime changes have been made. As you can see above I agree with Ice about the 190 DM and I cant think of any red pilots who wouldn't.

Question--Do you really think that the (4.01) 109 flying with a non-historical 3500rpms and 6000fpm+ climb rate (prop pitch exploit) and a 190 that could absorb an entire ammo load of .50cals without catching fire or going down is the "true representation of aerial warfare" ?
You boys need to read better history books from the non-fiction section !
___

1.In none of previous game versions any of the Daimler-Benz-engines turned up to 3500rpm.
2.I have absolute no problem with the 190 as it is at the moment, eccept of the fuel tanks that completely running empty even if hit by 7.7mm calibres. That behaviour is really anoying. And I would like to hear some of U Pony-jockeys if your Stang, Jug or Light would behave like that.
3.remember to 15+ sides whining about things like ineffective Pony elevators, ineffective 0.5, P-38 with super boost, unsync 0.5" and other strange stuff before finger-pointing to Euro whiners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142_Astro
10-26-2005, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I just have Zero percent interest in flying either 190s or 109s. None, nada, zilch.........

the 151 is a bit too strong ..........

I firmly believe that the blackout values are purposefully lessened for both these ac........

Don't ask for exhaustive testing or stupid tracks. I don't care enough and I don't care. you have got to be kidding me


your so sure the MG151 & FW190 is too strong about that are you ?

im sure you know EXACTLY what its like to see a Yak-3 absorb multiple Mk108 & multiple MG151 & masses of MG17 & yet still escape & fly home to base

yes you Know EXACTLY what that is like dont you Astro

you know that although they took all that in the Past they didnt fly like new dont you , im also sure you know next to NOTHING about what the guys flying the planes you shoot at are having to deal with as well as they try flying off

WTG with the assumptions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WTF would you know about either plane in FB with your obvious bias , of course they are overmoddeled if they manage to get shots on you , what was Maddox Games thinking not giving you instant 7-kills/sortie aceness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif why do you even bother posting this load , its so laughable

this is seriously the most stupid attempt at FM/DM discussion i have ever read here , you GR142 have to be the most full-of-sh!te guys in the whole community when it comes to LW planes

seriously </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leave it to you to start the personal mud slinging. Nice work. Since when is it some crime to state an opinion based on lots of experience.

You and faustnik may want to go off and ride a merry-go-round and share a tuft of cotton candy. I was completely up-front that I don't give a cr@p about doing testing, but I sure as heck am going to mention the areas of the game that need to be addressed.

IVJG51_Swine
10-26-2005, 07:20 AM
I'm American, I just don't like the extremes with the 190. I don't want it to be a flying tank but then again I'd rather it not be on the same sheet of music as a Zeke. I wish we could find a happy medium but with ever patch we get these huge swings from one extreme to the next. That's my winehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And I do like cheese with ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ok, maybe it's not a Zeke(kidding) but I do see significant changes with the patches, much more so then other ac from my experience(my experience that is).

quiet_man
10-26-2005, 08:21 AM
plane standing, 3 BA64 (MGs) approaching from 8
they start at 500m and close to 100m

BE AWARE: Controls damage was not counted!

average fire/engine kill & average PK distance in Meters from three tests:

P47_D10 125 233
BF109G6 150 150
Yak1 162 308
I-16/18 200 350
Yak9D 212 225
La7 212 250
Ki61_Otsu 220 375
La5 233 262
Spit_VIII 241 -
BF109E4 256 -
F4U/A1 258 262
P51B 275 -
Spit_Vb 305 287
FW190D9 358 -
FW190A8 366 -
FW190A5 408 387
A6M2 416 412
FW190A4 425 -
A6M5a 450 425

write me a PM for mission, full data and tracks

quiet_man

Viper2005_
10-26-2005, 08:27 AM
That gun camera footage only shows final burst and you won't be able to see how many hits that FW took before that.

Quite. My point was that there is data to support almost any extreme view on the Fw-190's DM out there.

Most of the times when German aircraft burn specacularly in gun camera footage, close inspection shows that they were carrying a drop-tank, and that said drop tank is the seat of the fire, not the aircraft itself.

Most of the time when .50s knock the wing off a 190 in gun camera footage, they've hit the ammo tanks and cooked off a serious quantity of HE.

I would expect the 190 to take around 50 .50 hits to bring down on average. I would also expect considerable variation, perhaps up to 200 rounds from dead 6, perhaps only a single lucky round in exactly the right place.

But that's just my personal gut feeling.

anarchy52
10-26-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
What can I say, I'm in advertising. My job is to get the message out and someone else can flog the numbers.


Marketing droid...now it all fits in place.

anarchy52
10-26-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by geetarman:
That's a problem with the modeling right there. ANY WWII fighter hit squarely with a solid burst of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SIX</span> 50's, should fly like ALL of it's wing is gone.

I was talking about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> 6 bullet strikes </span> by the .50 the allmighty.

Fehler
10-26-2005, 11:23 AM
Can someone please point me to the thread where Gibbage did an in-depth test of the 190 DM in 4.02?

You see, less that 4 hours after the release of 4.01, he proclaimed that the 190 DM was bad and within 12 hours he had several tracks and statistics showing that it was indeed off. I totally agree in his assessment. This was all in the name of game accuracy, of course.

I am sure he still wishes accuracy, so there must be another DM assessment for the 190 to show that it is still not accurate.

Can someone point me to that thread? After all, accuracy was the issue, not bias, correct?

Gibbage1
10-26-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
...and that€s not all...the magic fuel leak is back!

Is the 4.02 patch a 3.0 patch in disguise...?

The FW's are now made of glass, one hit the controls are gone, or the wing comes off, or the magic fuel leak gives you 2-3 min flying time.

What€s Happened Oleg? Why are the FW€s so weak now, they're like the 4.01 P-47's.

Congrats! Now you know what its like flying an Allied aircraft! You still got your titanium engine blocks shielded in 2" armor plate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
10-26-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

I was talking about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> 6 bullet strikes </span> by the .50 the allmighty.

The truth is, ANY aircraft can be taken down with as little as 1 bullet. As long as its in the right place.

badatflyski
10-26-2005, 12:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif here we go again:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190vunerabilityAdj.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190vunerability2adj.jpg

faustnik
10-26-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


Congrats! Now you know what its like flying an Allied aircraft! You still got your titanium engine blocks shielded in 2" armor plate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Nice post!


I still can;t understand why people think you are biased??

NorrisMcWhirter
10-26-2005, 01:03 PM
No point complaining about it chaps; Oleg would rather introduce new, buggy aircraft and their dodgy FMs instead of taking a proper look at 'vintage' problems.

Now, I'll make a wager. If Oleg does indeed change the 190DM for the next patch, I bet it will result in it being something approaching a flying tank again.

Trouble is, no one who flies the Focke wants a flying tank. Nor do they want a paper plane. They just want someone to take a realistic stab at getting it, just for once, something approaching correct.

Like Ice said, a compromise between 4.01 and 4.02 would probably be perfect for the 190. By all means have uncontrollable fuel leaks and fire but let's have them realistically random and applying to aircraft with similar configurations consistently.

Cheers,
Norris

PS: Anyone notice the new line on the conf.ini file after you run 4.02?


[spoil_game]
crimson_skies=1


?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
10-26-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
plane standing, 3 BA64 (MGs) approaching from 8
they start at 500m and close to 100m


I dont know if is present within the game, but T-60 light tank was armed with 20mm ShVAK...

Meshsmoother
10-26-2005, 02:04 PM
I'm a FW190-A pilot almost exclusively, with the exception of flying P51D sometimes, because I think they're the most beautiful planes of the whole conflict.

Now here is what bothers me: I can't really enjoy the planes I like most!! FW190 when is not a flying-E-bleeding-tank made of bricks, is a glass porked (but very very) Cinderella shoe, and the .50's of the P51D are so weak that even when you see you're hitting (little pieces coming off from enemy plane)it'd take almost the whole load to get a plane down (at any convergence range), not to mention the long time you have to be attacking, so your bandit's wingie can tear you apart without worries...

Now A8-9 cannot turn to the right with combat flaps on, below 350 km/h, with maneuvre ending up on a stall 7 over 10 times no matter how careful you are on the stick and throttling to minimize torque effect, giving your attacker a sittin duck to practice gunnery with... fortunately A6 (wich is my fav Anton) has suffered the less in the new FM/DM still giving some chances for a decent but suffered d/f

I totally agree with those that would like to have a middle way between 4.01 and 4.02 for the FW190, and also agree that this extreme change has been influenced somehow by the whining storm the no fire 4.01 DM arised.

Please Oleg give us a decent Wurger!!

S!

T.

Kocur_
10-26-2005, 03:00 PM
Please Oleg give us a decent Wurger!!


A plane which had better looking-low sighting visibilty than Spitfire IRL, has it the worst in the game.
A plane which is well documented as being very difficult to set on fire or to have controls damaged IRL, has one of weakest DMs in terms of flammability or probability of losing controls and also sufferes from losing speed and handling after receiving few mg hits on wings - like no other plane in the game.
A plane which was equipped with automatic engine control device to let pilot get everything out of the engine using single lever only IRL, has to be flown with excessive use of manual prop pitch to achieve anything close to RL performance.



A different plane which pilots manual says never to exceed 650kmh and was known to lose wings at 700kmh IAS dives safely at speed +100kmh more. The same plane can not be set on fire, even though its tanks were protected with 4 (four) mm rubber. It had mixed metal-wood, Fokker-like construction and empty weight lower even than late Zero IRL, in the game has one of strongest DMs. Somehow does not suffer from worsening of handling after receiving hits. The plane had 360deg turning time of 21s IRL according to sources from country of its origin, does the same in the game in like 16s.


After one 'guesses' names of both planes he might stop thinking of making such pleas.

quiet_man
10-26-2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:
plane standing, 3 BA64 (MGs) approaching from 8
they start at 500m and close to 100m


I dont know if is present within the game, but T-60 light tank was armed with 20mm ShVAK... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as tanks stop to fire I took the German 20mm Flak truck:

when I made a few runs with the T60 I had the tail of P47 come off. But it already had many hits. Never had the P47 tail come off with the flak truck.

Also I did not count one test were a 190A8 simply exploded after the first hit

190 and P47 have usualy no partial structural failures, the plane just explodes. On the oposite the Yak mostly loses its wing before any thing else happens

critical: controls gone, wing off, engine dead, plane burning or exploded

Plane Leak PK critical
190A8 450 350 175
190A8 --- 450 350
190A8 --- --- 400
P47D10 375 --- 250
P47D10 300 --- 175
P47D10 450 --- 300
Yak9D 400 --- 350
Yak9D 450 --- 400
Yak9D --- 350 350


quiet_man

BSS_CUDA
10-26-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by polak5:
Everytime i could depend on it getting me home. Now im not soo sure,
as it should be. an aircraft filled with holes would be a scarry thing, they didnt always get the pilots home. I cant even beging to tell you how many time I dropped in behind a 190 with my 38 and emptied all my 20' and most of my 50's into it and it flew off, I hit one with 16 exploding 20mm rounds in the wings and cockpit area and just kept flying like nobodies business http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif seems the pendulum has swung, I for one say its about time, maybe you FW pilots will fly alittle more cautiously now and not fly headlong into a furball knowing that your DM will save your A$$ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-26-2005, 06:32 PM
No 190 pilot I know of ever went into a ding **** expecting the DM to save them.

Not even in 4.01.

The truth is that it's always been the case that one hit to the wing usually means it's curtains for the 190 either because you have lost the ability to escape (not applicable to 95% of other planes in this game) and the ability to fight (also not applicable to 95% of other planes in this game).

In fact, every 190 pilot I know flies in such a manner so as to not get hit in the first place. They have to because that's how it's always been for them.

Besides, I've occasionally pumped P38s with plenty of ammo and seen them fly off - is their DM suspect? C'mon Oleg - I've seen an isolated case of something so it needs fixing(!) Pork the P38 DM without delay(!)

Ta,
Norris

faustnik
10-26-2005, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
Everytime i could depend on it getting me home. Now im not soo sure,
as it should be. an aircraft filled with holes would be a scarry thing, they didnt always get the pilots home. I cant even beging to tell you how many time I dropped in behind a 190 with my 38 and emptied all my 20' and most of my 50's into it and it flew off, I hit one with 16 exploding 20mm rounds in the wings and cockpit area and just kept flying like nobodies business http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif seems the pendulum has swung, I for one say its about time, maybe you FW pilots will fly alittle more cautiously now and not fly headlong into a furball knowing that your DM will save your A$$ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cuda, is that you or did someone steal your login? The pendulum has swung too far the other way and you like it??? It always thought you were more of a "get it right" type?

Viper2005_
10-26-2005, 09:18 PM
I agree Norris. Mostly I don't get hit. When I do get hit I'm out of the fight the second my wings get a pinhole. I don't even land with heavy outboard wing damage anymore.

I've seen a P47D take 31 rounds from my 190 in several passes before going in, and in between somebody else shot him too!

The only visable effect was a fuel leak.

A large percentage of those 31 rounds would have been 20 mm.

Usually however, they take far less effort to kill, and I wouldn't suggest that this should be the basis of a "P-47 DM is too tough" type rant.

BSS_Vidar
10-26-2005, 10:13 PM
I'll have to agree, the 190's fuel tank fires from self-sealing tanks is a bit over done. Other than that, the DM is fine. 50 cals don't make pin holes, especialy when you have 4 to 8 barrels firing at you. The 190 and 109's controls are just as succeptible to loss as any other fighter. Wings are NOT armored folks.

The 190 is still practicly untouchable with too quick of a roll rate at the slower speeds, and not worth the trouble in chasing if you have a dedicated B-n-Z driver behind the stick.

However, IF they modeled the cannon ammos compartment as it should be, you guys would not be happy campers. A single 50 cal round penetrating the ammo box would cause the 190, and 109 to literaly rip itself apart from the explosion of its own ammo.

The P-47 was well known for being one of the MOST survivorable aircraft in WWII -Hands down. This wasn't as suggested before rare events that happen once in a while. Jugs were notorious for comming home time and time again with incredible damage to them. Several cylindars could be shot out, massive wholes in the wings stayed in tacted due to duel spar design, plus just the mass of the beast.

I haven't seen it yet, but I hope the soft tail problem has been fixed on the Jug.

BSS_CUDA
10-26-2005, 11:09 PM
actually I was just doin some trolling. if we are to believe Oleg then the DM hasn't changed, it just that now you can see the damage. I am for accuracy but there are SO many things that I question, I'll use the 109 as an example, from straight 6 on a G2 you can tear it in half with the 38, but with the K from dead 6 you can empty your entire load into it and it seldom even smokes. in effect its the same plane how can there be such a HUGE difference in the DM. I'm not the only one to comment on this while on comms. there will always be whinning about your favorite ridenot a single person here not one REALLY knows if what we call FM + DM are correct. everything is a best guess. but I am glad now that the FW pilots will need to think for once about what kind of mess they get themselves into and have to worry about getting home in one piece no more near indestructable flying battleships. it will give the game more realism.

Kocur_
10-26-2005, 11:23 PM
Two simple questions: is it really fair that Fw-190 is about as flammable as Zero? Does anyone know other planes to lose 60-80kmh of top speed and like 1/3 of lift after 3-6 mg or hmg holes in a wing, i.e. holes not larger than caliber of those weapons?

WWMaxGunz
10-26-2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I would expect the 190 to take around 50 .50 hits to bring down on average. I would also expect considerable variation, perhaps up to 200 rounds from dead 6, perhaps only a single lucky round in exactly the right place.

But that's just my personal gut feeling.

How do your guts explain 190's going down to one attacker when hit percentages ran maybe 10%
for a good shot?

50 hits from 50 cal under 200 meters... most all must hit nothing much. Look inside a diagram
of these planes, there is not as much empty space as there seems for bullet paths crossing
from behind or in front. You have any idea what a hammering a single stopped .50 delivers?

fordfan25
10-27-2005, 12:56 AM
the DM in this game is FUBAR IMHO lol. planes that were made of wood are tough as he** yet planes like the 47,hellcat,hog,190, and even a number of the large bombers are easy to take down. in QMB i can light up a corsair as easy as a zero and far more easy than a ki84 useing .50's . the dive rates are also FUBAR. seems with every patch one thing gets fixed and 2 more things get messed up. not sayn its not from a lack of tryn on 1c's part just that very little in this game comes close to matching up to what iv read and been told. maby the 190 is to weak now BUT from all the playing around iv done in QMB its no more easy to take down than a 47. how ever try testing fairly the f4u. iv tested many times and it as well as the Hcat lights up like a stoner on a saterday night. wasnt someone at the army air core recorded one time as stateing the f4u was a tougher bird than the jug?

maby it has something to do with this games code being so old and never realy being ment to be used in this way. i thought i remember reading once to that effect.

BigKahuna_GS
10-27-2005, 02:08 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Wolfmondo-Don't label everyone who's a 'euro' as some unobjective blue whiner. In the same token I could label yourself as a Red Ameriwhiner, bet you don't like that.At least some of us bother to fly both sides and step outside this red vs blue BS attitude that this whole community seems to think there is. Norris had a point, to many whines on here are down to bad piloting and people thinking there uber airplane should get them out of trouble, and when they can't shoot something down, its the planes fault, not there own.

Kimura--3.remember to 15+ sides whining about things like ineffective Pony elevators, ineffective 0.5, P-38 with super boost, unsync 0.5" and other strange stuff before finger-pointing to Euro whiners.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Excuse me but could you guys miss my point or take out of context what I said anymore than just dont say this when a new patch comes out :



New patch --The 190 F/M & D/M is now fubar. Because:
__________________________________________________ ____
Bartolomeo_ita Posted Tue October 25 2005 08:04
quote:
"happened becouse some yankee cried"
__________________________________________________ ____


And this :

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Vrabac Posted Tue October 25 2005 08:11
quote:
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add )
Muahaha, indeed. Once on WC I had a mustang on my six, and I got so desperate that I started scissoring at below 300kmh... and in the end i killed him. Was it his fault? Nooooo, it was the overmodelled 190.
__________________________________________________ ________________________




Didn't Hristo get banned for inflammatory remarks such as this concerning the WC K/D ratio and the supposed superiority of german A/C ?

I think it is problematic to use WC stats as justifcation for ANY aircraft's superiority in AEP/PF when it is known to have flight model inaccuracies; ie- 109 prop pitch exploit/190 concrete D/M (4.01)

The 109 prop pitch exploit has been around since FB but recent patches really enhanced this feature.

By the way Kimura;
the P38L engines are not over-boosted but Allison factory specs, according to Oleg all wing mounted .50cals were already un-synced and the Pony elevator was said to be hyper sensitive not ineffective.

When a new patch comes out and there is a specific problem(s) with it, I do not automaticaly blame the other side for this problem and it is troubling when this occurs. I hope you understand what I am saying here.
I also believe in fair representation of all aircraft in AEP/PF.


__

Codex1971
10-27-2005, 02:36 AM
Can anyone provide "real" documents about th FW's corner speed? Any model will do.

Vrabac
10-27-2005, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Wolfmondo-Don't label everyone who's a 'euro' as some unobjective blue whiner. In the same token I could label yourself as a Red Ameriwhiner, bet you don't like that.At least some of us bother to fly both sides and step outside this red vs blue BS attitude that this whole community seems to think there is. Norris had a point, to many whines on here are down to bad piloting and people thinking there uber airplane should get them out of trouble, and when they can't shoot something down, its the planes fault, not there own.

Kimura--3.remember to 15+ sides whining about things like ineffective Pony elevators, ineffective 0.5, P-38 with super boost, unsync 0.5" and other strange stuff before finger-pointing to Euro whiners.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Excuse me but could you guys miss my point or take out of context what I said anymore than just dont say this when a new patch comes out :



New patch --The 190 F/M & D/M is now fubar. Because:
__________________________________________________ ____
Bartolomeo_ita Posted Tue October 25 2005 08:04
quote:
"happened becouse some yankee cried"
__________________________________________________ ____


And this :

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Vrabac Posted Tue October 25 2005 08:11
quote:
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
It had too high a k/d ratio at Warclouds (the true representation of aerial warfare, I might add )
Muahaha, indeed. Once on WC I had a mustang on my six, and I got so desperate that I started scissoring at below 300kmh... and in the end i killed him. Was it his fault? Nooooo, it was the overmodelled 190.
__________________________________________________ ________________________




Didn't Hristo get banned for inflammatory remarks such as this concerning the WC K/D ratio and the supposed superiority of german A/C ?

I think it is problematic to use WC stats as justifcation for ANY aircraft's superiority in AEP/PF when it is known to have flight model inaccuracies; ie- 109 prop pitch exploit/190 concrete D/M (4.01)

The 109 prop pitch exploit has been around since FB but recent patches really enhanced this feature.

By the way Kimura;
the P38L engines are not over-boosted but Allison factory specs, according to Oleg all wing mounted .50cals were already un-synced and the Pony elevator was said to be hyper sensitive not ineffective.

When a new patch comes out and there is a specific problem(s) with it, I do not automaticaly blame the other side for this problem and it is troubling when this occurs. I hope you understand what I am saying here.
I also believe in fair representation of all aircraft in AEP/PF.


__

Well, WC K/D ratios don't mean much. Why? Because for example I get that P51 on my 6 and he ends up dead. What does it prove? That 190 is ovemodelled at low-speed handling and manouvering or that the guy simply made a mistake? So there it is, +1 for 190's K/D. Woah. Than that guy can come here and say "Yesterday I was chasing a 190 on WC, and than he did some crazy scissors using his overmodelled roll rate, and killed me". And? WC in general has a great majority of guys who just fly around asking to get killed. Online at one moment, that is. So it proves nothing. And if really WC K/D ratio was what made the changes as it was proposed by NorrisMcWhirter in a humorous way, than I call it hilarious and choose to use my god-given right to laugh at it. Because it's funny. Simple as that.

Also, the fact that people make claims based on ANY DF server is also funny. On all DF servers, disparity of skill is huge. HUGE. Not only that, but plane preferance is also an issue of skill. A not experienced LW player will probalby prefer 109, because it's undisputably a much easier plane to fly than 190. So in average you will have better pilots in 190s. So any further discussion about plane's qualities in such environment is poinltess.


It is really quite disturbing to read this type of inflammatory B.S. from our euro blue flyers anytime changes have been made. As you can see above I agree with Ice about the 190 DM and I cant think of any red pilots who wouldn't.

I don't care if you are American (I guess you are, judging by the "euro" thing), and I don't remember mentioning Americans anywhere in my previous posts. Also, I didn't mention DM at all in the post so I don't see your point. I just gave the WC remark, and now explained why.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 05:00 AM
Mods! I need banning - I mentioned WC stats in a post. What's worse is that I don't think the sarcasm got across even when complimented with a wink.

BS[S]:
If Tagert's graphs are to be believed, the 190 is undermodelled in roll except at very low speeds...and no one really operates a 190 at very low speed, do they?

The 190 was also known for making it back to base with cylinders shot out. Radials are, by nature, more robust - i.e. the P47 lump doesn't hold the monopoly on engine robustness.

And, let's face it, if a lot of things were modelled properly, this game would be entirely different for a lot of people. Perhaps the P38's engines should be a bit less robust, like the P51 or 109, for example - after all, while we have our 'generalisation' hats on, they're only 'liquid cooled lumps'.

Ta,
Norris

Vrabac
10-27-2005, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Mods! I need banning - I mentioned WC stats in a post.

And you just did it again! That's it, I'm reporting this post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 05:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

imo the armour plate has been put in the wrong place.

the engine on the 190 took VAST amounts of ammo to kill when i last tested it, so im thinking the armour plate for the rear has been mis placed on the nose. hence the get hit in the bum and leak fuel like a pr0n star having a enema.

ofcourse it happens in the ta152 and dora i guess (havent flown that)

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 07:28 AM
BS[S]:
If Tagert's graphs are to be believed, the 190 is undermodelled in roll except at very low speeds...and no one really operates a 190 at very low speed, do they?


heh I find this funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. now its OK to use Tagerts graphs to point out errors with German planes. but when he used graphs to point out the bad climb rates of the 38's he got hammered. cmon ppl there is NO PROOF of how tough the DM was on the 190, all we have is pilot accounts and we hear time and time again " you can't trust pilot accounts " we hear about the dozen or so times the FW and the 47 made it home with 200 rounds in it, but how many times have you hear of the single round that took it down. you dont and do you know why? BECAUSE THE PILOT IS DEAD he never made it back to base. I cant count the times my 38 has been on fire, is that incorrect also? or why is it most everytime I lose a control surface it my elevator and not my rudder or ailerons. Oleg has stated that the DM was not changed only the fuel leak bug. you've all gotten so used to and been flying for so long your fortress of solitude that you've forgotten what it was like to fly something that takes damage and shows it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

stubby
10-27-2005, 07:45 AM
you guys piss, moan and cry more than the 9 year old girls soccer team I'm coaching. Keep it up, it's quite entertaining http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
there is NO PROOF of how tough the DM was on the 190

Hmm...just a page ago I say British document, stating there is no way Fw190 could be set on fire by mg hits. On the same page I saw result of in-game test where Fw190 appeares to be as easy to light up by mg hits as Zero.

Everything is just perfect, be sure! After all Oleg is, and Im not an aeronautical engineer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 08:19 AM
well reading that document unless I missed it somewhere, they didnt do testing, from what I can glean from it, it appears that this was what they determined from a visual inspection of the aircraft. if thats the case that hardly proves anything, it is purely an opinion at that point not based on fact but an educated guess. an experienced educated guess but a guess none the less. and if it was tested how many times once?

Chuck_Older
10-27-2005, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
there is NO PROOF of how tough the DM was on the 190

Hmm...just a page ago I say British document, stating there is no way Fw190 could be set on fire by mg hits. On the same page I saw result of in-game test where Fw190 appeares to be as easy to light up by mg hits as Zero.

Everything is just perfect, be sure! After all Oleg is, and Im not an aeronautical engineer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Impossible to light on fire with machine gun rounds?


I don't care whose report it is, and I don't care if it's from the war, and I don't care who made it.

That document cannot be right. What everyone assumes is that every document from WWII is 100% correct and no errors were made when the document was compiled. You're trying to ask me to beleive that the report is the official and unquestionable proof for now and forever that this is fact. I don't beleive it. People thought the sound barrier was impossible to break at one time, too. I'm sure many documents between the wars were written on the subject stating that it couldn't be done. SO if I post one of those documents, does that prove the sound barrier was never broken?

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 08:43 AM
Ignorants opinions on breaking soundbarrier or shape of Earth have little to do with fact, that Fw190 tanks appearently sealed immediately after they were penetrated by mg projectile.

And even if dismiss that report, should we just conclude that Oleg is right modelling a plane with self-sealing tanks IRL to be about as flammable as one which had tanks with no protection? I remain unconvinced...

But Olegs seems to share the view on errors in certain WW2 documents and need to dismiss them: Yak-3 pilots manual, which prohibits to dive faster than 650kmhIAS is perfect example. Sometimes he even dismisses any source but his imagination or perhaps wishes, as in case of "1942" MiG-3U.

Be sure.

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 09:12 AM
this is not a jab at any engineers here but things do not always work as designed,the Auto industry is a prime example, manufaturers design vehicles, and with todays modern computers you would think they would be much more accurate than in the 1940's, that being said they still crash test HUNDREDS of cars every year to find out if the car functions as designed. many MANY times they do not and they need to go back and redesign. how can you take as gospel a 1940's "TEST" that wasnt a test at all? it was an engineers opinion on how things should work. Prime example, the world trade centers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner and we all know how that turned out, not once but twice. just to think that in this particular "test" that the tanks sealed "every time" and that it would be the same on every aircraft is insane

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
BS[S]:
If Tagert's graphs are to be believed, the 190 is undermodelled in roll except at very low speeds...and no one really operates a 190 at very low speed, do they?


heh I find this funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. now its OK to use Tagerts graphs to point out errors with German planes. but when he used graphs to point out the bad climb rates of the 38's he got hammered. cmon ppl there is NO PROOF of how tough the DM was on the 190, all we have is pilot accounts and we hear time and time again " you can't trust pilot accounts " we hear about the dozen or so times the FW and the 47 made it home with 200 rounds in it, but how many times have you hear of the single round that took it down. you dont and do you know why? BECAUSE THE PILOT IS DEAD he never made it back to base. I cant count the times my 38 has been on fire, is that incorrect also? or why is it most everytime I lose a control surface it my elevator and not my rudder or ailerons. Oleg has stated that the DM was not changed only the fuel leak bug. you've all gotten so used to and been flying for so long your fortress of solitude that you've forgotten what it was like to fly something that takes damage and shows it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What will most amuse me is the time (and it will come) that you support something with a graph or pilot account. Well, after all, they're unreliable ...and I agree. Hence my saying 'if Tagert's graphs are to be believed'....

No, I think Oleg should change the P38 engine DM to that of the Mustang/109 and have it where just a couple of hits stops it. They're both liquid cooled so they should be the same. Yes? Good - I'm glad you agree.

Like I said before, 190 pilots have always had to fly like their ride was made of glass because it always has been. One hit is enough to put you out of the action (and when it wasn't fuel leaks, it was gunsights falling off etc) but if you've never flown one a few times, you wouldn't appreciate what I'm talking about.

I've actually begun to fly the P38 a lot more of late, offline and off. Quite frankly, it's as tough as a 190 and so, using your logic, that means the P38 has an incorrect DM also?

Ta,
Norris

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 09:25 AM
So some planes in the game should have self sealing tanks working perfectly every time, while others should have them never working, as if those tanks were not protected!?
What is unclear here!?

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I've actually begun to fly the P38 a lot more of late, offline and off. Quite frankly, it's as tough as a 190 and so, using your logic, that means the P38 has an incorrect DM also?

Ta,
Norris

sure thing if its as tough as a 190 and so using your logic, I'm all for making the P-38 tougher - I'm glad you agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
10-27-2005, 09:37 AM
Wow, the thread has come down do posturing for DF server stats. It seems the gamers just want any advantage they can find, history means nothing to them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I've actually begun to fly the P38 a lot more of late, offline and off. Quite frankly, it's as tough as a 190 and so, using your logic, that means the P38 has an incorrect DM also?

Ta,
Norris

sure thing if its as tough as a 190 and so using your logic, I'm all for making the P-38 tougher - I'm glad you agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, make it so it doesn't have any fuel leaks that cause you to have no fuel after 2 mins.

Oh sorry..it doesn't already.

Norris

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
So some planes in the game should have self sealing tanks working perfectly every time, while others should have them never working, as if those tanks were not protected!?
What is unclear here!?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif because NOTHING works everytime and why should some planes have self-sealing tanks that work everytime when some have self-sealing tanks dont work at all, how is that accurate?????? first off its self sealing. not inpenaterable, which means it gets holes in it, leaks, then seals it self, this is all depending on the size and number of holes. it is not a guarantee that it will not leak but a safety feature, just like the Armored cockpit it no guarantee you wont get takin out by an AP round, unless you want that too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wow, the thread has come down do posturing for DF server stats. It seems the gamers just want any advantage they can find, history means nothing to them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

nah faust just havin fun with the lufties, how soon they forget how they claimed the FW's DM was historically accurate when it would not smoke, leakfuel, or catch fire. everyside whines when they think they lost some advantage or the other side has gained some advanatge. it was Red's time on the last patch, now Blue gets to taste it. its a game it will never be accurate 100% and this thread bantering is all part of that game. just like in Pro sports its all about the trash talking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Chuck_Older
10-27-2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Ignorants opinions on breaking soundbarrier or shape of Earth have little to do with fact, that Fw190 tanks appearently sealed immediately after they were penetrated by mg projectile.

And even if dismiss that report, should we just conclude that Oleg is right modelling a plane with self-sealing tanks IRL to be about as flammable as one which had tanks with no protection? I remain unconvinced...

But Olegs seems to share the view on errors in certain WW2 documents and need to dismiss them: Yak-3 pilots manual, which prohibits to dive faster than 650kmhIAS is perfect example. Sometimes he even dismisses any source but his imagination or perhaps wishes, as in case of "1942" MiG-3U.

Be sure.

So you think I'm saying Oleg is right, everyone else is wrong

My feelings on the DM in this sim, and the accuracy of the document you provide are two, seperate issues

Kocur, maybe you should read my post on page 3

You talk about 'fact', but you also feel comfortable saying "apparently, such and such was the case". You are not swaying me with arguments like that

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
So some planes in the game should have self sealing tanks working perfectly every time, while others should have them never working, as if those tanks were not protected!?
What is unclear here!?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif because NOTHING works everytime and why should some planes have self-sealing tanks that work everytime when some have self-sealing tanks dont work at all, how is that accurate?????? first off its self sealing. not inpenaterable, which means it gets holes in it, leaks, then seals it self, this is all depending on the size and number of holes. it is not a guarantee that it will not leak but a safety feature, just like the Armored cockpit it no guarantee you wont get takin out by an AP round, unless you want that too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me another examples of planes with self-sealing tanks, which suffer from "critical" fuel leak, like Fw190 does.
Give me another example of a plane equipped with self-sealing tanks to be as flammable as Zero under mg fire.

Im not asking for any favouring Fw190. All I want is to see all planes modelled according to the same standards: self sealing tanks didnt work perfectly - fine with me, but let ALL planes have such imperfect tanks, not just one type.

faustnik
10-27-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
it was Red's time on the last patch, now Blue gets to taste it. its a game it will never be accurate 100% and this thread bantering is all part of that game. just like in Pro sports its all about the trash talking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I guess my impression is that ORR is for issues with the sim, not WarClouds trash talk (Doesn't WarClouds have a forum for that?). Anyway, carry on with your gamery.

faustnik
10-27-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

the engine on the 190 took VAST amounts of ammo to kill when i last tested it, so im thinking the armour plate for the rear has been mis placed on the nose.

P1ng,

I looked very closely at the BMW801 DM in 4.01 after you and I tested. The BMW is damaged after 1 or 2 .50 hits. It will start loosing power. With more hits, it will continue to spin visually but, it is not producing and forward thrust, none.

BMW801 Damage NTrack (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190EngineDamage.ntrk)

I like this, the radials were tough and would keep on chugging after being damaged. My problem is with the R-2800, it should be modeled like the BMW801D. The 5hp Briggs & Stratton on my lawnmower is tougher that the R-2800 in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
10-27-2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Give me another examples of planes with self-sealing tanks, which suffer from "critical" fuel leak, like Fw190 does.


F4U.

What else would you like to know?

http://www.aerofiles.com/f4u-nose.jpg

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Give me another examples of planes with self-sealing tanks, which suffer from "critical" fuel leak, like Fw190 does.


F4U.

What else would you like to know?

http://www.aerofiles.com/f4u-nose.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why (so far) only those two? Why not all?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Wow, the thread has come down do posturing for DF server stats. It seems the gamers just want any advantage they can find, history means nothing to them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

nah faust just havin fun with the lufties, how soon they forget how they claimed the FW's DM was historically accurate when it would not smoke, leakfuel, or catch fire. everyside whines when they think they lost some advantage or the other side has gained some advanatge. it was Red's time on the last patch, now Blue gets to taste it. its a game it will never be accurate 100% and this thread bantering is all part of that game. just like in Pro sports its all about the trash talking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny...I never recall saying that the 4.01 190DM was historically accurate. Unless you're talking about someone else, you're making things up.

One thing is for sure. Neither the 4.01 or 4.02 DMs appear to be historically accurate.

And that's why we're having a problem with them.

Ta,
Norris

PS: If the 190 fuel leak is alright in your opinion, and it applies to aircraft with a similar configuration, then it should affect the P38 also. Come on Oleg - make the change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
10-27-2005, 11:17 AM
Surely it's a pretty simple task to work out the leakage rate associated with any given size of hole, and thus to work out what kind of hole would be required to produce a "magic" fuel leak?

For a start, it seems obvious to me that it the hole would have to be near the bottom of the tank...

JtD
10-27-2005, 11:38 AM
It would also need to be about 5x5 inches wide, which is something no 7.62 bullet ever did - and of course it would need to cause one hole of that size in each tank...

The magic bullet that killed JFK is a noob compared to the magic bullets that hit the FW fuel tank.

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
it was Red's time on the last patch, now Blue gets to taste it. its a game it will never be accurate 100% and this thread bantering is all part of that game. just like in Pro sports its all about the trash talking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I guess my impression is that ORR is for issues with the sim, not WarClouds trash talk (Doesn't WarClouds have a forum for that?). Anyway, carry on with your gamery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
hrm funny I dont once remember mentioning Warclouds in this thread. you MUST be confusing me with someone else <cough> Hristo <cough>

ColoradoBBQ
10-27-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Give me another examples of planes with self-sealing tanks, which suffer from "critical" fuel leak, like Fw190 does.


F4U.

What else would you like to know?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why (so far) only those two? Why not all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the tough planes have the bad fuel leak now. I've got them on P-47, F6F, B-25 and even on a P-40. In my opinion, the fuel leak has nothing on the fuel tank but its represents a busted fuel line.

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 11:57 AM
Funny...I never recall saying that the 4.01 190DM was historically accurate. Unless you're talking about someone else, you're making things up.

never said you did but some on this forum have


One thing is for sure. Neither the 4.01 or 4.02 DMs appear to be historically accurate.

nope they arent and never will be. because each and everyone here has a different idea of what is historically accurate. and that goes for every plane in the game. we all need to remember that there is only so much you can do with this game, we cannot bacause of the engine limitations model in DM randomness or FM randomness, it is not possible, so Oleg "BEST GUESS'S" what is accurate, there is no other way to do it, some of here want our planes to meet the best standards possible on EVERY plane we fly. do you really think it was like that in RL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif there are some things we have good information that we can approximate, ROC, Turn times, Dive speeds. but a damage model is not one of them, having been an Autobody man for 25 years I can tell you that no two accidents are the same NEVER, and I have seem some bizzare things over those 25 years that have left me scratching my head saying HTH did that happen, the same this is true with a DM on an aircraft, to think that ever plane will act EXACTLY the same way everytime is Naieve.

faustnik
10-27-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
you MUST be confusing me with someone else <cough> Hristo <cough>

No, I am not confusing you with or comparing you to a known cheat, in any way shape or form..

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
you MUST be confusing me with someone else <cough> Hristo <cough>

No, I am not confusing you with or comparing you to a known cheat, in any way shape or form.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry thats not what I was trying to imply

faustnik
10-27-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I can tell you that no two accidents are the same NEVER, and I have seem some bizzare things over those 25 years that have left me scratching my head saying HTH did that happen, the same this is true with a DM on an aircraft, to think that ever plane will act EXACTLY the same way everytime is Naieve.

What we do have in the case of the Fw190 and R-2800 are consistent historical accounts and, in the case of the Fw190, actual tests done on the vulnerability of the aircraft. These give us a general outline of the durability of the aircraft. Using these, we can compare this to the DM effects in the sim and hopefully adjust the predictable DMs in the sim to more closely match the historical accounts and tests.

For instance, in 4.01 the Fw190 would never catch fire. From historical accounts and tests we know this was not likely. So, we sent tracks from the sim and historical tests and accounts to 1C and adjustments were made. In 4.02, the Fw190's fuel tank is ignited by a single burst from any caliber round. From actual historical tests we know this is unlikely. We should ask for further adjustments.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 12:20 PM
^ what he said.

In the absence of other information, you'd have to say that those reports are the best estimate.

Ta,
Norris

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
From actual historical tests we know this is unlikely. We should ask for further adjustments.

agreed.

faustnik
10-27-2005, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:


agreed.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

HeinzBar
10-27-2005, 12:42 PM
S!,
I couldn't agree more w/ you Faustnik. It seems that this room has become nothing more than another version of GD with gamers trying to get the upper hand over the other side (us vs them). So now, Red has the advantage over Blue in 4.02 because of bogus FW's DM. In 4.01, it was Blue that had the advantage over Red in regards to the FW's DM.

Right now, I'm back to flying 3.04 campaigns. This allows me to avoid both problems found in 4.01/4.02 and still enjoy the game. While the FW's guns in 3.04 are no where near the power houses they are in 4.01+, they still do the job just fine. And, since I'm flying more eastern front scenerios, I believe the loadout is correctly modeled anyhow. So, like many here that avoided flying online due to their personal thoughts/beliefs concerning the 4.01 patch, I'll continue to fly 3.04 campaigns offline w/an occasional online flight while I patiently wait for the next, 'correct' patch.


sigh,
HB

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 12:48 PM
Oleg "BEST GUESS'S" what is accurate, there is no other way to do it,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Let me give some examples of those Oleg's guesses:
Oleg guessed that Yaks were inflammable, he also guessed Yak-3 pilots manual was wrong about Vne=650kmh, so he INcreaced it by at least 100kmh, than he guessed P.11c pilots manual was wrong too about Vne=696kmh, so DEcreaced it by like 200kmh. Than he guessed that Fw190 would lose 1/3 lift in wing with like 5 holes of total area of 0,12m^2, but guessed also that wooden wing planes with wing covered with holes after large number of 20mm HE hits would have its handling unchanged. He also guessed that no matter what were changes in P51 ammo boxes covers design, which were also replaced in ALL P-51D's within a WEEK worldwide, and changes in control system, the type still lost wings in high speed manouvering, but guessed also that planes with wooden wings would never lose them, no matter gmax>6g. Then he guessed they didnt care about faulty functionning of B-20 cannons until as late as spring 1945 and secretly replaced ShVAKS in three cannon La-7s of 1944 with B-20 anyway. He guessed also that 21s turn time of Yak-3 stated in Russian books based on SOVIET data is just wrong and that 16s fits better. Than he guessed Vals were using diesel fuel, so were so much less flammable and generally much more durable than contemporary A6M2. Than he guessed that actually entire Il-2 airframe was armoured and they were lost 1/18,5 sorties because of minor quality problems which were rare, accidental and not worth modelling. He also guessed that after they thought of designing MiG-3U in february 1943, flying prototype and producing all 6 MiG-3Us in spring/summer 1943, they travelled back in time to 1942, so MiG-3U was actually 1942 plane. Recently he guessed that Spitfire gear was made of clay, unlike titanium Bf109 gear. He guessed long time ago that generally speaking fabric and plywood are MUCH more durable materials than duraluminium, which explains why mix, Fokker-like construction is like 3 times more durable than all-metal, semi-monocoque construction of similar weight (Yak-3vs. A6M5c). His another guess is that in-line engines were actually more difficult to damage than radials. He guessed also, that aerial gunners were all snipers operating OICW's.
Not to mention his guess on refraction being actually post-WW2 invention.
And so on...

BE SURE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 12:53 PM
Looks like you'll be joining me by NOT being on Oleg's Xmas card list.

TA,
norris

Kocur_
10-27-2005, 12:59 PM
Terrible.

Gibbage1
10-27-2005, 01:24 PM
A lot of people in this thread seem to be ignoring WWII guncam footage of flaming 190's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GR142_Astro
10-27-2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
I'll continue to fly 3.04 campaigns offline w/an occasional online flight while I patiently wait for the next, 'correct' patch.


sigh,
HB

Salute Heinz.

Have Sparx host a pre-4.01 Western Front server and I'll be there! That's when the Mustang was last known to be competitive and fun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
10-27-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
A lot of people in this thread seem to be ignoring WWII guncam footage of flaming 190's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Um, who is ignoring them. Obviously with good enough hits any of the fuel tanks in a WW2 fighter should ignite.

What you choose to ignore, for reasons all too obvious, is the tests showing that the Fw190 tanks were not easily ignited by any caliber ammunition like they are in 4.02. The fact that you were so quick to find flaw in the 4.01 Fw190 DM model and are so resistant to examine the 4.02 model is very telling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You are a acting like a gamer.

Viper2005_
10-27-2005, 01:56 PM
Burning drop tank or burning Fw-190?

Sure Fw-190s burn from time to time, but guncamera footage tends to be selected for maximum dramatic effect.

If you want dramatic conclusions you can watch TV documentary.

If you want science, read a paper on the subject.

Personally I prefer science as it tends to be more accurate.

Setting aeroplanes on fire by shooting at them is actually more difficult than most people seem to think.

You need fuel, oxidizer and energy.

Bullets provide energy.

Fuel tanks in aeroplanes fueled with gasoline tend to be well over the rich limit until "empty" (~1% full). Shoot a fuel tank and the fuel will simply stop the bullet, as pointed out in the paper on the effects of gun fire on Faber's 190A3.

If you punch a hole in a fuel tank which has the correct geometry to cause the fuel to spray, you might get ignition of the resulting fuel/air mixture provided that you are within the flammability limits.

This fire will be strictly outside the tank.

There is no rule saying that it has to destroy the aircraft.

There is no rule saying that it has to be dramatic.

There is no rule saying that it won't go out by itself.

In the game, aircraft catch fire and then explode after some time delay.

This is rather unlikely.

Generally speaking, fires will weaken metal structures leading to failure under load (ie burning through wing spars), burn pilots to death, or cause system failures.

Often in flight fires are not as impressive as the ones shown in the game, and can burn for 15 minutes or more, before causing fatal damage, often without the pilot even knowing he's in trouble.

There's a reason for warning panels and "attention getters" in modern aircraft.

This goes for all the aircraft in the game. We should see more unspectacular fires which progressively kill aeroplanes over periods of 15 minutes or so.

Oh and we should also see a fatal coolant leak for the P-51 which runs its intercoolers off the same circuit as the main radiator. One bullet anywhere in the system will take the aircraft down in ~ 15 minutes.

Spitfires and most (if not all) other airraft powered by intercooler equipped Merlins ran the intercooler off a different circuit permitting operations in MS gear after damage to the intercooler circuit.

All in all there should be a little less instant gratification and a few more "walking dead" type kills IMO, especially when attacking aircraft with less powerful weapons.

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 02:00 PM
u can get a "bad" fuel leak in any plane i think, perhaps not il2, but then the tank is really well protected. curiously i once got a leak in a il2 from a mk108 round.

sadly, the il2 isnt that tough anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 02:11 PM
fire was the major aircraft killer from battle damage.

basicaly any warplane is a fire waiting to happen.

parts that arent flamable, few steel parts, few other bits and bobs, but the rest flamable

fuel,oil, hydrolic fluid,ammo,paint, alu, wood, engines, clothes,pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif instruments, tyres

Codex1971
10-27-2005, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:
I'll continue to fly 3.04 campaigns offline w/an occasional online flight while I patiently wait for the next, 'correct' patch.


sigh,
HB

Salute Heinz.

Have Sparx host a pre-4.01 Western Front server and I'll be there! That's when the Mustang was last known to be competitive and fun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uninstalling 4.02 as I type....

I have noticed the turn ability of the A's is porked too, I can't even get the A9 to do 22sec+ flat turn at 400km/h to test corner speed without the thing stalling.

There are a lot of sus elements to this patch that remind me of the 4.0 beta patch

Gibbage1
10-27-2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Um, who is ignoring them. Obviously with good enough hits any of the fuel tanks in a WW2 fighter should ignite.

What you choose to ignore, for reasons all too obvious, is the tests showing that the Fw190 tanks were not easily ignited by any caliber ammunition like they are in 4.02. The fact that you were so quick to find flaw in the 4.01 Fw190 DM model and are so resistant to examine the 4.02 model is very telling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You are a acting like a gamer.

Your so quick to call me biest, that you dont realize that I have NOT said that the FW-190 should be like this.

In this thread, people are saying FW's should be able to take "200+ hits" and "Not be lit on fire" because of some document. Im just saying is I have seen many guncam footages of FW's catching on fire so I call BS to the people that say the fuel tanks were "VERY HARD" to light up.

Also you yourself made a redicules claim that "Any caliber MG" can light up a FW-190 easy. Have you yourself tested this? I dont think so. Last night I was playing with the Hurricane IIB and I found it was almost useless against the FW. I had the target as friendly, and my computer started bogging down with all the arrows. No fire.

faustnik
10-27-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Last night I was playing with the Hurricane IIB and I found it was almost useless against the FW. I had the target as friendly, and my computer started bogging down with all the arrows. No fire.

Then you are not hitting the fuel tanks. I tested this thoroughly:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190DMProblemTRKS.zip

Oh, and I'm not quick to call you biased, I have read your posts for a couple years now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

quiet_man
10-27-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Um, who is ignoring them. Obviously with good enough hits any of the fuel tanks in a WW2 fighter should ignite.

What you choose to ignore, for reasons all too obvious, is the tests showing that the Fw190 tanks were not easily ignited by any caliber ammunition like they are in 4.02. The fact that you were so quick to find flaw in the 4.01 Fw190 DM model and are so resistant to examine the 4.02 model is very telling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You are a acting like a gamer.

Your so quick to call me biest, that you dont realize that I have NOT said that the FW-190 should be like this.

In this thread, people are saying FW's should be able to take "200+ hits" and "Not be lit on fire" because of some document. Im just saying is I have seen many guncam footages of FW's catching on fire so I call BS to the people that say the fuel tanks were "VERY HARD" to light up.

Also you yourself made a redicules claim that "Any caliber MG" can light up a FW-190 easy. Have you yourself tested this? I dont think so. Last night I was playing with the Hurricane IIB and I found it was almost useless against the FW. I had the target as friendly, and my computer started bogging down with all the arrows. No fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The discussion is not about AI but player DM
and my test results are on page 4

when you set the Hurrican to enemy AI and take a 190 yourself, how many hits does it need to get you burning?

quiet_man

HeinzBar
10-27-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Have Sparx host a pre-4.01 Western Front server and I'll be there! That's when the Mustang was last known to be competitive and fun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I"m afraid it would be just you, Codex, and myself, but hey, we would have a bunch of juicey ground targets to ourselves LOL.

Overall, after flying both 4.01 & 4.02, I would have to agree about the p51. It was a much better plane, more fun to fly, and very much the equal to the Dora 9 (especially since this version has the eastern front 151/20 loadout).

HB

BSS_Vidar
10-27-2005, 04:48 PM
Hey HB,

Just a side note... How about some Mk I, II, and IV Brit 'sairs on your server please? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

~S~

Gibbage1
10-27-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by quiet_man:

The discussion is not about AI but player DM
and my test results are on page 4

when you set the Hurrican to enemy AI and take a 190 yourself, how many hits does it need to get you burning?

quiet_man

AI and Humans have the same DM, no exception but static aircraft. In fact, I found the FW-190 no fire bug when firing against AI aircraft.

HeinzBar
10-27-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Hey HB,

Just a side note... How about some Mk I, II, and IV Brit 'sairs on your server please? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

~S~

S! Vidar,
Tell you what, shoot me a private message and we'll talk about it. I'm assuming you're talking about FISC? WC_WF is essentially an open planeset based on western front planeset.

HB

faustnik
10-27-2005, 10:51 PM
Here is a track of 4 Fw190s getting flamed by a HurriII. 1 short burst each:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip

Tooz_69GIAP
10-27-2005, 11:34 PM
Flaming Fokkers!! I love it!!

Fehler
10-27-2005, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
In this thread, people are saying FW's should be able to take "200+ hits" and "Not be lit on fire" because of some document. Im just saying is I have seen many guncam footages of FW's catching on fire so I call BS to the people that say the fuel tanks were "VERY HARD" to light up.

OK, Ill call your Bullsheit. Show me where anyone says 200 hits. You argue based on falicy and embelish everything to fluff up your agenda.

I noticed that when you wanted historical (Good Laugh) I mean, better gaming for yourself, you tested the 190 DM within hours of the 4.01 release. Look back and see how a majority of the people here, including us "Luftwhiners" as you love to call us, backed you on your find.

But now that the DM (Which is still unrealistic) is in your gamer favor, I see no tests. Now, if you can show me a thread where you did 4.02 testing in the same manner that you did 4.01, hours after release, I will gladly eat my words.

So, just to recap... If not in your favor, you find the flaw. If in your favor, you leave it alone.

The 190 should be a robust aircraft.
The rod and cable construction of it's controls were less vulnerable than most of it's contemporaries.
The thin, high wing loading design should be more affected by damage than the thicker low wing designs of say, a Spit or similar aircraft.
It's dual self sealing tanks should be difficult (Not impossible) to set aflame.
It's radial engine, by design, should be more difficult to damage than most aircraft, but IMHO should not be tougher than the P-47's.
Pilot armor afforded great protection from the rear, as most contemporary aircraft.

You see, that is lacking bias. Adhearing to historical accounts. Not the gaming attitude. See the difference?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-28-2005, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Here is a track of 4 Fw190s getting flamed by a HurriII. 1 short burst each:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip

You know, Faustnik, Gibbage has hit on a point above.

Clearly the real life RAF test is flawed as they were firing on a "static aircraft" on the ground, bypassing the usual DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
norris

quiet_man
10-28-2005, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

The discussion is not about AI but player DM
and my test results are on page 4

when you set the Hurrican to enemy AI and take a 190 yourself, how many hits does it need to get you burning?

quiet_man

AI and Humans have the same DM, no exception but static aircraft. In fact, I found the FW-190 no fire bug when firing against AI aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit your right on the DM part, I just switched the 190 to AI at my test setup and it got flamed at the first MG burst (in fact even worse than at any test)

But if you found no fire bug then your not looking for it. If you also look at the PK values (when the plane didn't explode before), <span class="ev_code_RED">compared to any other plane the current 190 is a deathtrap on ground or bomber attack missions</span>

so here again:

plane standing, 3 BA64 (MGs) approaching from 8
they start at 500m and close to 100m

BE AWARE: Controls damage was not counted!
average fire/engine kill & average PK distance in Meters from three tests:

P47_D10__ 125 233
BF109G6__ 150 150
Yak1_____ 162 308
I-16/18___ 200 350
Yak9D____ 212 225
La7______ 212 250
Ki61_Otsu 220 375
La5______ 233 262
Spit_VIII__ 241 -
BF109E4__ 256 -
F4U/A1___ 258 262
P51B_____ 275 -
Spit_Vb___ 305 287
FW190D9__ 358 -
FW190A8__ 366 -
FW190A5__ 408 387
A6M2_____ 416 412
FW190A4__ 425 -
A6M5a____ 450 425

here few tests with 20mm
critical: controls gone, wing off, engine dead, plane burning or exploded

Plane Leak PK critical
190A8_ 450 350 175
190A8_ --- 450 350
190A8_ --- --- 400
P47D10 375 --- 250
P47D10 300 --- 175
P47D10 450 --- 300
Yak9D_ 400 --- 350
Yak9D_ 450 --- 400
Yak9D_ --- 350 350

write me a PM for mission, full data and tracks


quiet_man

BigKahuna_GS
10-28-2005, 05:08 AM
S~


__________________________________________________ _________________________
faustnik Posted Thu October 27 2005 11:17
quote:
What we do have in the case of the Fw190 and R-2800 are consistent historical accounts and, in the case of the Fw190, actual tests done on the vulnerability of the aircraft. These give us a general outline of the durability of the aircraft. Using these, we can compare this to the DM effects in the sim and hopefully adjust the predictable DMs in the sim to more closely match the historical accounts and tests.

For instance, in 4.01 the Fw190 would never catch fire. From historical accounts and tests we know this was not likely. So, we sent tracks from the sim and historical tests and accounts to 1C and adjustments were made. In 4.02, the Fw190's fuel tank is ignited by a single burst from any caliber round. From actual historical tests we know this is unlikely. We should ask for further adjustments.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Rgr that Faust !
Whenever F/M trims occur it is nervous time because you dont know if a global change is in effect or just too harsh a trim has occured. Both the Corsair and Hellcat burn too easily also.

It would be nice to see subtle changes when required that do not go too far in either direction-



__

Vrabac
10-28-2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
you MUST be confusing me with someone else <cough> Hristo <cough>

No, I am not confusing you with or comparing you to a known cheat, in any way shape or form.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry thats not what I was trying to imply </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... Would you care to explain what were you implying than, CUDA?

Faustink, if you thought about me, all I did was explaining why K/D ratios on DF servers can not be taken as accurate representation of planes' qualities.

About 190 catching fire from any calibre, if you can't make it on fire, than you are doing something very wrong. Sure, it takes more bullets from 7.7mm than 12.7, but it's still a short burst, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Takata_
10-28-2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Meshsmoother:
I'm a FW190-A pilot almost exclusively, (...) FW190 when is not a flying-E-bleeding-tank made of bricks, is a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">glass... Cinderella shoe</span>
S~!
Despite being a FW190 addicted, do you think Cinderella's glass shoes are modelled right in common knowledge?
Be sure, Cinderella never worn glass shoes despite what Mr. Disney thought and draw. Look, glass is not a good material for making shoes because of the feet inside :-D. Then, Mr. Disney was a poor french student at school and he mixed two words, one being "verre" = glass with another one, "vair", wilch sound exactly the same. Vair, for shoes as in heraldy, is: "One of the furs of heraldry, composed of a number of pieces cut to resemble little shields, and arranged alternately argent and azure". Now, if everybody think Cinderella had "glass shoes", it looks like typical Hollywood bias, isn't it?

Takata.

BSS_CUDA
10-28-2005, 07:42 AM
Um... Would you care to explain what were you implying than, CUDA?

uhm nope, and what difference does it make to you. my discussion was with faust

Vrabac
10-28-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Um... Would you care to explain what were you implying than, CUDA?

uhm nope, and what difference does it make to you. my discussion was with faust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you mentioned someone that I don't remmeber has posted here, which was rather confusing...

badatflyski
10-28-2005, 10:10 AM
190...very weak structure?....can't fly with 50 0.50holes? looses ailerons due to a 7.62mm shot???

an example of a dammaged 190 back on the strip:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190abim.jpg

Chuck_Older
10-28-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
190...very weak structure?....can't fly with 50 0.50holes? looses ailerons due to a 7.62mm shot???

an example of a dammaged 190 back on the strip:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190abim.jpg


You miss the point by a wide margin, Bada

Sure, the FW 190 could take a lot of punishment

But is that pic you provide an example of the type of punishment the 190 could regularly take and keep flying? Or is that plane one that made it home by some miracle?

This is my opinion, but for every 190 that took that type of damage, a dozen that got shot up the same way simply crashed and burned. What you are showing is the exception to the rule, and all it proves is that that plane made it back home. I doesn't prove anything more than this plane took a beating and came home. All WWII combat aircraft are photographed in a similar state, but few of them in that shape made it back to base

269GA-Veltro
10-28-2005, 10:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190abim.jpg

Gibbage please send this pic to Oleg....and after this, kid for something else.....i'm waiting for the next "kidding patch". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

noace
10-28-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
190...very weak structure?....can't fly with 50 0.50holes? looses ailerons due to a 7.62mm shot???

an example of a dammaged 190 back on the strip:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190abim.jpg

Are you sure that this damage happened in flight and not on the ground? Looks like a solid part of the wing is missing.

And btw to all starting now to disqualify every report of a tough 190 as isolated example, would you pls be so kind and respond the same if similar stories about p47s pop up?! thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

noace

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:04 PM
Lol. Thats a scrach!!! Nothing more. I have pics of a P-38 that a FW-190 RAMMED HEAD ON and the P-38 made it back, the FW did not. How about the Polish P-47 that flew back with 2/3's of his wing missing? He deposited his wing on a chimney during a strafing run and made it back. The wintip is like calling a paper cut a mortal wound. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by noace:
And btw to all starting now to disqualify every report of a tough 190 as isolated example, would you pls be so kind and respond the same if similar stories about p47s pop up?! thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

noace

http://www.cradleofaviation.org/.../p-47/5.html

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:15 PM
Did you get a chance to check out those tracks I posted Gib?

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Did you get a chance to check out those tracks I posted Gib?

No. I must of missed that post somewere in the 8+ pages of this thread. I only have read the first and the last few pages. You post a track of a Hurricane lighting up a FW or something?

Lets clear something up here first. I dont deny the FW is now easy to light up. Im only debating the people who are quoting pilot story's of "200+" hits and posting documents showing the fuel tanks are nearly impossible to hit with .50 cal. I have seen guncam footage of flaming FW's so its not impossible. The F6F and P-47 are ALSO very easy to light with a small spritzing of .50 cal, so why are people only up in arms about the FW-190? Why? Because yall got used too your flying tank. Now that it lights up as easy as a P-47 your all up in arms. Talk about bias.

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Yeah, here is again:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip

Here are most of the other Allied guns of 20mm or less:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190DMProblemTRKS.zip

Check them out and see what you think. Of special interest is the short burst ShKas.

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, here is again:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip


I will check this out once I get home. I know that I did shoot up a few FW's with the Hurri IIB and along with the P-47 they had little effect. If you are able to light them up easy with the Hurricane IIB, then there is something wrong.

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The F6F and P-47 are ALSO very easy to light with a small spritzing of .50 cal, so why are people only up in arms about the FW-190? Why? Because yall got used too your flying tank. Now that it lights up as easy as a P-47 your all up in arms. Talk about bias.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Who started the long thread in ORR about getting the P-47 looked at?

badatflyski
10-28-2005, 04:33 PM
just showed the picture to compare what was and what we have in the game.
Sure it's german, so it HAS to be an exception , a rarity,even maybe a feakshow ...yeah right! it's like the test i posted on page 4..."it's not true, not welle done, it's not made with scientifical methods...etc...etc... it would be "all right" if this was tested on a p47 and not on the Wurger, that's sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

about the burning now, no 0.50cal could even set a 190 on fire if shooting in the tanks! what could happend, that is getting the back tank on fire like the one on a A8!

about the p38, double fuselage, double engine, double chances to stay in the air! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

same thing about p47? gibbage gave ya a link but personally i don't care about the jug, it's like the ugliest airplane of the WW2 for me(except the french bombers)...a 10 tons loaded abnormality ,a perfect example of the develepement of a pre(american)-war airplane
that nobody want to buy cause it was so bad!Even the polish sold more military planes than that!

Gibs wrote something about a polish p47.... i don't remember the PAF using p47 in any of the squadrons!!!... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif maybe a polish-american pilot like Gaby????

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 04:37 PM
Fighter aircraft are interesting things.

They've generally got bags of specific excess power.

They've generally got bags of control authority.

They're generally flown by reasonably well-trained pilots.

Have you ever seen the pictures and videos of the F15I which landed with one wing?

The more SEP you've got to play with, the more damage you can afford.

I don't think that Fw-190 got home via divine intervention. It got home because it had sufficient control authority and excess power to take the hit and keep on trucking.

Simple as that.

The same goes for most combat aircraft.

Of course, the better the pilot the better the chances of survival.

I personally know pilots who have recovered gliders which have suffered involuntary asymmetric airbrake deployment. At ~ 1000 feet, in a K-13. With no drama.

The K-13 is a 15 m glider. It has rather large airbrakes (which deploy both above and below the wing).

Full airbrake drops the L/D from ~27 to ~ 5.

So this guy got back, with a violently reduced L/D with no drama, or damage to the aircraft and he walked away. The guy in the picture had an engine which, unless he's taken a load of hits on the other side, would be capable of producing bags of excess power to get him home.

I don't find the picture very surprising.

That 190 has lost less than 1 m of wing.

Sure it's a bit shot up. But it's still got fully functional ailerons, and a fully functional rudder.

I don't think that his return is especially magical. I'm sure that several pilots I know would be able to pull it off. And given my lack of trust in parachutes, I suspect that I'd probably be prepared to have a go.

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Who started the long thread in ORR about getting the P-47 looked at?

Me, and somehow it got turned into a thread about the FW-190 not being able to light up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Who started the long thread in ORR about getting the P-47 looked at?

Me, and somehow it got turned into a thread about the FW-190 not being able to light up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9031078443/p/1

badatflyski
10-28-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


That 190 has lost less than 1 m of wing.

Sure it's a bit shot up. But it's still got fully functional ailerons, and a fully functional rudder.

I don't think that his return is especially magical. I'm sure that several pilots I know would be able to pull it off. And given my lack of trust in parachutes, I suspect that I'd probably be prepared to have a go.

try in il2FB4.02m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif a (one-1 not two-2)simple hole of a 7mm destabylize the whole plane if getting hit in a wing! i just would like to have something close to reality or something like the "red planes" have !and no such a joke like now, 5 years i play il2 and 5 years the same mistakes obout THIS one particular plane! always to the extremes! (and it's not the only one...like the p51 not able to fly higher than 9000m for example or the F6 having the same symptom with the tanks than the 190 but without loosing the same quantity of fuel...was the hellcat not the strongest navy airplane, much more than the corsair? ???wasn't it build with this goal from the begin?...the 190, it's certain, did! )

Gibbage1
10-28-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

Huh?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9031078443/p/1

Sorry. I forgot about that.

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:53 PM
The Yak-3 used to loose about 60kph from 1 bullet to the wing in IL-2. It isn't a Red vs. Blue thing, it's just a certain a/c models thing.

badatflyski
10-28-2005, 04:57 PM
i know that faust (about the red/blue stuff) but it happens less on the "red" side...of course it's rather normal, cause there are only 2 real fighters on the "blue" (german) side...so if there is a mistake somewhere in the a/C model, it will be on the hole "series" of the plane and not just only one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Codex1971
10-28-2005, 06:18 PM
Yep...4.02 is fubar for the FW...

The PK's in the Dora and fuel leak in all FW's are just way to similar to the 4.0beta patch, I'm sorry but the DM is just too predictable and weak compared to the historical acoounts I have read.

P.S. Heinz I'll see in 3.04.

LBR_Rommel
10-28-2005, 07:44 PM
When this game become GOLD 1C can Change the name to Combat Flight Simulator 4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 11:09 PM
banged up planes are mostly much slow. ive returned in planes that could only do 300 kph or abit more..

yak9s are pretty scary with wing damage tbh

think the 190 fuel tank was vunrable from the underside and sides, probably top aswell, but then so was everyother plane pretty much apart from the il2...

dont often get a bad fuel leak in 109 or give them to players/ai's, actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

incidently, being a devils advicate, that 190 could of just been in a taxi'ing accident http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ive seen/read stories about similer damage in lots of places. that damage didnt effect the p40s handling much, aprently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-29-2005, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Have you ever seen the pictures and videos of the F15I which landed with one wing?


There is a real video of that plane landing w/o the starboard wing? Not doctored?

Even given somehow the ability to tilt the whole thing to center on the wing and fly
sideways or whatever, how would it touch down and proceed to roll?

Some people like their reputations too much and use them as part of their national
defense. Israel has done it before. I have nothing against them but I don't buy
the picture and story I've seen.

BSS_CUDA
10-29-2005, 12:10 AM
the F15 landing wihtout a wing is fact. the F15 fuselage is designed in the shape of a lifting body (see NASA) as long as they kept the speed up the plane was flyable.

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html


even with photos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
10-29-2005, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, here is again:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip

Here are most of the other Allied guns of 20mm or less:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190DMProblemTRKS.zip

Check them out and see what you think. Of special interest is the short burst ShKas.

OK. I must appologize. I did not check out your recordings, but did my own test. 8FW's. 4 A8's and 4 D9's, all 8 lit up with only a few .303 rounds from dead 6. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Yes, there is something very wrong with that.

But I still call BS to people who think that the FW-190's fuel tanks were invulnerable to fire. Again, I have seen a lot of guncam footages of burning FW's to prove that they are indeed vulnerable to .50's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-29-2005, 03:48 AM
No one is saying that it's invunerable so stop trying to twist it. Although I fully realise there is no point is asking that because you obviously have your own agenda.

What is being said is that the FW enjoyed a relatively robust configuration with seperate tanks and decent self sealing capability which is backed up by an official report. I have no doubt they will catch fire but I doubt it's as often as in the 'cherry-picked' guncan sequences you are touting as being the absolute guide and which we know are mostly propaganda.

I wonder why VVS aircraft don't share this affliction? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

luftluuver
10-29-2005, 04:16 AM
How many other a/c light up like a Roman Candle as the 190 does now?

The P-51 should with its fuselage tank.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Fighter aircraft are interesting things.

They've generally got bags of specific excess power.

They've generally got bags of control authority.

They're generally flown by reasonably well-trained pilots.

Have you ever seen the pictures and videos of the F15I which landed with one wing?

The more SEP you've got to play with, the more damage you can afford.

I don't think that Fw-190 got home via divine intervention. It got home because it had sufficient control authority and excess power to take the hit and keep on trucking.

Simple as that.

The same goes for most combat aircraft.

Of course, the better the pilot the better the chances of survival.

I personally know pilots who have recovered gliders which have suffered involuntary asymmetric airbrake deployment. At ~ 1000 feet, in a K-13. With no drama.

The K-13 is a 15 m glider. It has rather large airbrakes (which deploy both above and below the wing).

Full airbrake drops the L/D from ~27 to ~ 5.

So this guy got back, with a violently reduced L/D with no drama, or damage to the aircraft and he walked away. The guy in the picture had an engine which, unless he's taken a load of hits on the other side, would be capable of producing bags of excess power to get him home.

I don't find the picture very surprising.

That 190 has lost less than 1 m of wing.

Sure it's a bit shot up. But it's still got fully functional ailerons, and a fully functional rudder.

I don't think that his return is especially magical. I'm sure that several pilots I know would be able to pull it off. And given my lack of trust in parachutes, I suspect that I'd probably be prepared to have a go.

I see. So since your opinion is more vociferously stated than mine, you are right, and I am wrong

Bottom line: taking damage to a lift generating surface in an aircraft creates a very dangerous situation. In that photo:

Is the wing really shortened by all that much, or can I see a wingtip still present at the leading edge? If so, then the plane isn't as nearly damaged as I had thought. I think maybe the picture is decpetive due to the perspective the pic was taken from. It appears at first glance to be missing half a wing, but now I am not so sure it's even missing a whole wingtip

This FW 190 has no onboard computer making control input correction for the pilot, so modern aircraft landing with one wing do not convince me of much in this situation we are talking about, in the 1940s

BSS_CUDA
10-29-2005, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
No one is saying that it's invunerable so stop trying to twist it. Although I fully realise there is no point is asking that because you obviously have your own agenda.

Ta,
Norris


Originally posted by kocur: Hmm...just a page ago I say British document, stating there is no way Fw190 could be set on fire by mg hits

uhm seems that kocur did and several times if I remember, so lets get off the agenda thing it seems like there is more than 1 going on here

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
How many other a/c light up like a Roman Candle as the 190 does now?

The P-51 should with its fuselage tank.


Why is the P-51s fuselage tank especially flammable, exactly? You seem to indicate it's location makes it especially vulnerable? Why? Do you feel it had no self sealing tanks or that a mid fuselage location is more vulnerable than in front of the pilot's intrument panel?


The state of the P-51 model in the sim does not dictate the FW 190's damage model. Slinging mud at the Mustang doesn't prove anything about the 190

Kocur_
10-29-2005, 07:25 AM
Is the wing really shortened by all that much, or can I see a wingtip still present at the leading edge? If so, then the plane isn't as nearly damaged as I had thought. I think maybe the picture is decpetive due to the perspective the pic was taken from. It appears at first glance to be missing half a wing, but now I am not so sure it's even missing a whole wingtip

What is lost is wing tip (seperate element, kinda like in Spitfirs) and part of stressed structure: from tip to the next rib (No14). See that metal strip bent up? Its one of the skin stiffners and the wing was shortened by bit less than two lenghts of that bent up strip. Rib No15, to which wing tip was attached was oblique, thats why we can see part of leading edge with front end of rib No14. About 0,5m+ of wing was lost. My guess: by 37mm(soviet)/40mm Bofors hit.

But thats no the issue here. What I say is, and I guess others do too, its simply not fair that only one type of planes loses THAT much lift from few mg holes, while there are some that do not suffer at all in handling from holes in wings, even after dozen of 20mm HE. Yaks are at one extreme, Fw190 on the other and everything else is in between. Its just not fair. Let there be simply equal standards in modelling of damage influence on handling.

luftluuver
10-29-2005, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Why is the P-51s fuselage tank especially flammable, exactly? You seem to indicate it's location makes it especially vulnerable? Why? Do you feel it had no self sealing tanks or that a mid fuselage location is more vulnerable than in front of the pilot's intrument panel?

The state of the P-51 model in the sim does not dictate the FW 190's damage model. Slinging mud at the Mustang doesn't prove anything about the 190
A little touchy are we Chuckie with the mentioning of your sacred cow? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif If you want to call it mud slinger, go ahead. What is good for one a/c should be good for all a/c. The reason I choice the P-51 was that it fuselage tank position is very close to the 190s. Just to keep the knot in your knickers at a respectable size, does the 109 have the same problem as the 190?

Now if you were a little bit more knowledgable you would know that a partially fuel tank is more likely to ignite than a full one. The P-51 fuselage tank was only ~ 1/3 full when engaging LW a/c over Germany.

Kocur_
10-29-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
No one is saying that it's invunerable so stop trying to twist it. Although I fully realise there is no point is asking that because you obviously have your own agenda.

Ta,
Norris


Originally posted by kocur: Hmm...just a page ago I say British document, stating there is no way Fw190 could be set on fire by mg hits

uhm seems that kocur did and several times if I remember, so lets get off the agenda thing it seems like there is more than 1 going on here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see if I read it the same way you do. I see:
"Percentage chance that a hit in the area is effective" _ "A.P.&B <span class="ev_code_RED">0.303</span>''" _ "Tanks" _"Fire"_ "0" (ZERO)

and

"A.P.&B <span class="ev_code_RED">0.303</span>Mk.VII''" _ "Tanks" _ "Loss of fuel from tank" _ "Negligible"


Now please quote me saying that Fw190 or its tanks or any plane or their tanks are invunerable.
What I said was "I saw British document, stating there is no way Fw190 could be set on fire by <span class="ev_code_RED">mg</span> hits.". And it still states the same for me as far as fuel tanks are concerned, since the document says that they established that probability of setting Fw190 fuel tank on fire by .303mg is zero percent and fuel leak caused by that caliber projectile is negligible.
Of course British writing that could have been so very wrong, and Oleg knows better...

P.S. Please correct me if Im wrong, but arent you the one, who not so long ago said something like ".50 projectile was supersonic unlike 20mm"?

badatflyski
10-29-2005, 07:49 AM
kocur : http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190wing.jpg

Kocur_
10-29-2005, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
kocur : http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/190wing.jpg

Niiice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I have is a decent book with detailed drawning of Fw190 "Tragwerksystem". But OMG! What BS I posted! For I didnt mention 14a rib! Aaaarggg! Shame on me for posting such an undetailed information! Will you ALL experts forgive me? Ever?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

badatflyski
10-29-2005, 08:14 AM
of course kocur, you're forgiven http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ps;had to reduce the size, it comes from a 7000on6000 pixels scheme...sorry if not so clear as it should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

ps2: buy the CD from Whiteonefundation,and please support them! it has a lot of original FW drawings...wonderfull, gonna make some poster for the living room http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

geetarman
10-29-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I couldn't agree more w/ you Faustnik. It seems that this room has become nothing more than another version of GD with gamers trying to get the upper hand over the other side (us vs them). So now, Red has the advantage over Blue in 4.02 because of bogus FW's DM. In 4.01, it was Blue that had the advantage over Red in regards to the FW's DM.

Right now, I'm back to flying 3.04 campaigns. This allows me to avoid both problems found in 4.01/4.02 and still enjoy the game. While the FW's guns in 3.04 are no where near the power houses they are in 4.01+, they still do the job just fine. And, since I'm flying more eastern front scenerios, I believe the loadout is correctly modeled anyhow. So, like many here that avoided flying online due to their personal thoughts/beliefs concerning the 4.01 patch, I'll continue to fly 3.04 campaigns offline w/an occasional online flight while I patiently wait for the next, 'correct' patch.


sigh,
HB

I'm beginning to lean that way too re: 3.04

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Why is the P-51s fuselage tank especially flammable, exactly? You seem to indicate it's location makes it especially vulnerable? Why? Do you feel it had no self sealing tanks or that a mid fuselage location is more vulnerable than in front of the pilot's intrument panel?

The state of the P-51 model in the sim does not dictate the FW 190's damage model. Slinging mud at the Mustang doesn't prove anything about the 190
A little touchy are we Chuckie with the mentioning of your sacred cow? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif If you want to call it mud slinger, go ahead. What is good for one a/c should be good for all a/c. The reason I choice the P-51 was that it fuselage tank position is very close to the 190s. Just to keep the knot in your knickers at a respectable size, does the 109 have the same problem as the 190?

Now if you were a little bit more knowledgable you would know that a partially fuel tank is more likely to ignite than a full one. The P-51 fuselage tank was only ~ 1/3 full when engaging LW a/c over Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the old trick, adding an "ie" to my "name". Sure to make children turn red and splutter, as I recall from the gradeschool play-yard. Also typically used when somebody has nothing to say if I recall correctly.

I hope you recall, as you read this, that you are the one who decided to start comments on a personal level.

Firstly, my name is Chris. That rhymes with "p!ss" by the way, in case you have trouble with pronounciation, or need a head-start on a new insult. So Chuckie...doesn't bug me. Not my name, you see. Nice try...for a 10 year old. If you are older, that's pathetic, go buy an insult book

Charles Older was a P-40 and P-51 pilot, but he was most noted for leaving the USMC and joining the Flying Tigers, flying export model P-40s for China. Later in life he was the presiding Judge at the Charles Manson trial.

I am not one of the "rah-rah, P-51 r0xx0rs ur b0xx0rs punk-azz!1!!" fools, and I don't complain how it's being 'porked', and, if you look it up with the Search function, you'll see I have hotly stated many times that there's nothing wrong with the .50 cals, even in a 4 gun Mustang. You act as if I'm one of the "Red pwns, deal with it or STFU" circus, which I am demonstarbly not. In fact, I'm working on a Bf 109/FW 190/ME 163/ME 262 campaign right now and loving it. I'll be flying Emils over Kent in BoB as much as a Spit, maybe more

So sacred cow? Blow it out your @ss, I'm sure it would fit. You don't know me or my opinions, obviously, but you pretend that you do. Isn't this personal comment BS fun? Hey, I can make fun of you, so I must be right and you must be wrong, hey hey. I'm sure you don't mind me doing this back to you, since it's OK with you to stoop to this level. What's good for one plane is good for another according to you, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander in the insult arena, right? You'll find I'm both wittier and much, much meaner than you are, boogerlips

I know a lot about the P-51, but if you are implying that I defend the P-51 as being proper the way it is now, I defy you to find any post of mine that says so, and I further defy you to put one more word more in my mouth. So put your money where your mouth is, since you are the one who wants to play this game with me. Search function is right there, go click it

Your choice of the P-51 was based on the similarity to the FW190's tank position...and you tell me that I need to be more knowledgable? Laughable. Your supposition of the tanks behaving similarly is based on the location in the airframe. Great. I see you have really researched this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Now then, you say I need to be more knowledgeable? Well, step up son, School's in. A partially filled tank is more likely to explode for your information. Ever hear of flashpoint and expansion of gasses? Ring any bells? And for your further education, it's the vapor, not the fuel, that burns. That's why you can't dump raw fuel into your car's engine, it has to be atomised. Use your head for something other than a place you get your bullsh!t from before you tell me what I know and what I don't, next time. I love it when folks who have a half-grasp of what they are talking about tell me to learn something. Anything else you want explained to you?

Your attempts to show the P-51 in a bad light to prove the FW 190 has problems in it's damage model are absurd and pathetic. If you had any concrete addition to the discussion and could simply show why the FW 190 DM is wrong, you'd do it. Other people have spent time and effort with ACTUAL evidence, using REAL sources

But you can't so you pull this little sleight of hand: "Well the planes should bhave the same in this regard, Meow, Meow". Yeah, right, Puss'n'boots, the planes should behave the same because you say so? Change your kitty litter, Mr. Mittens, because something stinks. If you had something to add, you'd do it, but instead you try to detract from another unrelated source to prove your point. It proves nothing other than you have nothing to say

We all know that the planes don't use the same damage modelling, and that planes like the FW 190 were included in the sim before planes like the P-51. Even you can remember that far back, I assume. Can you possibly entertain the concept that the two might have differently complex systems? of course not, you know everything already, I forgot

So now that this BS is over, I'm sure you'll kick your cat, or yell at your wife, like a real man. Hey, remember that you were the one who started this personal comment cr@p? Happy now, is this what you wanted? If you feel a need to cry about it more, just PM me about it instead of further embarrassing yourself here

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
How many other a/c light up like a Roman Candle as the 190 does now?

The P-51 should with its fuselage tank.

ki61...

tbh i think we all want is a decently non redicious damage model for teh 190 so we can fly it and not be stupidly vunrable, and so its not a easy kill if we shoot it.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
How many other a/c light up like a Roman Candle as the 190 does now?

The P-51 should with its fuselage tank.

ki61...

tbh i think we all want is a decently non redicious damage model for teh 190 so we can fly it and not be stupidly vunrable, and so its not a easy kill if we shoot it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I just can't accept another plane's perceived weak or strong points as evidence that another plane is right or wrong

luftluuver
10-29-2005, 09:31 AM
My, my Chuckie that was quite the rant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Adding 'ie' was warranted and proved with your rant. Do you have your nitro spray handy? Is 911 on speed dial?

Do you feel better now?

Just a reminder, you were the one that took exception to the P-51 question and got your knickers in a knot when you thought I was slighting the P-51. The P-51 was JUST an example of one a/c. It had nothing to do with a "plane's perceived weak or strong points as evidence that another plane is right or wrong".

Application of DMing should not be selective, which it seems to be with the 190.

faustnik
10-29-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


OK. I must appologize. I did not check out your recordings, but did my own test. 8FW's. 4 A8's and 4 D9's, all 8 lit up with only a few .303 rounds from dead 6. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Yes, there is something very wrong with that.

But I still call BS to people who think that the FW-190's fuel tanks were invulnerable to fire. Again, I have seen a lot of guncam footages of burning FW's to prove that they are indeed vulnerable to .50's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks for re-testing. I'm sure it will be adjusted in the next patch addon. Until then, the Fw190 drivers must stay fast and fly conservatively.

I agree the "invulnerable" to fire makes no sense. As others have said, we need a DM for the Fw190 somewhere between 4.01 and 4.02.

I'm taking a hard look at the P-47, F4U and F6F DMs in 4.02. I'll let you know what I come up with. I really like testing the DMs. The arcade mode makes it interesting to inspect closely and DMs are much easier to understand then FMs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
My, my Chuckie that was quite the rant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Adding 'ie' was warranted and proved with your rant. Do you have your nitro spray handy? Is 911 on speed dial?

Do you feel better now?

Just a reminder, you were the one that took exception to the P-51 question and got your knickers in a knot when you thought I was slighting the P-51. The P-51 was JUST an example of one a/c. It had nothing to do with a "plane's perceived weak or strong points as evidence that another plane is right or wrong".

Application of DMing should not be selective, which it seems to be with the 190.


You really like my knickers that much? Two posts, both about my undies.

I asked you a question about why the fuselage tank was so vulnerable, and you chose to take offense. So don't pull the innocent lambykins cr@p with me, I'm not a fool. You could have replied to my question ay way you liked, but you pulled the grade school BS, so I replied in kind. It's what you asked for, and it's what you got. You want to discuss it rationally? I'm your man. You want to play baby games? I know plenty of little-kid insults, freaky-face. Your call.

I can accept that the FW 190 has an inproper DM in this sim. No question- no plane has a 100% accurate DM in this sim. I just reject a lot of reasons that the DM should be stronger. Like yours. hey, you posted it, not me- the P-51 should burn like a torch, you say, just like the FW 190

But you don't say why. This makes the second time I've asked:

Why should it? The tank location? What about the P-51 makes this tank more or less vulnerable to flame or explosion, exactly?

Professor_06
10-29-2005, 02:41 PM
I hate to see children cry when their toys get broken. Everyone knows it was a FW that shot down the Star Trek Enterprise and killed Captain Kirk using its super reverso plutoniun death ray and invernerable tri-ithium crystal coated gas tanks. Duh. After Germany won the war, its super secret crystal coating was used extensively in everything from vacuum cleaning bags to toasters.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
I hate to see children cry when their toys get broken. Everyone knows it was a FW that shot down the Star Trek Enterprise and killed Captain Kirk using its super reverso plutoniun death ray and invernerable tri-ithium crystal coated gas tanks. Duh. After Germany won the war, its super secret crystal coating was used extensively in everything from vacuum cleaning bags to toasters.

Anti-Federation propaganda. Kirk's brain is kept very much alive in a saline solution and can 'sing' many semi-famous '60s folk songs if you shake the jar just right

WWMaxGunz
10-29-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the F15 landing wihtout a wing is fact. the F15 fuselage is designed in the shape of a lifting body (see NASA) as long as they kept the speed up the plane was flyable.

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html


even with photos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LOL! I especially like the 3rd row left pic just pre-landing!
Left wing, flap down. Rudders straight. Left elevator nearly flat.
No right wing or right stabilizer although pics of the plane on the ground have the right
stab in place.
F15 flying straight and nearly level.
Look at the rudders. You see any control surface canted to address the imbalance of a
wing on one side and no wing on the other?
Lifting body good enough to balance an entire wing with flap down and no need for any
rudder deflection even and the plane flies straight! At under 150mph! Why bother with
wings at all?
Nope, can't be a hoax, it's on the History channel!

Sorry but I've seen better. No way a plane with a wing missing will fly like one without.
And no way a plane without a wing missing will fly like a wing is gone. If you believe
in every picture you see just because it's a picture then.... what can I say?

Yes Cuda, there must be a Santa Claus since I've seen his picture too.

berg417448
10-29-2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the F15 landing wihtout a wing is fact. the F15 fuselage is designed in the shape of a lifting body (see NASA) as long as they kept the speed up the plane was flyable.

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html


even with photos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LOL! I especially like the 3rd row left pic just pre-landing!
Left wing, flap down. Rudders straight. Left elevator nearly flat.
No right wing or right stabilizer although pics of the plane on the ground have the right
stab in place.
F15 flying straight and nearly level.
Look at the rudders. You see any control surface canted to address the imbalance of a
wing on one side and no wing on the other?
Lifting body good enough to balance an entire wing with flap down and no need for any
rudder deflection even and the plane flies straight! At under 150mph! Why bother with
wings at all?
Nope, can't be a hoax, it's on the History channel!

Sorry but I've seen better. No way a plane with a wing missing will fly like one without.
And no way a plane without a wing missing will fly like a wing is gone. If you believe
in every picture you see just because it's a picture then.... what can I say?

Yes Cuda, there must be a Santa Claus since I've seen his picture too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I've read about those one wing F-15 photos before. What I read stated that all of the pictures of the F-15 in the air were created for illustration purposes and only the photos of the F-15 on the ground are real.

AI-1
10-30-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the F15 landing wihtout a wing is fact. the F15 fuselage is designed in the shape of a lifting body (see NASA) as long as they kept the speed up the plane was flyable.

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html


even with photos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LOL! I especially like the 3rd row left pic just pre-landing!
Left wing, flap down. Rudders straight. Left elevator nearly flat.
No right wing or right stabilizer although pics of the plane on the ground have the right
stab in place.
F15 flying straight and nearly level.
Look at the rudders. You see any control surface canted to address the imbalance of a
wing on one side and no wing on the other?
Lifting body good enough to balance an entire wing with flap down and no need for any
rudder deflection even and the plane flies straight! At under 150mph! Why bother with
wings at all?
Nope, can't be a hoax, it's on the History channel!

Sorry but I've seen better. No way a plane with a wing missing will fly like one without.
And no way a plane without a wing missing will fly like a wing is gone. If you believe
in every picture you see just because it's a picture then.... what can I say?

Yes Cuda, there must be a Santa Claus since I've seen his picture too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I've read about those one wing F-15 photos before. What I read stated that all of the pictures of the F-15 in the air were created for illustration purposes and only the photos of the F-15 on the ground are real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...... As can be noted by the lack of jaggies (read: damage) on the pics in flight, compared to pretty jaggies of pics on ground. Sorry Gunz but you've been .... well, outgunned.

Regards

AI-1

Von_Rat
10-30-2005, 01:19 AM
WOW,, i really must be doing somthing wrong with fw190.

i got over 30 kills with it and have only lost 2 fws to enemy planes. both times i got hammered big time.

ive been damaged serveral times and rtb'd and haven't noticed any weakness in dm.

one thing i have noticed is all planes seem to blow up easier.

maybe im just lucky.

Gibbage1
10-30-2005, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:

I've read about those one wing F-15 photos before. What I read stated that all of the pictures of the F-15 in the air were created for illustration purposes and only the photos of the F-15 on the ground are real.

I agree. Im in the entertainment industry and do graphics, and I can see fakes. Its called a "dramatization". #1, they would not of used flaps on only 1 wing. The LAST thing he wanted to do is increase lift on one side. #2, they story says they came in VERY fast and at a shalow angle. Only way to keep the right side from dipping. They landed at 200+MPH. You can see in the photo its a text book landing, with flaps and airbrakes.

Its a fake, but the event is real. P.S. I work on Discovery Channel TV shows. =)

AnaK774
10-30-2005, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
WOW,, i really must be doing somthing wrong with fw190.

i got over 30 kills with it and have only lost 2 fws to enemy planes. both times i got hammered big time.

maybe im just lucky.

Guess youre fighting like you should... dont get shot at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52
10-30-2005, 05:20 AM
It is easier to get shot in FW now compared to 4.01, but I can't put my finger on it. It's in 4.01 I'd turn into Spitfire and if he noticed me and tightened his turn I'd put my nose down and when speed increased I'd roll to the opposite direction and easily extend and possibly make another attack from head-on. In 4.02 it's more like 3.x/2.x thing: you merge in head on spit turns 180 deg and is in guns range...
Change FM makes it more likely for FW to get shot, coupled with Zero DM = porked FW and hordes of happy instant focke killers.

Also I have to admit that in 4.02 I didn't make it home every time I got hit from 6 o'clock. Every time I got that dark smoke trail and in 3 minutes (full tank) I was out of fuel. Also controls damage happens way too often, I mean it's clear from real tests presented earlier and just plain logic that critical controls damage happens unrealistic frequency (although this one isn't focke wulf issue - it's more of a general issue in FB). You'd have to be pretty unlucky to get hit right on the control rods - it's a VERY small target.


Clear indication of faulty DM is that the amount of hits does not matter as one single hit can cause "firehose fuel tank leak" just the same as 20 hits.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-30-2005, 10:55 AM
One hit? Easy to explain away:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus4.gif

Replace men with fuel tanks and voila!

Norris

arrow80
10-30-2005, 01:55 PM
Well Oleg has modelled FW190 probably according to a source like this:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

FW-190 has a lot of vulnerable areas. Pilot is exposed during all but the perfect 12 and 6 o€clock attacks. Fuel tanks are not at all
protected and are located directly under the
pilot. Area in front of the engine housing oil tank and radiator is most vulnerable as well. Engine fan works at extremely high rotations; oil system or fan knocked out will inevitably cause the engine to overheat and flame out or malfunction.

Gibbage1
10-30-2005, 02:07 PM
Interesting page Arrow80.

"FW-190 has a lot of vulnerable areas. Pilot is exposed during all but the perfect 12 and 6 o€clock attacks. Fuel tanks are not at all protected and are located directly under the pilot. Area in front of the engine housing oil tank and radiator is most vulnerable as well. Engine fan works at extremely high rotations; oil system or fan knocked out will inevitably cause the engine to overheat and flame out or malfunction."

Russian sorces are suspect at best though.

faustnik
10-30-2005, 03:19 PM
Ha! Yes, that entire Soviet evaluation is highly suspect. Perhaps they were trying encourage their pilots?

Gibbage1
10-30-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Ha! Yes, that entire Soviet evaluation is highly suspect. Perhaps they were trying encourage their pilots?

I think they were trying too appease Stalin. Saying ANY other aircraft was superior too a Russian aircraft would land you into the Gulag VERY quickly, even if it was the truth. Thats a VERY WELL documented FACT, and thats why I will never trust ANY Russian sources during that time, and well after it.

WWMaxGunz
10-30-2005, 08:31 PM
It's not just about 'hiding' the lift Gib, as unbalancing as that would be.
It's also about the drag of a wing on one side and none on the other.
The plane cannot fly straight and level anywhere near landing speed.
Yessiree, came right in fast (it says 260kph... 150mph or so) and crooked but set down
nicely, the gear held and the plane didn't flip either.

'Dramatisation' pics/vids? Yep they'd have to as there'd be no real ones, period.

And of course the wing was not ripped off in a post-landing accident or by another plane
because we all know that fighter pilots and ground crews are more trustworthy than nuns.

So I hope nobody minds me being skeptical on this. I'd have to see it, how they got away
with it first. I also don't believe that the sound barrier was passed 50+ times in WWII
under varying circumstances that include recollection of instruments, handling and the big
booms reported to have been reported by line grunts when arty fire was totally ruled out.

But I'll tell y'all what. Where I live there's lots of bridges needing toll booths that
I can broker the deeds too. I know who to talk to, don't own em myself but hey everything
has a price. Just send me some up front working capital, I'll get you the biggest, busiest
one. Trust me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

CUJO_1970
10-30-2005, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
My guess: by 37mm(soviet)/40mm Bofors hit.





The FW190 that landed minus 40% of it's left wing was involved in a collision with a Spitfire over Bone harbour on 2 Jan. 1943.

The Spitfire rolled twice and then crashed into the sea after the collision, the FW190 flew home to Sidi Ahmed airfield in Tunisia.

The FW190 was from III./SKG 10, flown by Georg Rischbieter.

You can read more about it in the book Focke-Wulf FW 190 in North Africa.

There are numerous accounts of FW190s taking flak hits to the wings and engines and returning home.

CUJO_1970
10-30-2005, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Until then, the Fw190 drivers must stay fast and fly conservatively.




We do that anyway don't we Faust? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zyzbot
10-30-2005, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's not just about 'hiding' the lift Gib, as unbalancing as that would be.
It's also about the drag of a wing on one side and none on the other.
The plane cannot fly straight and level anywhere near landing speed.
Yessiree, came right in fast (it says 260kph... 150mph or so) and crooked but set down
nicely, the gear held and the plane didn't flip either.

'Dramatisation' pics/vids? Yep they'd have to as there'd be no real ones, period.

And of course the wing was not ripped off in a post-landing accident or by another plane
because we all know that fighter pilots and ground crews are more trustworthy than nuns.

So I hope nobody minds me being skeptical on this. I'd have to see it, how they got away
with it first. I also don't believe that the sound barrier was passed 50+ times in WWII
under varying circumstances that include recollection of instruments, handling and the big
booms reported to have been reported by line grunts when arty fire was totally ruled out.

But I'll tell y'all what. Where I live there's lots of bridges needing toll booths that
I can broker the deeds too. I know who to talk to, don't own em myself but hey everything
has a price. Just send me some up front working capital, I'll get you the biggest, busiest
one. Trust me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Landing speed was given as 260 knots not 260 kph. Quite a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
10-30-2005, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Until then, the Fw190 drivers must stay fast and fly conservatively.




We do that anyway don't we Faust? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, the only way to fly the 190!

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 11:40 PM
hm, id hardly call that 40%, cba to work out how much it actully was...

anyways that russian source makes good sense actully. some of it is pretty generic, like attack from 3 to 9 oclock

cool details on the engine fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

the 190A has easily the toughest engine ingame unless its changed recently. the russian inlines can take hits and keep running, but at vastly reduced power, not enuff to taxi the plane iirec.


btw, goering once threated to shoot udet if the reports he presented of spit and hurri being good planes turned out tobe true/continued http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ill haveto send u a tip and run coop i made fausnik, its actully really challangin, tho i need to fix things like the ai runnin into ground/bulidings..

quiet_man
10-31-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:
Well Oleg has modelled FW190 probably according to a source like this:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

FW-190 has a lot of vulnerable areas. Pilot is exposed during all but the perfect 12 and 6 o€clock attacks. Fuel tanks are not at all
protected and are located directly under the
pilot. Area in front of the engine housing oil tank and radiator is most vulnerable as well. Engine fan works at extremely high rotations; oil system or fan knocked out will inevitably cause the engine to overheat and flame out or malfunction.


FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.

Best position for attacking the FW-190 is from it€s 3 or 9 o€clock.

no, this is not Olegs source, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man

HeinzBar
10-31-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the 190A has easily the toughest engine ingame unless its changed recently. the russian inlines can take hits and keep running, but at vastly reduced power, not enuff to taxi the plane iirec

The toughest engine the game has always been, and continues to be, the p39/63 series. The p38/63 will continue to fly nearly indefinitely while smoking w/o a loss of power. We've seen this since the beginning of the IL2 series. Only after pumping enough ammo into the plane will it catch fire and explode. However, this isn't due to the engine seizing and bursting into flame.

As for the FW's engine, it used to be a very robust engine in nearly every patch, the same could be said for the p47. However, w/ 4.02, the FW has been reduced to nothing more than a welter weight and can absorb less damage than comtemporary inline engines. Typically, the FW prop will continue to spin, unlike the inline engines which freeze in position. What we have is essentially a dead engine...think of it as the prop pitch set to zero.

HB

arrow80
10-31-2005, 01:51 PM
Faustnik: have you alread sent some FW DM bug report to oleg?

quiet_man
10-31-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ill haveto send u a tip and run coop i made fausnik, its actully really challangin, tho i need to fix things like the ai runnin into ground/bulidings..

what annoys me the most about this patch bugs is that Missions get screwed up! You try to ballance the mission to make it intresting for both sides but the very next patch changes everything.

quiet_man

Vrabac
10-31-2005, 03:35 PM
LOL @ that source!

"Comrade Stalin, our planes are greatly superior to enemy in everything. It's easy to shoot down FW190. We are baffeled why do the Germans use that thing at all, it's so pathetic. The reason we have casaulties among pilots is... is... um... aha, it's because pilots think about you all the time, how great and good looking and wise you are, so they get careless and crash into the ground, or one into anther and so on." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But seriously, reading that thing, it's exaclty what we have in the game, minus the "left turn" thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P.S. This is the most hilarious thinhg I ever read:

"I-16s and I-153 have also been using the so-called €œbee hive€ tactic in battle. This tactic calls for all I-16 and I-153 fighters to hold in one unorganized group and maneuver in different directions all at the same time, usually horizontally. In this €œmass€ I-16s and I-153s are much less vulnerable to enemy attacks as any enemy attack on any one fighter will be met by strong fire from several other friendly planes. This tactic also takes any threat off the enemy and leaves initiative completely up to him. Any plane accidentally leaving the €œbee formation€ becomes an immediate prey of the awaiting enemy fighters. If, however, the group of planes is correctly echeloned by altitude, enemy cannot dare to attack the stragglers as they now have protection of other fighters."

or this:

"I-153 fighter should use the same tactics as the I-16. Chaika is incredibly maneuverable; a cautious pilot can be invulnerable to the clumsy Me-109. I-153 can always outturn any opponent, and meet attack from any angle with a full frontal assault. Very often an I-153 will be firing at a Me-109 which is unable to turn at it."

Comrade Stalin, our biplanes are so much better than clumsy german monoplanes that our pilots are commiting mass suicides, that's how boring the fight is to them (and it's a perfectly logical explanation for occasional losses we suffer, altough they are so light they don't really need an explanation)! 109 is so clumsy! Chajka is the best plane ever, and our lead scientists predict they'll be in service well into the seventies. Why would anyone want to produce monoplanes, when they can have our invulnerable Chajkas and use the super-sophisticated bee-hive "tactic"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

anarchy52
11-01-2005, 04:33 PM
The thing that bothers me the most is the reduced turn rate/easier stall of FW-190 in 4.02. Focke newer was a good in turns but could both IRL (well documented) and in game outturn a P-47. Now it can not.

Today I had a deja vu feeling when I was engaged in a dogfight with a P47 at roughly 3500m he went into a hard left turn I followed in my 190A9 (50% fuel) but just couldn't outturn it, we were both on the edge of stall at roughly 350km/h. The deja vu feeling I got was because of guncamera from FW190 turning with P47 (easily outturning it). 47 in that clip was turning very hard with contrails forming on wingtips yet FW easily pulled the lead for a deflection shot.

I think focke is affected by AoA having more effect on stall ie. focke wulf stalls at very low AoA.

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:


As for the FW's engine, it used to be a very robust engine in nearly every patch, the same could be said for the p47.

HB

LOL!!! Your freakin HIGH!!! The P-47 engine will only take 1-5 .50 cal before it stops DEAD. The 190 A series took 80+ before stopped dead. I have multiple tracks and posted them in other threads.

anarchy52
11-01-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:


As for the FW's engine, it used to be a very robust engine in nearly every patch, the same could be said for the p47.

HB



LOL!!! Your freakin HIGH!!! The P-47 engine will only take 1-5 .50 cal before it stops DEAD. The 190 A series took 80+ before stopped dead. I have multiple tracks and posted them in other threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree wholehartedly that P47s engine DM is incorrect (too weak), I don't agree with your opinion on FW engine. True it does not stop immediatelly or even smoke when hit but it drops RPM to about 1400 and fails after some time.
I think that should be the case with 47's engine.

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

While I agree wholehartedly that P47s engine DM is incorrect (too weak), I don't agree with your opinion on FW engine. True it does not stop immediatelly or even smoke when hit but it drops RPM to about 1400 and fails after some time.
I think that should be the case with 47's engine.

Yes, the FW engine will loose power when it, but my point is the P-47 STOPS DEAD. You can nurse a FW-190 back to base with a damaged engine, but if you damage a P-47, your an instant dead stick. Thats a HUGE differance in damage modeling. It seems like the P-51 and 109 has this same thing, but to a lesser degree. P-51's engine will stop with slight damage, but a 109 can be nursed back to home.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 05:05 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190EngineDamage.ntrk

The issue is in large part graphical with the Fw190 engine DM. After a short while it produces no thrust. What is the point of over-exaggerating it?

The Fw190s engine DM should be left alone and used for the R-2800.

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

The Fw190s engine DM should be left alone and used for the R-2800.

I agree 100%.

HeinzBar
11-01-2005, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

LOL!!! Your freakin HIGH!!!

I should of expected this comment from you. Go ahead and laugh while trying to belittle someone else's opinion that doesn't follow your observations.

I've seen, and have taken, multiple hits in the P47 and found it to be very similar to the FW190's rotary. I'll stand by my comment, that even though the FW's rotary is spinning, it's essentially dead and making zero power even though the prop is turning.

HB

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:

I've seen, and have taken, multiple hits in the P47 and found it to be very similar to the FW190's rotary.



How is "loss of power" and "total loss of engine" similar? There is no comparison. I have flown the FW many times, been hit, and you can nurse that engine home for a few minutes before it produces 0 power and you start looking for a place to crash. On the other hand, P-47 is instant 0 power. There is NO similarities. It takes 80+ rounds to produce the similar 0 power (engine DEAD) on the FW-190 that the P-47 does in 5 hits. THAT IS NOT SILIMAR! Its night and day, black and white. I have smoked MANY FW-190's online, lost them, and they make it back to base. This is simply not an option for P-47 pilots! It should be.

Im NOT trying to take away your titanium plated engine, so stop defending it. Im just trying to give the P-47 equal engine DM that the FW-190 has enjoyed since its inclusion into IL2.

JG5_UnKle
11-02-2005, 01:36 AM
This happened a lot in 4.01. I can't say exact number but going on memory I reckon about 1/3 of the P-47's and P-51's I have shot down have been one pass "engine kills".

Usually it goes:

"Engaging" - "Firing - Guns Guns Guns"

"Two Engaging"

"Don't bother, props dead"

Then we just leave them to their fate. Does seem odd that from 6 oclock you can regularly kill the engine.

A delection shot on the Pony and a kill to the motor (via coolant leaks) I'm fine with but the 1-shot engine dead thing is weird.

Not flown enough 4.02 to tell if it has reduced. However I have had it happen a lot more in the 109 - single hits (twice from light AA) and the prop stops dead - didn't really happen in 4.01.

HeinzBar
11-02-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im NOT trying to take away your titanium plated engine, so stop defending it. Im just trying to give the P-47 equal engine DM that the FW-190 has enjoyed since its inclusion into IL2.

Like I said, I'll stand by my statement. I find the p47 and FW engine to be very similar. I've put countless rounds in the p47 and seen the engine continue to run just fine, although smoking. Again, I've had the FW hit in the engine and lose power instantly. I've seen this dozens of times. The end result is the same w/ only a graphical difference. At least the opposing pilot knows the P47's engine is dead and will usually break off. This is unlike the FW pilot which ends up getting PK'd because the opposing pilot doesn't know his/her engine is dead because the prop is still spinning. Think of the p47's stopped prop as a safety factor for bailing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So Gibbage, please don't preach or patronize me or anyone else that has an opinion different than yours. Your observations have no more weight than mine or anyone elses. It doesn't help with every post of yours in which someone differs in opinion, you choose to release that vitriol tongue of yours. If you want to help the p47 more, try solving the tail seperation problem and control rod situation.

HB

HayateAce
11-02-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
The thing that bothers me the most is the reduced turn rate/easier stall of FW-190 in 4.02. Focke newer was a good in turns but could both IRL (well documented) and in game outturn a P-47. Now it can not.

Today I had a deja vu feeling when I was engaged in a dogfight with a P47 at roughly 3500m he went into a hard left turn I followed in my 190A9 (50% fuel) but just couldn't outturn it, we were both on the edge of stall at roughly 350km/h. The deja vu feeling I got was because of guncamera from FW190 turning with P47 (easily outturning it). 47 in that clip was turning very hard with contrails forming on wingtips yet FW easily pulled the lead for a deflection shot.

I think focke is affected by AoA having more effect on stall ie. focke wulf stalls at very low AoA.

Wow, your comments are very uninteresting. How about the guncamera I saw where a P47 EASILY turned inside a FaireyBoy 190? Who in the world ever read you a bedtime story that a 190 out turns a P47? Close this book and never open again.

Your Run-90 turned too well in 4.01, and oleg has put that right again.

Vrabac
11-02-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
How about the guncamera I saw where a P47 EASILY turned inside a FaireyBoy 190? Who in the world ever read you a bedtime story that a 190 out turns a P47?

I believe the guncamera in question where 190 outturns P47 shows very long, sustained turn. The one clip I saw (a terific one by the way) of P47 hitting a 190 that just started to turn is very short. If by any chance the P47 missed, and the turning went on, it wouldn't be able to catch.

There is a report for P47s being defensively engaged by 190. It clearly stated that climb and turn are not options if you want to live. Because 190 can easily catch it in first 90 deg of the turn, and in sustained turn it also comes on top in the end. But that's just a contemporary document, so I guss it not only doesn't prove what it should, but proves the opposite. Or something.

I'm sorry I have no time to post the link, but I think it was shown in this very thread.

P.S.

Here it is (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/p47-fw190-4.jpg)

JG5_UnKle
11-02-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
How about the guncamera I saw where a P47 EASILY turned inside a FaireyBoy 190? Who in the world ever read you a bedtime story that a 190 out turns a P47?

I believe the guncamera in question where 190 outturns P47 shows very long, sustained turn. The one clip I saw (a terific one by the way) of P47 hitting a 190 that just started to turn is very short. If by any chance the P47 missed, and the turning went on, it wouldn't be able to catch.

There is a report for P47s being defensively engaged by 190. It clearly stated that climb and turn are not options if you want to live. Because 190 can easily catch it in first 90 deg of the turn, and in sustained turn it also comes on top in the end. But that's just a contemporary document, so I guss it not only doesn't prove what it should, but proves the opposite. Or something.

I'm sorry I have no time to post the link, but I think it was shown in this very thread.

P.S.

Here it is (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/p47-fw190-4.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignore him Vrabac - he doesn't have any idea what he's prattling on about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

anarchy52
11-02-2005, 12:16 PM
FW-190A7 (similar to A8) vs P-47 turnfight (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/Movie.vmw)

Although quality of the film is poor there are a few interesting bits.

In the beginning P-47 is turning very hard and 47 pilot is clearly aware of the 190 on his tail, yet FW-190 clearly has superior turn rate although it's hard to say what was the speed at which the combat was fough.
Towards the end seems as if P-47 pilot is exhausted or the speed is too low to pull any harder and 190 easily gets the gun solution. I wonder how many pilots lost a turnfight to a inferior turning plane because they didn't have anough stamina to use the (theoretically) better turn rate of their planes. Also notice that they weren't pulling any fancy stuff. Anyone fighting like that in FB would be labeled a n00b.

My opinion: It's easy to do endless 6-7G turns and 300 rolls per minute flying on a PC. IRL pilot factor was far more important then in game where everyone can do manuevers which would make their eye capilaries burst and make them vomit all over the cockpit after first two rolls.

P-51 nailing a 109 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P51-109.avi)
A fantastic color guncam!
Note the 109 in the beginning evading fire by sharp high speed turn. First hit 109 seems to be drag & bag as it looks like 109 is trying to get gun solution on plane in front of it before it gets hit by P-51. No spectacular damage, just radiator puncture but the plane is going down.

Oh, one more thing to note: P-51 doesn't have tracers in ammobelt and fires almost at ramming distance.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-02-2005, 12:49 PM
That P51 sequence is very interesting especially if we assume that guncam sequences are very often cherry-picked.

Like you say, no structural failure.

Ta,
Norris

jagdmailer
11-02-2005, 01:54 PM
I stopped using the Fw 190A series until the fire bug is fixed. Pretty much useless plane right now.

Jagd

Vrabac
11-02-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
How about the guncamera I saw where a P47 EASILY turned inside a FaireyBoy 190? Who in the world ever read you a bedtime story that a 190 out turns a P47?

I believe the guncamera in question where 190 outturns P47 shows very long, sustained turn. The one clip I saw (a terific one by the way) of P47 hitting a 190 that just started to turn is very short. If by any chance the P47 missed, and the turning went on, it wouldn't be able to catch.

There is a report for P47s being defensively engaged by 190. It clearly stated that climb and turn are not options if you want to live. Because 190 can easily catch it in first 90 deg of the turn, and in sustained turn it also comes on top in the end. But that's just a contemporary document, so I guss it not only doesn't prove what it should, but proves the opposite. Or something.

I'm sorry I have no time to post the link, but I think it was shown in this very thread.

P.S.

Here it is (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/p47-fw190-4.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignore him Vrabac - he doesn't have any idea what he's prattling on about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL There is always hope. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
11-02-2005, 03:18 PM
Perhaps a certain people shouldn`t have been shoving it in other people`s face with constant loud bragging about how wonderfully experten Blue side was in 4.01 on a particular forum thread.... Perhaps a certain person somewhere heard and decided to do something about it.

Perhaps braggers should keep quiet next time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

anarchy52
11-02-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Perhaps a certain people shouldn`t have been shoving it in other people`s face with constant loud bragging about how wonderfully experten Blue side was in 4.01 on a particular forum thread.... Perhaps a certain person somewhere heard and decided to do something about it.

Perhaps braggers should keep quiet next time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Oh I get it...someone bragged about his kill ratio on fecking warclouds (no offense, wonderful server) flying a focke wulf and Oleg said: You think You're a tough guy, huh?
SHA-ZAAAM Focke got permanent invisible 250kg bomb and Mitsubishi fuel tank.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Personally I think anybody mentioning warclouds outside warclouds forum should be banned.

Oh ****.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-02-2005, 05:22 PM
The 190DM reverting back to the "joke" 3.04 level is Hristo's fault? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nah, it's simpler than that - without any thought given whatsoever to the problems of previous 190 DMs, the teaboy was made to just uncomment the visual effects. Well, he didn't have time to look into it properly - there was another Yak to add. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ta,
Norris

Fehler
11-02-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Perhaps a certain people shouldn`t have been shoving it in other people`s face with constant loud bragging about how wonderfully experten Blue side was in 4.01 on a particular forum thread.... Perhaps a certain person somewhere heard and decided to do something about it.

Perhaps braggers should keep quiet next time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

ROFLMAO! Well, I am glad you conclude that the FM/DM in the game now are derrived from whim, based on the boasting and or whining of forum members...

From "Change .50's or I won't model for you anymore." To, "I am best im my FW190 Hitler Youth ride." Seems like you agree that the game keeps getting further and further from what it is supposed to depict.

And HayateAce, why dont you go read a report how the FW190 (According to the Brits) could turn with a P-47 at lower altitudes, and even "Hold its own" at higher ones before you start trying to be funny. But hey, this game was tailor made for you, and it fits all that you think you know about WWII aviation, read from the cover of a Wheaties Cereal box when you were a kid. (Like 2 weeks ago or something)

LBR_Rommel
11-02-2005, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
The 190DM reverting back to the "joke" 3.04 level is Hristo's fault? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nah, it's simpler than that - without any thought given whatsoever to the problems of previous 190 DMs, the teaboy was made to just uncomment the visual effects. Well, he didn't have time to look into it properly - there was another Yak to add. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ta,
Norris

Well Norris

I think you miss the big picture here son
This is a new way o modelling sim, this is a hollywood style, now we have the "Iron eagle 3" P38-Very_Late, "Pearl Harbor" P-40, the "Enemy at Gates" La7 P39, "rescue of the private ryan" P-47D absolute_Late, "Battle of Britain" spitfire, and we (Luftwaffe) we are the indians we must loose the war, so grab you hula shirt and play Ben Afleck in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Welcome to the Disneyland of planes modelling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

joeap
11-03-2005, 03:57 AM
Oh gorw up Rommel, there is a problem with the FW-190, I was surprised too but I think you jest with your stupid "Disneyland comment" LW planes are still very good.

269GA-Veltro
11-03-2005, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Oh gorw up Rommel, there is a problem with the FW-190, I was surprised too but I think you jest with your stupid "Disneyland comment" LW planes are still very good.

LOL

FW 190 is ridiculous, but the LW planes are still very good.
Now, i would like to know...how is possible that the LW planes are still very good, when the 190 is the 50% of them?

BlackStar2000
11-03-2005, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Oh gorw up Rommel, there is a problem with the FW-190, I was surprised too but I think you jest with your stupid "Disneyland comment" LW planes are still very good.

LOL

FW 190 is ridiculous, but the LW planes are still very good.
Now, i would like to know...how is possible that the LW planes are still very good, when the 190 is the 50% of them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TOUCHӰ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

269GA-Veltro
11-03-2005, 04:50 AM
Don't worry, i've understood now what it means...we have to engage the Sptifire and Pony with the Ju 87, or better....with the He 111.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VVS-Manuc
11-03-2005, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Oh gorw up Rommel, there is a problem with the FW-190, I was surprised too but I think you jest with your stupid "Disneyland comment" LW planes are still very good.

LOL

FW 190 is ridiculous, but the LW planes are still very good.
Now, i would like to know...how is possible that the LW planes are still very good, when the 190 is the 50% of them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Viper2005_
11-03-2005, 07:32 AM
The Fw-190 DM problem can easily be fixed by the user not allowing him/herself to be shot...

I find this fix also has a beneficial impact upon my stats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Seriously, I don't think things are anything like as bad as they were in 3.xx

I have thusfar in ~ 14 hours online flying experienced 1 magic fuel leak (I landed safely deadstick) and no fires.

I've lost controls and taken wing damage (including losing my wings) quite a few times with fatal results.

The aircraft still feels vastly more effective in this patch than in 3.xx to me due to its heavy firepower (I love the 151/20!)...

[Firepower is a very important factor in air combat, as is demonstrated by the massive popularity of the Spitfire V(4c) and its considerable combat success on a certain late war server...] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif