PDA

View Full Version : Any change of doing something to FW stall department?



Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 04:32 AM
Now IMO you got pretty close in FB 1.22 to a FM which sort of reproduced FW-190 as it must have been. A manouverable (and it does not mean turning here) and fast fighter. In 1.21b the elevator was a bit overdone (where the exploit would have been later countered by stress damage anyway), but in 1.22 it was just about fine. Since AEP and now in PF the only function of the elevator is to generate different stages of buffeting. I sort of miss the manouvering dogfights with FW.

Now it's easy to notice the difference. In typical scenario you get a separation to the enemy, reverse and go for a head2head. In FB this separation required for reversal was as much as ~2 km. With 1.22 the required separation came below 1.5 km. Now since AEP it's well over 2 km again. A common looping takes fairly long time because of the stall. Don't make it turn tighter or anything just tune down that stall to a level of FB 1.22 again.

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 04:53 AM
I 3.0 FW was incredbly good. Now in 3.01 its like AE 2.01. But look at FW tatics post.. i posted a joy setting I developed specially to fly the antons reducing largely the buffeting.

I would just like the capability of binding a joystick input to a certain plane (or at least store 2 or 3 input setups)

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 05:00 AM
It is still not the very essence of flying it without buffeting because the tightness of the manouvers is away. Now like I said, at best the last patch of FB (1.22) - the manouvering was drastically better than since AEP. The separation you need before reversal and not to mention getting nice and cosy in a dogfight are quite in the different department currently. You see this very efeectively if you compare how much FW is flown online, it was never so popular as towards the last patch of FB. I miss that.

thompet03
11-27-2004, 05:31 AM
Oldman, would you please repost your joysettings.. just wanna try it..

Thx!

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:51 AM
Just look at FW tatics post at general discussion. The idea is to remove tha capability if producing input at a level that coul produce an instant stall. Also the precision is improved at "buffeting zone" so that you can produce better results.

Keep in mind that different joysticks will need different setups.


Use for pitch:7 18 28 39 49 56 66 75 82 88

It is not magical... but removed 99% of my high speed stalls

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 05:57 AM
That's still not the very essence - it is instantenous turn rate particularly at lower speed department which is not what you'd expect. P-51 can easily outmanouver FW at any speed and altitude, which isn't historically that obvious. It's also not about whether or not one can employ FW in the game, no that's about gaming tactics. What I mean is that there is a controversy between these tactics and the real part and IMO FB at 1.22 was much closer to the real thing.

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:58 AM
I know, but is the best that we can do in current FM. In 3.00 I didn't needed any special joy setup and was able to close dogfight with even LA-7

JG77Von_Hess
11-27-2004, 08:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifHello Ugly_Kid!

Have u read this article by David lednicer
(EAA135815) its not quite that informative on this subject but still holds some vitals.

If not PM me and ill give u download link for it.

Regards.

VH.

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 10:38 AM
Yes, I have it somewhere on my harddrive.

JG77Von_Hess
11-27-2004, 10:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifOk.

I must admit i do also miss them mock up fights between FW190A and P51s when the P51 first became availeble in this game. 2 planes that requerd desent flying skill, remember i said to my self hmm perhaps things are about to change for the better in this game.. Ahh well

Cheers mate.

VH.

LuftLuver
11-27-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Something about teh 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting.

1 - Before we go further along, could you post official Luftenwaffie data showing where the 190 did never stall in combat?

2 - Now, which model of real life 190 have you flown? If I recall, the only one even airworthy is the FlugWerk machine. So you must be either a test pilot or very closely related to the owner to have been lucky enough to fly the only 190 replica in the world.

http://www.flugwerk.com/new/images/jul/g-fw190-structure1.jpg

-OR-

You are a flying game player who got shot down in Warclouds44 and proceeded directly to ORR.

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 11:18 AM
Is there any particular reason why this dude has right to post at all?

JG77Von_Hess
11-27-2004, 11:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VH.

Korolov
11-27-2004, 12:20 PM
Have you tried the Fw-190A-4 and A-5? They seem to have a lot of agility as of late.

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Have you tried the Fw-190A-4 and A-5? They seem to have a lot of agility as of late. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope only from A-6 on, the MG-FF armed ones have dental department of a 90-year-old, only good for porridge.

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:42 PM
disagree, An A4 can blow up any plane with its outer guns.. Indeeed I prefer the MG-FF.. unless by their low ammo count.

2 151/20 2 MG-FF and 2 7mm (that now works and creates fire) are a hell of a punch.

LuftLuver
11-27-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Is there any particular reason why this dude has right to post at all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same rights as you M8.

You are complaining for 190. I want to know which 190 you have flown, or see some no-stall charts and graphs.

Apparently we need historical charts and graphs to prove Hellcats didn't have **** on the glass from the factory.

So, post your no-stall charts and graphs please. Really, post some HARD data.

M8.

Ugly_Kid
11-28-2004, 01:22 AM
FW has a same profile as quite a few aircraft in the sim NACA 230XX. Yes it was known for harsh high speed stall but on the contrary it was also known for a gentle low speed stall (a straight one). On the contrary F4U-1 here suffered from very vicious unsymmetric stall, which was given a fix in a form of a spoiler. This worked according to some and not according to others, where it worked was ruining wings max. lift factor.

I can easily provide literature quotes from both.

Now were "stall" charts provided when P-47 stall was treated with velvet gloves? Don't think so - do I see P-39 or F-4U resembling historical stall characteristics - hell, no. Not even when Cobra-pilots themselves repeatedly ask for them.

Now, this isn't about "no stalling" this is about giving it some consideration. For example at FB 1.22 which was certainly 99.9% correct as all the other version, there it was quite nice. I would prefer to have this 99.9% presentation to what we currently see. All this IMO reruires is more leeway to the stall limit, i.e higher dCL/dalpha which in itself doesn't make the turns tighter it just makes response calmer. After all, the buffeting starts at very low level of lift factor according to my tests already at ~0.5. This isn't abrupt stall without warning. If buffeting occured closer to the actual stall and the stall itself required more elevator it would be o.k.

Stalling in the game is a very subjective area. The presentation for a stedy state stall at 1.0 g is not a very good one. You can lure the aircraft to a sub stall speed condition with very mild elevator and trim inputs, a real aircraft wouldn't have that. It appears as if AoA is only controlled by elevator and not by gravity at all. Additionally symmetric stall is missing completely. A harsh elevator input and kept that way always ends up in a spin. Now, don't tell me that stalls are anything that correct to begin with, it is the most subjective part of the FM. What it goes down here is about handling not that much about concrete performance figures turnrate or climbrate.

Ugly_Kid
11-28-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
disagree, An A4 can blow up any plane with its outer guns.. Indeeed I prefer the MG-FF.. unless by their low ammo count.

2 151/20 2 MG-FF and 2 7mm (that now works and creates fire) are a hell of a punch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a huge difference between online and offline there. Bf-109E, i.e is half of what it used to be, must have been because of the mess we made in VEF. (Not that MG151 is soooo much better)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
11-28-2004, 01:53 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW190Stall.gif

Repost warning .)

CHDT
11-28-2004, 02:15 AM
Good doc, Hyperion.

And once again, Tank purposely designed the 190A as a "noob" plane, so those saying that the Focke-Wulf should be hard to master have hidden agendas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
11-28-2004, 02:20 AM
Btw, plenty of docs about the 190 here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt

For instance, just one doc for those thinking a 190 can't do steep turns ("you know, the 190 is strictly a boom and zoom aircraft, don't ever turn with it blablabla....")

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364663

Copperhead310th
11-28-2004, 02:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
FW has a same profile as quite a few aircraft in the sim NACA 230XX. Yes it was known for harsh high speed stall but on the contrary it was also known for a gentle low speed stall (a straight one). On the contrary F4U-1 here suffered from very vicious unsymmetric stall, which was given a fix in a form of a spoiler. This worked according to some and not according to others, where it worked was ruining wings max. lift factor.

I can easily provide literature quotes from both.

Now were "stall" charts provided when P-47 stall was treated with velvet gloves? Don't think so - do I see P-39 or F-4U resembling historical stall characteristics - hell, no. Not even when Cobra-pilots themselves repeatedly ask for them.

QUOTE]

If you don't know anything about athe P-47 then you most likely should not comment on the P-47 but stick to what you know...FW-190.
Last patch the p-47 was given un realistic stall properties....there was no pre-stall buffeting, and no warning what so ever of the impending stall, which according to 1943 USAAF PILOT TRAINING FILMS for the P-47 show "your p-47 will always let you know long before the stall" (quoting the voice over there.)

Thankfully this has now been fixed.
but to sugest that the thunderbolt was handeled with "velvet gloves" is absurd. you obviously never flew the FB v1.00 P-47.

don't take this the wrong way but....
Have you conciderd that it might not be the 190's FM but rather you control of the stick causeing the probelms? just a thought.

Ugly_Kid
11-28-2004, 02:48 AM
The example was to point out that indeed the stalling is a very subjective domain. Yes, I flew P-47, not much at FB 1.0, later and particularly with AEP yes and I have nothing against the current change. The point is that all of the variations on the stall regime in this game are not hammered on concrete they change and do change a lot - sometimes out of wish, sometimes without it.

The problem is also not how I cope with it and game the game. I fly straight get a separation, turn around and go for head2head passes. That has always worked in this game and propably always will. Is this a historical FW employment, no, it is how you game this game. At earlier version you had additionally an option of engaging on a closer dogfight and outmanouver your opponent, this isn't currently very much on the possible side. That's all. I don't care about dirty windows on a hellcat, your jug or its 0.5 cal but I care how FW handles and whether that's in a historical domain.

Copperhead310th
11-28-2004, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
The example was to point out that indeed the stalling is a very subjective domain. Yes, I flew P-47, not much at FB 1.0, later and particularly with AEP yes and I have nothing against the current change. The point is that all of the variations on the stall regime in this game are not hammered on concrete they change and do change a lot - sometimes out of wish, sometimes without it.

The problem is also not how I cope with it and game the game. I fly straight get a separation, turn around and go for head2head passes. That has always worked in this game and propably always will. Is this a historical FW employment, no, it is how you game this game. At earlier version you had additionally an option of engaging on a closer dogfight and outmanouver your opponent, this isn't currently very much on the possible side. That's all. I don't care about dirty windows on a hellcat, your jug or its 0.5 cal but I care how FW handles and whether that's in a historical domain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you may not care about the p-47 but i do.
and it's getting pretty near spot on.
I don't personaaly care about the 190's.
so long as they (190's) don't fly like they have ET at the stick and soak up lead like water in a spunge, or fire nuclear laserbeam cannons i'm pretty happy.

faustnik
11-29-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Well you may not care about the p-47 but i do.
and it's getting pretty near spot on.
I don't personaaly care about the 190's.
so long as they (190's) don't fly like they have ET at the stick and soak up lead like water in a spunge, or fire nuclear laserbeam cannons i'm pretty happy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfect example of a "gamers" mentality. You don't care if your opponent's aircraft can perform to its historical specifications as long as you have an advantage. You have no respect for the for the problems faced by the pilots you fly against and only whine about their historical advantages.

The historically minded P-47 pilots on this forum realize that the issues faced by P-47 pilots are usually the same as those faced by Fw190 pilots, and they share a mutual respect because of it.

Fehler
11-29-2004, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Well you may not care about the p-47 but i do.
and it's getting pretty near spot on.
I don't personaaly care about the 190's.
so long as they (190's) don't fly like they have ET at the stick and soak up lead like water in a spunge, or fire nuclear laserbeam cannons i'm pretty happy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfect example of a "gamers" mentality. You don't care if your opponent's aircraft can perform to its historical specifications as long as you have an advantage. You have no respect for the for the problems faced by the pilots you fly against and only whine about their historical advantages.

The historically minded P-47 pilots on this forum realize that the issues faced by P-47 pilots are usually the same as those faced by Fw190 pilots, and they share a mutual respect because of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Copperhead... No offense man, but if you dont care about the FW, why are you posting in a thread about it?

I have never seen you fly the thing online, therefore I cant say with 100% accuracy, but I am pretty sure that you dont know "How" it handled and handles now. The opposite can be said of me, of course. I dont fly the jug that often (But I do fly it every once in a while)

The last patches have come so fast that I have barely had enough time to fly the 190, let alone take a non-favorite plane up for a spin.

What UglyKid means with his "Velvet gloves" comment is that once information, even anecdotal in nature, was given, things were eventually changed for the P-47. But not for the 190. I label the 190 the "BastardBird" of the sim. Incidentally, I am glad the P-47 supposedly represents a more accurate historical picture. That's all we "Luftwhiners" have ever asked for... historical accuracy... not historical supremacy.

Now, believe me when I say I fly the 190 99% of the time... The game and the previous anecdote are obviously not talking about the same plane. And when it comes to the Ta, I really think the stall, and overheat issues surrounding this aircraft, especially at high altitude (Where it was designed to operate) are not even logical. Just last night, I put a Ta into a flat spin from 8000m with less very little input on my stick. Again I fly the 190 all the time, and my controls are seriously dumbed down, and I know how to avoid a stall. I was truly amazed that I stalled, and even more amazed that in a 8 thousand meter freefall, I never once got the control surfaces to bite. In my opinion, the Ta is truly a "ButcherED" bird.

I challenge you, Copperhead, to take the 190 for a night of dogfighting on Warclouds with me and the rest of JV44 to see how nicely the thing can flip over into a stall. Then come back and read some statements by LW pilots that flew the airplane and tell me which is correct, you in your gaming world, or they who flew the real thing... As it stands, if you get into a dogfight with a 190 and are shot down, you can believe with utmost confidence that the guy that handed you your butt was a far superior pilot than yourself. That is not the case when being shot down by most other aircraft.

So there you go.. a challenge.. come fly with us. I will even wing with you and keep you out of hot water, and give you some pointers that us "Luftwhining FW 190 drivers" use to try and keep the evil Mustangs and Jugs from devouring us. hehehe!

Give in to the dark side Luke!

Bearcat99
11-29-2004, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Is there any particular reason why this dude has right to post at all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

........................ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Remember where this post is gents... if it isnt constructive and supported by something other than personal opinion it has no legs and will be treated accordingly. This isnt the place for a duel of wits and some of you are extremely short on ammo so lighten up.. take it to a PT... keep it to the point and back it up.

faustnik
11-29-2004, 01:12 PM
Fehler,

The P-47 takes a lot of skill, patience and a gentle touch just like our Fw190. Both of these aircraft do not like to be overhandled. They both have very high wingloading which is going to mean higher stall speeds any way you slice it, right?

The advantage that the P-47 would have is in stall warning. Here is an American test of the Fw190:

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id92.htm

The test specifically mentions the lack of warning with the Fw190 stall. The P-47 was noted as having a "mild buffet about four or five mph above stall" AHT.

Personally, I'm happy with the turning/stall characteristics of the 190. It matches everything that I have read about the aircraft. Areas in which I still have questions are relative roll rate and climb rate, but, they are only questions, not claims.

clint-ruin
11-29-2004, 01:33 PM
Is there any way to seperate out airframe stall sensitivity from the joystick>elevator sensitivity? The P-47s stall is milder but it's also not capable of the same neckbreaking rapid AOA changes in the same speed range. How are you definining a 'stall' in this case - just letting the speed bleed off and waiting for the plane to drop on its own, or are you talking about stalling out as you pull a turn tighter?

I know it's the classic sort of "learn to fly" thing which must really piss UglyKid off by now, but that's not the sense I'm mentioning this in. Just as in - is it the stick movement > elevator response that is changing or the stall characteristics themselves? How do we test both and see which is accounting for what behaviour specifically?

OldMan____
11-29-2004, 03:28 PM
Unfortunately since the bar issue has been so excessively hited on.. I think oleg usually see with a grain of salt most complains about FW´s and you must bring hima dammit very good proof to get his attention.

I can understand that..


But is sooo good to shot down all that P-XX planes using my dumbed FW190 that I even like it more like it is now. Otherwise if our plane was as LW pilots statements propose.. P-XX flyers would not even take off... :P

Ugly_Kid
11-29-2004, 03:37 PM
I believe there is a way. It's known in layman terms as AoA for certain lift factor. It does not mean that you allow a higher lift factor only more angle of attack for it. Max. liftcoefficient defines the stall there is a respective AoA for it. Make the build up slower and you have a higher AoA for the same lift factor. Bleed (which is anyway seemingly questionable here) is also rather a question of lift factor than AoA. You see F4U-1, i.e, has a same wing profile, high wing loading, very responsive elevator (in the game) - it was known in RL for lousy stall and it could not exploit the potential max. lift factor to full. Yet it goes smoothly around the corners like nothing, it is indeed very forgiving. FW on the other hand had problem at high speed, at stall coming without warning, but the problem did not exist at low speed nor did it lead to small max. lift coefficient. Slow speed stall was quite controllable. IMO constant buffeting with minute elevator which reminds me of escorting a parkinson diseased grandpops accross the street is not a stall without warning. P-51, another very responsive elevator has been good, bad and evil. Currently again quite nice but even at its worst times it had quite a notable area of clean manouver without shaky buffeting. Just few examples how this indeed is a very unspecific and subjective part of the FM, yet having a big influence. Yet turning performance, i.e, hasn't been a subject to huge changes only the ease with which you can obtain it.

I think the responsiveness was previously done better during late FB patches. With AEP it was gone and been that way ever since.

I don't care about "learn to fly" stuff - I read it as "learn to play" the game. There is also a factor of who says it. If I sit in a P-51 and the comment comes from a FW jock who puts me down in flames after an intensive dogfight I'll start exercising self-criticism. I know couple of very good gamers out there, If I shoot them down repeatedly and vice versa (last patch i.e Spit vs. FW, FW always lost) I think it says a lot about the relative performance. Obviously I am not one of these harder must be real, if you want it harder in a real way put a real torque there instead of arcade stalls and spins to amuse masses.

clint-ruin
11-29-2004, 04:38 PM
Cool UK, just wanted to be sure which realm of flight you were talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I believe there is a way. It's known in layman terms as AoA for certain lift factor. It does not mean that you allow a higher lift factor only more angle of attack for it. Max. liftcoefficient defines the stall there is a respective AoA for it. Make the build up slower and you have a higher AoA for the same lift factor. Bleed (which is anyway seemingly questionable here) is also rather a question of lift factor than AoA. You see F4U-1, i.e, has a same wing profile, high wing loading, very responsive elevator (in the game) - it was known in RL for lousy stall and it could not exploit the potential max. lift factor to full. Yet it goes smoothly around the corners like nothing, it is indeed very forgiving. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg actually specifically commented on the F4U around or just before the time of PFs release, I'll see if I can dig up the post. But he was very very impressed with its handling and mentioned it in comparison to the FW as the same kind of thing with much more forgiving control. Not saying that that's absolutely correct in all modes of flight, but if the Corsair is easier to handle in the game then that view of things might account for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> FW on the other hand had problem at high speed, at stall coming without warning, but the problem did not exist at low speed nor did it lead to small max. lift coefficient. Slow speed stall was quite controllable. IMO constant buffeting with minute elevator which reminds me of escorting a parkinson diseased grandpops accross the street is not a stall without warning. P-51, another very responsive elevator has been good, bad and evil. Currently again quite nice but even at its worst times it had quite a notable area of clean manouver without shaky buffeting. Just few examples how this indeed is a very unspecific and subjective part of the FM, yet having a big influence. Yet turning performance, i.e, hasn't been a subject to huge changes only the ease with which you can obtain it.

I think the responsiveness was previously done better during late FB patches. With AEP it was gone and been that way ever since. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, cool. So I think if we look at what occurs in the game we get some different plane characteristics under these extremes of conditions:

The "out of envelope" sound plays - the rushing air noise you get when you're spinning, in a deep stall, or going too fast for your airframe. This is one of the best features of Il2 in terms of letting the pilot know what's going on with his plane since we're missing so many other cues. Also very strongly related to force feedback effects - probably whatever state triggers the noise is also triggering the FF effects. On some planes, I seem to get this effect for a few seconds before something bad happens, other planes I only seem to get it when I'm already flipped over.

There's also control strength effects. Some planes just can't change AOA very fast at certain sped/alt realms, either because the control is part supersonic or doesn't get enough airflow or can't deflect enough or whatever to actually tip the plane over or turn any harder. A lot of the more forgiving planes like the I-153, Yaks, Il2s, 109G2, V3.00 Corsair, etc have a very long range of speeds where they're quite hard to intentionally depart from controlled flight. With other planes like the FW-190, , P-39D & P-51 at times in other patches, as you say - you quite often get bugger all warning that something horrible is about to happen to your plane. With the 39 I guess this is a COG issue rather than control authority issue.

The elevator response issue vs stick sensitivity issue is sort of oblique to these, where with some planes you can depart them very easily from controlled flight if you want to. 100% deflection at the end of travel will very easily flip you over. 55% deflection in a flat turn at a certain speed will hold you there almost indefinitely, say, but at any time you have the option of flipping over, spinning out, etc.

edit: to make the point I meant to here - the percentage of deflection is also controllable by the user through the controls setup screen. You can alter this to make planes easier to flip out or roll at different deflections, and also give yourself a greater percentage of real life joystick deflection equalling a small range of your virtual sticks deflection. Same thing as has been commented on by a lot of real life pilots now - turning down their stick sensitivity to get a more realistic, proportionate response from a small joystick. If the FW has to represent a huge range of possible elevator deflection with the same short travel stick as every other plane has to use in the game, it may indeed seem oversensitive in some realms.

So I guess part of what we are looking into here is, could the FW get enough simulataneous 'bite' into the air with the prop+wash+torque effect and enough elevator authority to stall out hard at the same time? And how much warning would there be for this effect under different circumstances?

Would it be enough to say to Oleg, hey Oleg, could you ramp up the stall warning shake+noise another few notches on the FW190 series? Like make it creep up into a greater range of high AOAs, or whereever another couple of degrees deflection will be enough to flip it out for instance?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't care about "learn to fly" stuff - I read it as "learn to play" the game. There is also a factor of who says it. If I sit in a P-51 and the comment comes from a FW jock who puts me down in flames after an intensive dogfight I'll start exercising self-criticism. I know couple of very good gamers out there, If I shoot them down repeatedly and vice versa (last patch i.e Spit vs. FW, FW always lost) I think it says a lot about the relative performance. Obviously I am not one of these harder must be real, if you want it harder in a real way put a real torque there instead of arcade stalls and spins to amuse masses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup yup. I know you know your stuff though and I didn't mean to tell you how to fly the FW, so I thought I should make a note of that in the post :>

OldMan____
11-29-2004, 05:28 PM
People..just try a more smooth and relaxed joysetup. You will see Oleg gave us a marvelous FW190. Very nervous.. but very maneuverable.

Thanks oleg.

I have no fear in maveuvering wiht a Anton against almost any plane, as long as I don´t make it for too long.


I would only ask for the possibility of saving different joysetups.. so we could put or joy at correct setting for each plane faster.


So in my opinion is mostly a sensitiveness issue.

VW-IceFire
11-29-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
People..just try a more smooth and relaxed joysetup. You will see Oleg gave us a marvelous FW190. Very nervous.. but very maneuverable.

Thanks oleg.

I have no fear in maveuvering wiht a Anton against almost any plane, as long as I don´t make it for too long.


I would only ask for the possibility of saving different joysetups.. so we could put or joy at correct setting for each plane faster.


So in my opinion is mostly a sensitiveness issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For sure...that'd be a neat feature to have.

After I loosened up on the joystick after the first 6 months of flying the FW190 became my favorite Luftwaffe bird and it remains my favorite Blue side plane. After flying it for an hour, all other planes feel "unmanuverable". Reason being that the superb roll rate means I can transition between attacks with extreme rapidity. Also means that I can transition from offensive manuvers to defensive manuvers (i.e. by breaking off an attack and up or down into oncoming attackers).

Even the Spitfire seems kind of sluggish after flying the FW190. Its that roll rate that really helps. But the Spitfire is another kettle of fish...she turns so much better so both are a joy to fly for me.

Bearcat99
11-29-2004, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
People..just try a more smooth and relaxed joysetup. You will see Oleg gave us a marvelous FW190. Very nervous.. but very maneuverable.

Thanks oleg.

I have no fear in maveuvering wiht a Anton against almost any plane, as long as I don´t make it for too long.


I would only ask for the possibility of saving different joysetups.. so we could put or joy at correct setting for each plane faster.


So in my opinion is mostly a sensitiveness issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For sure...that'd be a neat feature to have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually.... we do have that feature.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
It is in the new IL2 Manager which can be had from the Sturmovik Essentials thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif