PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, 190As' roll rate at high speed are too low!



HQ1
07-02-2005, 09:40 AM
Pls notice that! It's roll rate at high speed is far lower than it should be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gifHope it will be fixed in future patch.

new-fherathras
07-02-2005, 10:24 AM
this has been covered before. many times.



please try doing a forum search if you have an issue

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-02-2005, 07:16 PM
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.

faustnik
07-02-2005, 07:27 PM
Yes Havok, I know it sounds strange but, the Fw190's roll peaks too early in PF. I you don't believe me, ask Gubbage, he tested it with me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VW-IceFire
07-02-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yes Havok, I know it sounds strange but, the Fw190's roll peaks too early in PF. I you don't believe me, ask Gubbage, he tested it with me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
I knew something was a bit off...on the other hand, I think the high speed roll is much more realistic...is it not Faust? It used to be too much I thought.

faustnik
07-03-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I knew something was a bit off...on the other hand, I think the high speed roll is much more realistic...is it not Faust? It used to be too much I thought.

It is mid-high speeds that are off. Instead of peaking at 400kph, the Fw190 peaks around 350 kph. So, it is a little too slow as speeds get higher. Gibbage made a graph of it, it's somewhere at CWOS FB. I'll try to find it.

S.taibanzai
07-03-2005, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.


Normal answer for a amish flyer


Its Luft plane so you dont see charts and some 100 posting here because its german plane


Try it here with p-47 you wil see testing , charts, and whines al over place's

Thats why manny pilots dont have fate on the us UBI-forum

Nubarus
07-03-2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.


Normal answer for a amish flyer


Its Luft plane so you dont see charts and some 100 posting here because its german plane


Try it here with p-47 you wil see testing , charts, and whines al over place's

Thats why manny pilots dont have fate on the us UBI-forum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you? A Ubi Forum newbie?

I have seen tons of extremely long threads about LW planes with charts, tests, etc.

But you like to act innocent and start threads that you know will end up locked.
As well as the lame post in this thread with the "look at me, the poor LW player who is a much better person" BS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Good thing that Faustnik actually tests things before talking about it, unlike yourself who just takes some quote from god knows where and then tag an entire line of aircraft to that quote and try to sell it as gospel over here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
07-03-2005, 08:04 AM
p47 had/has similer problem, and other planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SlickStick
07-03-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p47 had/has similer problem, and other planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And notably in V4.01m, the Ki-84 series and CW Spits have lost much roll rate, among some other planes. Too lazy to test, but after flying these birds for a bit, some for years, you can feel the roll rate reduction immediately.

lbhskier37
07-03-2005, 09:59 AM
Im pretty sure the P51s roll peaks too early just like the FW.

faustnik
07-03-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Im pretty sure the P51s roll peaks too early just like the FW.

I haven't tested the P-51 but, P1ngyu's comment on the P-47 peaking too early also is correct acording to our test.

HQ1
07-03-2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Im pretty sure the P51s roll peaks too early just like the FW.

Have not done accurate test ,But P51's roll rate at 500Km/h IAS is faster than 190's in 4.01

Stigler_9_JG52
07-03-2005, 11:45 PM
As for the Spit, I seem to recall that a roll penalty was one of the drawbacks of those cute little eliptical wings.

ImpStarDuece
07-04-2005, 12:01 AM
Thats why he refered to the CW spitfire, which significantly increased the peak rate of roll as well as the roll-rate at all speeds.

The spitfire's rate of roll improved significantly from the MkI onwards. Actually the MK I was a pretty horrible roller; it was outdone by the Hurricane and the Gladiatior at low and high speeds, but particularly at high speeds. Compared to the Hurricane or Gladiator, Spitfire pilots needed twice the force to produce 1/3 deflection of the alierons when travelling above 400mph.

Partway through MkI production the mechanical linkage to the alierons was redone, reducing the pilots workload by about 50%. The rate of roll didn't increase that dramatically though. The alieron balances (Frise type) were then reweighted, which agin gave a small improvement.

Significant improvements didnt come until the end of the Batle of Britain when Spitfires were refitted with light alloy alierons. The difference was substantial. Oe spitfire pilot reported that it was like flying a completely different aircraft above 350 mph.

Later models of the Spitfire improved the alieron design and weighting further, mostly due to the introduction of the 'universal wing', which was improved over the earlier wings. Clipping the wings on a Spitfire Vb made it roll about 40 degrees a second faster than a standard winged Vb, peaking at about 150 dg/sec at 220 mph. About the only thing that would outroll a CW spitfire was a Fw-190 or a P-51 when speeds got over about 375 mph.

S.taibanzai
07-04-2005, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.


Normal answer for a amish flyer


Its Luft plane so you dont see charts and some 100 posting here because its german plane


Try it here with p-47 you wil see testing , charts, and whines al over place's

Thats why manny pilots dont have fate on the us UBI-forum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you? A Ubi Forum newbie?

I have seen tons of extremely long threads about LW planes with charts, tests, etc.

But you like to act innocent and start threads that you know will end up locked.
As well as the lame post in this thread with the "look at me, the poor LW player who is a much better person" BS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Good thing that Faustnik actually tests things before talking about it, unlike yourself who just takes some quote from god knows where and then tag an entire line of aircraft to that quote and try to sell it as gospel over here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hehe lol touche a snare huh

for your info i am here for almost 4 years ))))


So who is newbie??

S.taibanzai
07-04-2005, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
As for the Spit, I seem to recall that a roll penalty was one of the drawbacks of those cute little eliptical wings.


Yep


When i fw 190 was bounced from spit any version in any year

The FW190 pilot would flip hes plane upside down

and dive

The spit was never able to get a lead shot

Or to dive after it

Nubarus
07-04-2005, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:

Hehe lol touche a snare huh

for your info i am here for almost 4 years ))))


So who is newbie??

Touched a snare?

Delusions.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

So if you have been here for over 4 years you sure have a bad memory since you cannot recall long threads about LW planes.

Kurfurst__
07-05-2005, 02:52 PM
Nubarus,

STFU.

Thank you on behalf of the community.

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 09:03 PM
I strongly dislike the Fw 190 and as far as my personal feelings go twards people who support it and its modeling.........well lets just say I am discontented.

having clarified the fact that I have no positive bias twards the Fw 190 series this is what I found when I rolled the aircraft. I believe I used 75% fuel, default load out, no external stores, performed said rolls at 10,000 feet and speeds are given in IAS. compairson data is provided by the NACA chart.

150 mph 90 DPS -20 DPS
200 mph 120 DPS -15 DPS
250 mph 90 DPS -72 DPS
300 mph 90 DPS -40 DPS
350 mph 60 DPS -35 DPS
400 mph 60 DPS -10 DPS

as you can see the most significant error's occured at speeds between 250 and 350 mph ias. this however is greatly offset by the 190A's over modeled speed and climb as stated in my "Fw 190 series" thread :O

Blackdog5555
07-06-2005, 02:15 PM
Good post BL. I agree

Aaron_GT
07-07-2005, 04:07 AM
I strongly dislike the Fw 190 and as far as my personal feelings go twards people who support it and its modeling.........well lets just say I am discontented.

Surely you should support all people who wish to see a plane present in the sim modelled accurately? I try to. (Too many threads to keep up with, though!)

Aaron_GT
07-07-2005, 04:08 AM
190A's over modeled speed

The speed seems fine with auto pitch as done in the real life tests.

bolillo_loco
07-07-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">190A's over modeled speed

The speed seems fine with auto pitch as done in the real life tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could care less how you dice it or try and convince yourself that the fw series isnt too fast because "in auto pitch its spot on" the fact remains that you can over boost the 190 series in the game and run it for several minutes (five minutes from over heat warning till the engine begins to chirp).

to make a statement that you want accurately modeled aircraft then support some mystery over boost that nobody who supports luftwaffe aircraft wants to talk about automatically excludes you as somebody who is looking for accuracy.

only the Fw 190 and Bf 109 series gains extra speed, climb, and acceleration by using manual prop pitch, which is higher than published data.
no other aircraft in the game benifit from this even though many also had manual prop pitch.

fordfan25
07-07-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.


Normal answer for a amish flyer


Its Luft plane so you dont see charts and some 100 posting here because its german plane


Try it here with p-47 you wil see testing , charts, and whines al over place's

Thats why manny pilots dont have fate on the us UBI-forum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


let me ask u some thing. is there a german forum or forums?

sc1949
07-07-2005, 10:52 PM
How are you getting "Manual prop pitch",I've tried all the FW series today and I can't get it to work? Saw it on Airwarfare, they mentioned the different performances you could get, but I can't in FWs, any others with manual I can, so I have key mapped. Whats the secret?

TAGERT.
07-07-2005, 11:03 PM
Does anybody have a track file to back up these claims along with some real world data.. Or is this just a group hug whine fest?

faustnik
07-07-2005, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Does anybody have a track file to back up these claims along with some real world data.. Or is this just a group hug whine fest?

There isn't a whole lot of real world data unfortunately. There is this:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

This is only a compilation put together from varied sources. I haven't been able to find those original sources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

bolillo_loco
07-08-2005, 12:05 AM
I posted this earlier on the first page. I took the time to test the aircraft and here is what I found. all the 190s rolled so similar that I found no reason to break them down into sub types

150 mph 90 DPS -20 DPS
200 mph 120 DPS -15 DPS
250 mph 90 DPS -72 DPS
300 mph 90 DPS -40 DPS
350 mph 60 DPS -35 DPS
400 mph 60 DPS -10 DPS

dont know if its accurate, its just what I found.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 12:18 AM
Your tests of the in-sim 190 are great Bolillo, but, we only have the one chart to compare it to and the source of the data in the chart is uncertain. So, yes the Fw190 rolls slow, by that chart.

Aaron_GT
07-08-2005, 04:03 AM
I could care less how you dice it or try and convince yourself that the fw series isnt too fast because "in auto pitch its spot on" the fact remains that you can over boost the 190 series in the game and run it for several minutes (five minutes from over heat warning till the engine begins to chirp).

to make a statement that you want accurately modeled aircraft then support some mystery over boost that nobody who supports luftwaffe aircraft wants to talk about automatically excludes you as somebody who is looking for accuracy.[/quote]

If you don't test the planes in the game in the same way as the tests were done in real life (or as close as possible) then your test results are entirely bogus! If someone tested the P-38 in a way that did not match the real tests and suggested that the P-38 was overmodelled I am sure you'd be among the first to complain. You have to test fairly or you'll simply get accused of bias and then ignored when you post legitimate concerns about the likes of the P-38.


you can over boost the 190 series in the game and run it for several minutes

So I guess you'd be dead set against allowing any overboost of the P47D since this would then give speeds exceeding official USAAF speed tests, even if there was reliable but non official documentation indicating that it could go faster than officially listed speeds? (Luckily for the Mustang III we were able to give Oleg official speed tests with the overboost).

What you need to do is:

(1) Test in the game as the tests were done in real life.

(2) See if there are 'exploits' which result in different performance and then see what the real life behaviour of these 'exploits' were. If the real life behaviour matches that in the game, then the game is matching this.

Now there seems to be evidence that the use of manual prop pitch could, in real life, offer a short term performance boost and that seems to be modelled in the game. The long term performance of the engine will be negatively affected in real life, and it is in the game. As long as the short-term performance boost in game is of the same magnitiude as it would be in real life, all is well.

Aaron_GT
07-08-2005, 04:05 AM
Your tests of the in-sim 190 are great Bolillo, but, we only have the one chart to compare it to and the source of the data in the chart is uncertain. So, yes the Fw190 rolls slow, by that chart.

That's a good point. Oleg might have other documentation. I know he's talked a lot with the Flugwerke people.

HQ1
07-08-2005, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
190A's over modeled speed :O
Sorry I can not get overmodeled speed on 190A seires by use manaul prop pitch. Could you post a track to prove your point?

JG5_UnKle
07-08-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
as you can see the most significant error's occured at speeds between 250 and 350 mph ias. this however is greatly offset by the 190A's over modeled speed and climb as stated in my "Fw 190 series" thread :O

But that doesn't make it OK now, does it? If the Rate of Climb is overmodelled then it should drop, same with the speed.

This thread is about its undermodelled roll-rate at mid range speeds. If there are other issues (and there are) then they are just that, other issues.

p1ngu666
07-08-2005, 07:22 AM
theres a thread with the other issues in GD..

money_money
07-08-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by sc1949:
How are you getting "Manual prop pitch",I've tried all the FW series today and I can't get it to work? Saw it on Airwarfare, they mentioned the different performances you could get, but I can't in FWs, any others with manual I can, so I have key mapped. Whats the secret?

u have to turn off the auto pitch to allow manual pitch. default is shift 0 i think.

S.taibanzai
07-08-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oooh cmon. You can not be serious.


Normal answer for a amish flyer


Its Luft plane so you dont see charts and some 100 posting here because its german plane


Try it here with p-47 you wil see testing , charts, and whines al over place's

Thats why manny pilots dont have fate on the us UBI-forum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


let me ask u some thing. is there a german forum or forums?[/QUOT*

LOl yes go there and look

They do some real test on every plane

And not whining al over places

I am not german ))

Vipez-
07-10-2005, 06:38 AM
Kinda OT, but it is interesting to see FW190's evolving from IL-2 1.0 up to PF 4.01.. I don't think any other bird had as much FM and DM tweaking, from other way to completely other direction .. Like rollercoaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It first became deadly bird in Forgotten Battle's second beta patch (public), having vastly overmodelled roll rate.. it got tweaked down, it was perfect. It had simple DM, but it was improved, and made more complicated..However, W├╝rger received many DM-bugs (like fuel leak bug, one .303 hit, and you and the plane was on fire etc..) Now, at the moment it has slightly undermodelled roll rate, good guns for first time, but again bugged DM (allthough from w├╝rgerpilot's perspective it's nice not to get the silly fuel leak bug anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )..

Perhaps soon the rollercoaster will reach it's end .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
07-10-2005, 09:50 PM
Hey Faustnik,

That roll chart comes from an NACA report and was copied from a Royal Aircraft Establishment report RAE 1231.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119140473_rae2131title.jpg

The tested results from RAE 1231 are:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051365_rollrates1231.jpg

RAE 1231 represents an FW190 with ailerons out of adjustment. Not surprising, the Luftwaffe had a hard time keeping them adjusted so one can hardly expect the RAF to understand their importance to FW-190 performance.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/aleirons.jpg

And the RAE test pilots noticed something wrong with the ailerons on the test aircraft:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051559_pilotscomments.jpg

Which the RAE chalked up to natural Frise aileron variation which makes sense unless you have detailed knowledge of FW-190 maintenance.

We can tell the FW 190 tested was in need of adjustment by examining the stick forces exhibited by the aircraft in the test.

The stick forces recorded in RAE 1231:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051453_stickforces1231.jpg

At 400 mph at 10000 feet AGL the stick forces recorded by the RAE are 38lbs. A properly adjusted FW190 will not exhibit more than 30lbs at that speed/altitude. The aileron adjustment regulation takes into account the range of natural variation in Frise ailerons in the FW-190.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051712_lwstickforces.jpg

This issue is complicated by the fact the FW-190 could mount three different ailerons each offered different performance at various altitudes and speed:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051605_alierontype1.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051646_ailerontype2and3.jpg

It is clear though, that the RAE 1231 FW190 roll rate should be closer to a theoritical ridged wing. Their measurements are plotted on this chart:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051416_wingtorsion.jpg

The FW-190`s roll advantage can best be seen in the ADM standard. This measures actual roll rate to 45 degrees. It takes into account stick forces applied. Properly adjusted ailerons would put the FW-190 much closer to it's calculated value.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051518_admstandard45.jpg

Hope this helps!

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
07-10-2005, 10:35 PM
Thanks again Crump! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Copperhead310th
07-10-2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Nubarus,

STFU.

Thank you on behalf of the community.

Kurfurst,
Blow me.

Thank you on behalf of the community that has a brain & doesnt worship the Luftwaffe.

JG5_UnKle
07-11-2005, 02:26 AM
Copperhead why don't you steer clear of topics you don't understand, OK?

Haven't you got some Nazi's to hunt down?

Hetzer_II
07-11-2005, 06:40 AM
please write slowly.. copperhead cant read such fast...

Ratsack
07-15-2005, 11:05 AM
Gents,

Can you please raise the tone a fraction? Crump is posting good stuff, and I'd be grateful if it was interspersed with less of your personal cr@p and name calling.

Ratsack

NorrisMcWhirter
07-15-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
please write slowly.. copperhead cant read such fast...

Surely you are not suggesting that he is 'writting' too quickly? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

Jg300_Kostek
07-15-2005, 11:54 AM
only the Fw 190 and Bf 109 series gains extra speed, climb, and acceleration by using manual prop pitch, which is higher than published data.
no other aircraft in the game benifit from this even though many also had manual prop pitch.

This is becouse only in Bf and FW series prop works correctly, and autoprop works badly.

Ratsack
07-16-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Jg300_Kostek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

only the Fw 190 and Bf 109 series gains extra speed, climb, and acceleration by using manual prop pitch, which is higher than published data.
no other aircraft in the game benifit from this even though many also had manual prop pitch.



This is becouse only in Bf and FW series prop works correctly, and autoprop works badly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're misunderstanding how the other props work. Nearly all the other props modelled in the game are constant speed propellers (CSPs). This means they maintain a certain rate of revs, nearly irrespective of manifold pressure (throttle). Therefore, on a CSP, if you want to get max power and max torque you set the speed (incorrectly called 'prop pitch' in game for the sake of simplicity) to 100%.

If you did this in reality for any purpose other than for takeoff, you'd pretty rapidly kill the engine. Most engines had a 'max revs except for takeoff' setting, and this is what you'd use for combat. On the Merlins, for example, max power is delivered at around 3000 rpm.

Ratsack

Jg300_Kostek
07-17-2005, 03:05 AM
This is exactly what i mean. La5 u can fly on 100% prop all the time - no difference on speed.
Now, autoprop in 109e f.e. works bad, becouse it wan't get full power from engine, while other planes, like Spit always fly at 3000rpm (which would kill their engines pretty quick).
To show u the difference, i made some tests, they are not perfect, but here they are:
109e4, 4.01 (from 1000m - 4000m):
auto prop ~ 3min 10sec.
man. prop ~ 2min 40sec.
(both cases radiator opened)
The difference was 30sec. a lot!

Kettenhunde
07-17-2005, 06:49 PM
I think this is the answer to the manual prop debate:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=2001 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2001)

Down at the bottom. I just checked it out. It is not working properly. At full throttle the FW190 goes to 1.42ata at 2400 U/min. A completely fictitious setting. The VDM pitch indicator also does not work right either on the FW190.

If Oleg needs it, I can post the Kommandoger├┬ĄtÔ┬┤s calibration chart.

All the best,

Crumpp

BBB_Hyperion
07-18-2005, 03:32 AM
Send Data to Faustnik we will pack em up with some more issues and send to Oleg when he is back.

VDM pitch indicator position description cant be bad as well.

Ratsack
07-18-2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think this is the answer to the manual prop debate:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=2001 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2001)

Down at the bottom. I just checked it out. It is not working properly. At full throttle the FW190 goes to 1.42ata at 2400 U/min. A completely fictitious setting. The VDM pitch indicator also does not work right either on the FW190.

If Oleg needs it, I can post the Kommandoger├┬ĄtÔ┬┤s calibration chart.

All the best,

Crumpp

A lot of the 'lesser' instruments (cough splutter...like the boost gauge in the MW50 equipped Bf109s...cough choke) in the cockpits don't actually work as advertised.

Ratsack

Aaron_GT
07-18-2005, 07:18 AM
It might be worth looking at the DeviceLink outputs - they seem to report the values that they are supposed to. That might have RPM and MAP (of some sort).

BBB_Hyperion
07-19-2005, 02:05 AM
http://img346.imageshack.us/img346/9644/a4142ata2400rpm9nh.jpg

Devicelink gives similar Data.

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 03:06 PM
Down at the bottom. I just checked it out. It is not working properly. At full throttle the FW190 goes to 1.42ata at 2400 U/min. A completely fictitious setting. The VDM pitch indicator also does not work right either on the FW190.

If DeviceLink says the same it sounds like a bug report is in order over the settings. Is a bug report in order over the performance boost over Kommandogerat when swapping to manual pitch, Kettenhunde?

Kettenhunde
07-19-2005, 04:48 PM
If DeviceLink says the same it sounds like a bug report is in order over the settings. Is a bug report in order over the performance boost over Kommandogerat when swapping to manual pitch, Kettenhunde?

I certainly think so, the top performance of the aircraft would be with the Kommandoger├┬Ąt engaged. Not on manual.

All the best,

Crumpp

BBB_Hyperion
07-20-2005, 01:19 AM
Crumpp is the Switch to manual mode for propeller resulting in Kommandoger├┬Ąt turned off or just the propeller control ? Would the last settings from the Kommandoger├┬Ąt if its deactivated used in manual mode ?

TAGERT.
07-20-2005, 09:15 AM
Between Kettenhunde and faustnik it looks like you guys have enough real world data to make this worth while.

Who is willing to do the flying? Looking at the ROLL RATE per IAS chart we will need about 12 seperate track files. One at each speed (i.e. 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 230, 240, 260, 280) then we can attempt to recreate this real world data plot
So, all I need now is about 10 or 12 track files.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051365_rollrates1231.jpg

and this

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

But, it might take twice as many to catch the peak of each roll! Note that the 190 roll peek is at 250.. If we only fly the main points above we would miss that peak and it would make it look like the 190 is not rolling as fast as it should.

This seems like a big job, but not too big. Who ever does it simply go to the quick start missions, use the Crimae map, start at an alt above 10,000ft than dive down to around 10kft, level out, get to one of the speed points listed, then roll the Fw190 360Ô? twice or more.. then level out and stop the test.

DONE try and do more than one ROLL/SPEED in one track file, make each track file corespond to one of the speeds along the X axis.

If someone is willing to fly all 12 (better if you do 24) than Ill process your track files and make a plot just like the REAL WORLD plot above.

On second thought.. you may not need that many.. the real point of intereset is in and around the peak, we know where it should be, but our goal is to see where it is in the game.. thus I would focus most of the testing at smaller intervals (10mph) around the peak and then just hit a couple of the other out near the end points. That is instead of evenly spacing the samples, do more sampling around the peak and less near the ends where not much is happining, ideal would be this

150
200
225
235 <--
245
250
255
265 <--
275
300
350
400

Note how we take more samples around the ponit of interest. Also, I would recomend you use the Wonder Woman TAS display.. It has more resolution than the normal cockpit guages or the digital display in the lower left corner.. Only problem is it is TRUE and not INDICATED as in the graphs.. So there will be some conversion necessary.. Which is why I would highly recomend you use UDPSpeed! Than you can do a normal cockpit overlay that has a much finer resolution digital display and is in IAS. And dont worry too much about matching the speed exactally! +/-5mph is not bad at all.. because we can best fit curve the data points.

PS Im in a few differen threads right now, I dont check this one often, so if you guys do it PM me and let me know!!

Kettenhunde
07-20-2005, 03:22 PM
Crumpp is the Switch to manual mode for propeller resulting in Kommandoger├┬Ąt turned off or just the propeller control ? Would the last settings from the Kommandoger├┬Ąt if its deactivated used in manual mode ?


Just the propeller can be run in manual mode.

I had to laugh when I read that "authentic" FW190 model someone posted for FS2004. It is not nearly as authentic as they are claiming.

There is no "rich" setting that the pilot can control. The Kommandoger├┬Ąt does all engine management. Losing the Kommandoger├┬Ąt is an in-flight emergency.

The "mixture" settings are "automatic" and "start".

If the Kommandoger├┬Ąt goes out, the boost will immediately fall off, the throttle lever will exhibit play and a definite stop, and the exhaust will begin showing considerable soot.

The pilot is instructed to turn the selector from automatic to the "start" position that also doubles as the emergency position. The manifold pressure is then restricted to 1.15ata in the BMW801C2 and .95ata in the BMW801D2 or BMW801T series. The propeller goes to manual. Maximum permissible propeller rpm is 2400U/min for short periods and 2200-2300 for long periods. With each change in altitude the pilot must adjust the propeller rpm to stay within those limits.

It is highly encourage that the pilot loose as much altitude as possible, especially since at high altitude he will not be able achieve minimum manifold pressure.

Without the Kommandoger├┬Ąt, the engine cannot idle. The pilot is instructed to bring it to a quick stop if he must idle.

Tagert, that real world data is most likely in error for the FW190 or at least represents the very bottom of the performance envelope. This is verifiable thru in the aileron adjustment regulations in the Flugzeug-handbuch.

Hope this helps!

All the best,

Crumpp

TAGERT.
07-20-2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Tagert, that real world data is most likely in error for the FW190 or at least represents the very bottom of the performance envelope. This is verifiable thru in the aileron adjustment regulations in the Flugzeug-handbuch.

Hope this helps!

All the best,

Crumpp As in a RR that is too low? Assuming that is the case, it would still be nice to have the an in-game graph vs. real world data graph to show how well the 190 is hitting these these low numbers. And if anyone ever comes across the real numbers, it would also be helpful.

Kettenhunde
07-20-2005, 07:37 PM
As in a RR that is too low? Assuming that is the case, it would still be nice to have the an in-game graph vs. real world data graph to show how well the 190 is hitting these these low numbers. And if anyone ever comes across the real numbers, it would also be helpful.


I certainly agree that some tested data is better than no data and will put us in the ballpark. I also think the actual roll rate is just a little bit higher. It most likely matches the calculated ADM standards for the FW190 as per RAE 1231.

All the best,

Crumpp

FritzGryphon
07-21-2005, 12:51 AM
So anyway, I did this. Just 8 samples, evenly spaced.

Altitude not specified, so used 1000m. Neither is FW variant, so used FW-190A4. Rolling left, in same direction as torque. Aileron only.

The first quarter of each roll is rejected for calculating roll rate.

Anyway, the results.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/chartfw.jpg

I think it shows quite well what is up with roll rate, even if the 'peak' is not detailed. In both cases, the maximum roll rate is 160dps, like it should, but the ingame curve is shifted 50km/h toward the slow side. Hence, the poor high speed rollrate.

BBB_Hyperion
07-21-2005, 05:51 AM
Gryphon charts presented by Tagert are at 10000 ft

Well i have my doubt about this rollrate charts for the following reasons.

The aileron adjustment as mentioned by crump .

The testing method itself is unprecise.
For the 190 as the controls were light was 50 lbs the maximum ? Which planes were not able to archive full deflection cause of 50 lbs force. Further the limitation of roll tests only to 1 alt level . We would sure see a difference low level rolling vs high alt rolling this correction factor and verification is missing.

The FW model used there was an A4 right ? So this chart is only representive for a roundabout for all other Aircraft models that are compareable if this data applies at all.

Is that chart normed to isa conditions ? I dont know but i assume there is a standard that the table is based on but is it compareable to other regions how would the table looke when it would have been tested somewhere else.

What we have is a rollrate comparison that is limited to a certain alt speed and planetype and stickforce. Conclusions over the max performance of other subseries models can only be guessed while infomation on the tested planes is limited as well .

faustnik
07-21-2005, 09:32 AM
Great work FritzGryphon! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FritzGryphon
07-21-2005, 08:43 PM
I will try with correct altitude. This could possibly shift the chart.

As for ISA conditions, if that is like civilian standard conditions, I think they are closely mirrored in the Crimea map at noon (15degC, which is why Oleg says to use that map).

As for stick force, I think it is the same. Were it less ingame, I would not have gotten 160dps peak rate, but less. 40lb would yield maybe 130-140dps peak rate.

TAGERT.
07-21-2005, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I will try with correct altitude. This could possibly shift the chart.

As for ISA conditions, if that is like civilian standard conditions, I think they are closely mirrored in the Crimea map at noon (15degC, which is why Oleg says to use that map). Not sure about the 15Ô?C holds on the Crimea map, so I used the He111's exterior temp gauge to measure the temp at different altitudes.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/WR_GCS00001/FIG04.jpg

Then I found the best fit line through the data points and the corresponding equation. So, all you have to do is plug in the altitude and it will give you the corresponding temp

So, for 10,000ft it would be

temp = -0.002(10,000) + 24.172
temp = -20 + 24.172
temp = 4.172 Ô?C


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
As for stick force, I think it is the same. Were it less in game, I would not have gotten 160dps peak rate, but less. 40lb would yield maybe 130-140dps peak rate. On that note, how are you determining the roll rate? Visually with a stop watch.. or are you using Device Link? Either way, I would recommend you save your track files! Because if you say it is ok as is.. someone will say it aint. At which point you could just send them your track files.. That and I'm writing a program to calculate the roll rate from a track file. Which takes into account the speed and alt. It would be interesting to see how well it compares to someone doing it visually.

FritzGryphon
07-21-2005, 10:50 PM
Hm, nifty. I meant 15c at sea level, with the expected gradient above. I guess the map doesn't correspond to that. But doesn't really matter, since I don't know what ISA is anyhoo.

And since I am using a watch and tracks, the difference caused by temp would be within my margin of error anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
07-21-2005, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Hm, nifty. I meant 15c at sea level, with the expected gradient above. I guess the map doesn't correspond to that. Roger, which is why I posted the post in that it is more like 24Ô?C


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
But doesn't really matter, since I don't know what ISA is anyhoo. LOL! Errahh.. you kidding right?


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
And since I am using a watch and tracks, the difference caused by temp would be within my margin of error anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Would be my guess.. not sure how big a factor temp has on the IAS at alt.. I know extream temps can mess up your IAS to TAS conversions.. but no need here, it is all in IAS (brits say EAS?)

So my guess, as yours, is the temp error would be smaller than the error due to visual watching it and counting it.. one onethousand.. two onethousand.. three onethousand.. etc.

DeviceLink would eliminate all the guess work and error due to eyeballing it. But, for just a warm fuzzy, your method should be fine.

FritzGryphon
07-21-2005, 11:21 PM
Maybe you could give me a link for the devicelink program you use? Can't figure out how to do it in UPDspeed.

Anyway, tested at 10,000ft this time. Just took 5 samples.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/roll2.jpg

I was thinking, now that I'm using the right altitude, it should match the chart, but it's actually worse. At 250 you get this outstanding rate of ~150 DPS, topping out near 350, then falling like a stone some 100km/h before it should.

Errors in ambient pressure and my reaction time aside, I think there's a clear indication that the roll rate peaks too quickly, then falls off too rapidly, causing the apparent difference in roll rate between 3.04 and 4.01.

HQ1
07-22-2005, 04:48 AM
Great work Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
In addition I found that in this new patch all planes elevator control force are approxmitly same. It seems that we back to FB early patch at this point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

TAGERT.
07-22-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Maybe you could give me a link for the devicelink program you use? No, no I cant.. Because I wrote my own. I was using UDPSpeed before I wrote my own. UDPSpeed is more for displaying things to the screen while your flying.. Which comes in handy in that it has a higher resoultion IAS guage!! I wrote mine to just collect data.. UDPSpeed can write data to a log file too.. But mine is specifically for collecting data.. no displays or anything.. For some testing where I need a good IAS display I will actully use UDPSpeed.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Can't figure out how to do it in UPDspeed. LOL! Initally I couldnt either.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Which is why I wrote my own! Here is a good step by step there on how to setup UDPSpeed

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/7201027043

It walks you through the setup and everything.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Anyway, tested at 10,000ft this time. Just took 5 samples.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/roll2.jpg

I was thinking, now that I'm using the right altitude, it should match the chart, but it's actually worse. At 250 you get this outstanding rate of ~150 DPS, topping out near 350, then falling like a stone some 100km/h before it should

Errors in ambient pressure and my reaction time aside, I think there's a clear indication that the roll rate peaks too quickly, then falls off too rapidly, causing the apparent difference in roll rate between 3.04 and 4.01. Well.. I would hold off on a conclusion until you get UDPSpeed up and running.. alot of that error may be due to eyeballing it too.. For example, with devicelink data you could not only plot the roll rate (difference of the roll) but have the coresponding IAS speed.. So you could see just what the speed was while your rolling.

Check out that link at SimHQ! It is step by step on how to get UDPSpeed up and running. In the ini file there is a "log=0" option.. change that to "log=1" and it will dump all your stuff to a file. There is another devicelink util out there too.. I forget the name of it.. it was better than UDPSpeed because you could apply equations to the values.. For example you could calc TAS from IAS and ALT and display it on the screen

PS BaldieJR is a UDPSpeed wizz.. I think he has his own web sight on it too.. We have been beggin the MODs to start a DeviceLink forum.. but it has been a year and nothing. Also, if you dont get it figrued out, I would be more than happy to process your track files.

BBB_Hyperion
07-22-2005, 08:50 AM
Crimea map is one of the maps with a complex high alt model . Its not close to isa conditions as you have seen.

Here is the normal isa temp distribution gryphon.

http://img347.imageshack.us/img347/8591/tempisa3uj.jpg

Diablo310th
07-22-2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Kinda OT, but it is interesting to see FW190's evolving from IL-2 1.0 up to PF 4.01.. I don't think any other bird had as much FM and DM tweaking, from other way to completely other direction .. Like rollercoaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It first became deadly bird in Forgotten Battle's second beta patch (public), having vastly overmodelled roll rate.. it got tweaked down, it was perfect. It had simple DM, but it was improved, and made more complicated..However, W├╝rger received many DM-bugs (like fuel leak bug, one .303 hit, and you and the plane was on fire etc..) Now, at the moment it has slightly undermodelled roll rate, good guns for first time, but again bugged DM (allthough from w├╝rgerpilot's perspective it's nice not to get the silly fuel leak bug anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )..

Perhaps soon the rollercoaster will reach it's end .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Vipez....the Jug has gone thru the same gyrations as the FW. Seems liek neither ac can settle into anything consistent. Like the FW...the Jugs FM and DM are way off right now. Some things that are being said here are so true for many ac. Roll rate seems off for many ac not jsut teh FW. We all know about teh DM bug with teh 109's and 190's. DM on teh Jug sucks too...1 wing hit should not take out controls on both wings, rudder and elevator. I think all these tests that are being done in several threads are great. At least some people are taking the time to test and post. Maybe we chould settle on one set of parameters for testing and everyone stick to it. Hmm maybe we need a sticky thread for testing. Then all tests could be found in one place easily. CrazyIvan....waht ya think?? A sticky?? I personally love to read the threads showing tests and results. I know many others do too...So lets keep teh insults out of it and keep the information in it. ~S~ to all of you that are willing to take tiem to test objectively and post your results. Again.....conisder a common set of conditions and instead of maybe compairing exact numbers to RL charts compare game results by percentage to RL charts. I'm not sure I amde that clear waht i'm saying or if it would even really work but oh well..it's an idea. After all we all looking for 2 things here. 1. We want realistic as can be FM's and DM's and 2. we are msotly intersted in in game performance.

Diablo310th
07-22-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Maybe you could give me a link for the devicelink program you use? No, no I cant.. Because I wrote my own. I was using UDPSpeed before I wrote my own. UDPSpeed is more for displaying things to the screen while your flying.. Which comes in handy in that it has a higher resoultion IAS guage!! I wrote mine to just collect data.. UDPSpeed can write data to a log file too.. But mine is specifically for collecting data.. no displays or anything.. For some testing where I need a good IAS display I will actully use UDPSpeed.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Can't figure out how to do it in UPDspeed. LOL! Initally I couldnt either.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Which is why I wrote my own! Than later I found this link over at SimHQ. They have a good step by step there on how to setup UDPSpeed

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=011755

It walks you through the setup and everything.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Anyway, tested at 10,000ft this time. Just took 5 samples.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/roll2.jpg

I was thinking, now that I'm using the right altitude, it should match the chart, but it's actually worse. At 250 you get this outstanding rate of ~150 DPS, topping out near 350, then falling like a stone some 100km/h before it should

Errors in ambient pressure and my reaction time aside, I think there's a clear indication that the roll rate peaks too quickly, then falls off too rapidly, causing the apparent difference in roll rate between 3.04 and 4.01. Well.. I would hold off on a conclusion until you get UDPSpeed up and running.. alot of that error may be due to eyeballing it too.. For example, with devicelink data you could not only plot the roll rate (difference of the roll) but have the coresponding IAS speed.. So you could see just what the speed was while your rolling.

Check out that link at SimHQ! It is step by step on how to get UDPSpeed up and running. In the ini file there is a "log=0" option.. change that to "log=1" and it will dump all your stuff to a file. There is another devicelink util out there too.. I forget the name of it.. it was better than UDPSpeed because you could apply equations to the values.. For example you could calc TAS from IAS and ALT and display it on the screen

PS BaldieJR is a UDPSpeed wizz.. I think he has his own web sight on it too.. We have been beggin the MODs to start a DeviceLink forum.. but it has been a year and nothing. Also, if you dont get it figrued out, I would be more than happy to process your track files. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert...the otehr program is UDPGraph. I use it aslot and think it's better than UDPSpeed. I think your onto something here using DeviceLink. It's showing accurate ingame data that can be used for comparison. I't also taking some of teh guesswork out of testing. Keep it up guys.

Brotrob
07-22-2005, 10:43 AM
Good work guys.

Here for the first time I see "reds" and "blues" working together http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. If someone proofs a bug, like here or in the Fw 190 damage-modell-thread, then it should be in the interest of both sides to fix it.

Till now it has only been a mess, like kindergarden. Nobody wanted to give up his (unrealistic) advantage, or allow the other side to get rid of an (unrealistic) disadvantage. On top of that some well nown community-members started a flame-war out of such threads, and the chaos was complete, nobody achieved anything.

Not that I'm so naive to belive everything will change now, but its a very good start. If only some of the above mentioned people would leave...

Regards,

Brotrob