PDA

View Full Version : ATA Bar



CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-10-2006, 09:52 AM
Im not sure if this is new, but I saw somethin strange, while flying all boosted FW190(A5,A6,A8,A9). While doing vertical maneuvers the ATA bar was decreasing, and it was decreasing a lot, and im not sure its correct, all time i heard that FW190 was great in verctical maneuvers, but how could it be great if engine is loosing power while fighting vertical? I was testing A5 with 1,65 Ata, while doing gently climb turn with 350-300km/h Ata bar was showing 1.4 only, while speed dropped Ata bar showed about 1.2 Oo And everything is going on first stage of supercharger, while on the second stage, ATA bar only drops a little. If im correct ATA is showing power of engine in a moment, so why FW190 is loosing power in vertical maneuvers, especially when its low? If im thinking right, FW190 was mainly built to take air superiority on low and mid levels, it was better than BF109 on low level. BF109 dont have problems like FW190,and ATA bar is constant, im a bit confiused, kommandogerat was good machine and it was doing great work.You should not think that im whinning, im just wondering if its historical fact, or just kind of bug or mistaken.

Aymar_Mauri
02-10-2006, 10:06 AM
Welcome to the world where the FW190 is considered nothing more than a 100Ton fighter bomber exclusively, despite the fact that it was one of the best air-superiority E-fighters of WW2. In RL that is. Don't mistake IL2 and RL... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Willey
02-10-2006, 11:07 AM
It's the altitude in case of 1,65 A-5. It's just that high down low and at ~3k

Jaws2002
02-10-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Welcome to the world where the FW190 is considered nothing more than a 100Ton fighter bomber exclusively, despite the fact that it was one of the best air-superiority E-fighters of WW2. In RL that is. Don't mistake IL2 and RL... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you don't think FW 190 is an outstanding fighter in this patch I think is time for you to call your flight instructor and book some leasons.

ZG77_Lignite
02-10-2006, 12:33 PM
The FW190 should shift supercharger gears at around 3000m (depending upon throttle setting, and atmospheric conditions). The first supercharger gear should begin losing power at something above 2000m (it is not turning fast enough to jam enough air into the engine to maintain ATA). Therefore, from 2000-3000m (generally speaking) ATA will drop off. The same starts happening above 5000m, these altitudes are called 'critical altitudes'; defined as the altitude the supercharger can no longer maintain its performance.

OldMan____
02-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
The FW190 should shift supercharger gears at around 3000m (depending upon throttle setting, and atmospheric conditions). The first supercharger gear should begin losing power at something above 2000m (it is not turning fast enough to jam enough air into the engine to maintain ATA). Therefore, from 2000-3000m (generally speaking) ATA will drop off. The same starts happening above 5000m, these altitudes are called 'critical altitudes'; defined as the altitude the supercharger can no longer maintain its performance.

I think you dont get waht he is speaking about.

Any maneuver ina FW with boost on will make ATA gauge cahnge drasticaly. Don´t know if power cahnges too.. but the needle doe smove at anything that is not plain flight.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-10-2006, 01:37 PM
Thanks Oldman, thats what im talkin abouthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No matter what height, but if u go vertical - ATA drops, i guess power also.

ploughman
02-10-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Thanks Oldman, thats what im talkin abouthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No matter what height, but if u go vertical - ATA drops, i guess power also.

Could be, best send track to someone who knows how to check it out using device link which is the only way to be sure, or so I understand. Also, most engines are designed to operate optimally on the straight and level, fling them about, hang them upside down, they're less efficient. Power loss due to attitude does seem to be modelled in this game.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-10-2006, 02:24 PM
I have tracks : http://rapidshare.de/files/12977444/Look_at_ATA_.ntrk.html

If someone is interested, look at thishttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ploughman: I guess u are right, but why only FW190 is affected by this? I dont see such loss of ATA in BF109, or any other plane, so its strange for mehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
P.S. Im not talking about power loss due to altitude, but power loss due to the vertical position of the planehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-10-2006, 05:36 PM
Ok.. solved..

Jut keep above ridiculously low speeds. AND most important. Pay attention to the fact that supercharger is set to completely different moed than in previous A5. It behaves as the F8 engine.

At sea level you get max power. From 500 meters to 2000m you loose power than supercharger change gear.


In other antons the charger can hold ata until 2300 meters on first gear.


that is why it seems it looses ATA while in vertical. That and the fact that it seems that it is unable to hold max ATA at very very low speeds.

SeaFireLIV
02-10-2006, 07:03 PM
People here get way too excited about a new version of plane or type. Just cos it`s `ATA` or 25lb boost or has propellers at the front or rear or has a name like a flying insect isn`t going to make it super. It`s still a 1944-45 aircraft, it still needs human skill to get the improvements out of it. Even modern day fighter aircraft take years to learn properly and they do half the work by computers nowadays!

Half of the guys seem to think they need do nothing and the thing will fly, fight and make tea by itself! Y`all need to put things in a context of reality.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 02:19 AM
Oldman: i thought that manageing supercharger in FW190 is impossible. It not seems to loose ATA in vertical, but its really loosing it! Just when speed drops about 400km/h u start loosing it. This have nothing to the altitude, just on the second gear of supercharger u dont loose ATA so much, u need to really drop ur speed, but on the first gear, and it doesnt if u are on 100m or 1000m, its very hard to have ATA above 1.5 while maneuvering.

SeaFireLIV: Dont act like u are super uber ace, u dont know how im flying so please, dont comment, I dont like comments like "if something isnt working, or is working strange, BE SURE 100% u have no skills!!! Learn fly!1111!" I noticed that, so I made post on this forum, to get know a little more about my observation.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 02:47 AM
i myself dont much care, what the cauges show the me, all i care is: speed, alt, gasoline, compass and engine temperature. Temperature warnign light we got in our "HUD", so with WEP or other boost. and most of the time, i dont care my speed, i can read my speed when i compare it to my surroundings, so is with altitude. If im faster than enemy, i see it, if im higher than enemy, i see it too, without looking at cauges.
We dont need the cauges so much, i see it as nitpicking and useless time comsumption method for game developer. How many of us really look at every cauge while we fly? do we really need em all work in combat flight simulation? we dont if we have experience enought from the sim how our "planes" work, it comes with experience fromt he spine. and more information you get from sim, more hard it is to understand what really is most important. well sure, its like bible, almost everything is in it unimportant, but you think it is the most important if you want to see it that way.

(i dont say that there is BS in bible, but bible itself isnt god as we know, many see it as so)

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 03:04 AM
Stafroty, sorry but I agree only with u in 50%. Yes, while we fight, the only important thing is, speed, altitude, enemys, friends, and frontline. But while new patch is introduced, while testing offline, u can catch new things, and u can thing, that "Aha while im going vertical, ATA is dropping, that mean that im losing power, so im loosing speed, so i cannot fight vertical as effective as before." This have great influence on our flying style, well for now I fly FW190 most time almost horizontal " slight chandel", or more down like split S. Immelman is wrong choice in FW190, because it dont like low speeds, and engine is produceing low power. I just would like to know if really FW190 was so poor in upper vertical maneuvers, like immelman.

anarchy52
02-11-2006, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
People here get way too excited about a new version of plane or type. Just cos it`s `ATA` or 25lb boost or has propellers at the front or rear or has a name like a flying insect isn`t going to make it super. It`s still a 1944-45 aircraft, it still needs human skill to get the improvements out of it.

True, well except for the Spitfire that is.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Oldman: i thought that manageing supercharger in FW190 is impossible. It not seems to loose ATA in vertical, but its really loosing it! Just when speed drops about 400km/h u start loosing it. This have nothing to the altitude, just on the second gear of supercharger u dont loose ATA so much, u need to really drop ur speed, but on the first gear, and it doesnt if u are on 100m or 1000m, its very hard to have ATA above 1.5 while maneuvering.

SeaFireLIV: Dont act like u are super uber ace, u dont know how im flying so please, dont comment, I dont like comments like "if something isnt working, or is working strange, BE SURE 100% u have no skills!!! Learn fly!1111!" I noticed that, so I made post on this forum, to get know a little more about my observation.

Give it a look. It is exaclty the same as F8. That is how it is supposed to be (not talking it is 100% precise). Above 1500 is where you will have lower ata setting. Does not matter if flyign level (try it). This new FW does not like to be between 800 and 2200 meters. But if you keep fast it can keep well up to 1200 or 1300 meters.

FW A8 have almost same behavior. But F8 is the closest one. Maybe it needs adjustment. But is not THAT wrong.

Other planes like Corsair have exact same behavior, but only that their vertical range is twice as large (they only get really low ATA near 3000 m).

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 04:02 AM
Oldman, i noticed lost of power also under 800mhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But anyway, u may be right, but why BF109 that wasnt as good vertical fighter as FW190 have better performance, while going vertical? And The other thing, that antons that dont have more than 1.42 like A4, A5, A6 even with boost, dont loose ATA, only when speed drops below 250km/h. And A5 1.65, A8, A9, F8 loose it... strange :S

I made some tests: default, 100% fuel, 100% prop pitch, 100%power+WEP, slight climb from 0-1500m, speed is IAS.
http://rapidshare.de/files/13012923/A5.TRK.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/13012937/A5_1.65.TRK.html

FW190 A5
ATA | Speed | prop | RPM
1.40 | 400 | 11:45 | 2800
1.40 | 350 | 12:00 | 2800
1.40 | 300 | 12:00 | 2600
1.40 | 250 | 12:00 | 2400
1.25 | 200 | 12:00 | 2250

FW190 A5 1.65
ATA | Speed | prop | RPM
1.62 | 400 | 11:45 | 2800
1.60 | 350 | 12:00 | 2800
1.48 | 300 | 12:00 | 2600
1.38 | 250 | 12:00 | 2350
1.22 | 200 | 12:00 | 2150

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Oldman, i noticed lost of power also under 800mhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But anyway, u may be right, but why BF109 that wasnt as good vertical fighter as FW190 have better performance, while going vertical? And The other thing, that antons that dont have more than 1.42 like A4, A5, A6 even with boost, dont loose ATA, only when speed drops below 250km/h. And A5 1.65, A8, A9, F8 loose it... strange :S

I made some tests: default, 100% fuel, 100% prop pitch, 100%power+WEP, slight climb from 0-1500m, speed is IAS.
http://rapidshare.de/files/13012923/A5.TRK.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/13012937/A5_1.65.TRK.html

FW190 A5
ATA | Speed | prop | RPM
1.40 | 400 | 11:45 | 2800
1.40 | 350 | 12:00 | 2800
1.40 | 300 | 12:00 | 2600
1.40 | 250 | 12:00 | 2400
1.25 | 200 | 12:00 | 2250

FW190 A5 1.65
ATA | Speed | prop | RPM
1.62 | 400 | 11:45 | 2800
1.60 | 350 | 12:00 | 2800
1.48 | 300 | 12:00 | 2600
1.38 | 250 | 12:00 | 2350
1.22 | 200 | 12:00 | 2150

As I said. It may need adjustments. But the overal Idea is right. The extra ATA boost requires more of the charger, so is not strange it looses more power ( in %) than it did at lower settings. I really think 109 is a case where IT is the different one. Look at Corsair as I said, it behaves like FW (but need much bigger height space). Maybe it is soemthing related to inline vs Radial... I wil try other planes.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 04:16 AM
Dont u think, that idea would be right, if ALL planes would be affected by that?

Edit: I think that height have nothing to do with this, but the affecting factor is speed.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 04:21 AM
Doing some more test. maybe you can do it too. It seems At altitude the Old A5 is FAster than new one. At 3000 meters. New one could not get past 570 kph (while old one made to 590 before overheat


edit: new test: It seems at ALL heights where both keep max of their ATA (all but sea level) the OLD A5 is faster by about 20 kph. same for A8 .. it behaves the same as new A5. WTF.. why FW is th eonly series that gets worse and worse on more advanced versions?


IF that is true... this FW has serious problems.


EDit 2: LOOL FW A4 has higher top speed at 2000-2500 m range than new A5 and A8. Also same above 3300 m.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 04:30 AM
Ya, check my tests results, and u will see that old A5 have more power on speeds below 300km/h. Im not sure if this more power ia giveing anything in A5 1.65, because its loosing it all the time. These boost should work under 1000m( or first stage of supercharger), but what is doing on second stage? The boost is working better! ATA is constant, and it looks like it gives us more power.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 04:36 AM
Go back and see what I edited in my previous message. A4 is faster than new A5 and A8 at most height. That is why I ever felt it to keep E better.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 04:47 AM
Yes, thats why i think we have got some bug herehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 04:50 AM
Ok, lets build up A FW task force. Ask help of people used to make the sort of test documentation we need.


Currently FW190 A6/A5 is faster anton at 3 k meters, followed by A4, then A9 then far behind A8 and new A5.

About same behavior at most altitudes but sea level and critical alt.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 05:44 AM
What documentation does we need?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe Faustnik would like to help us, if we would ask him.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 05:53 AM
I am really realy each timemore convinced this is effect of an weirds supercharger curve. It seems the Charger curve on new A5 and A8 is completely different from other FW. Lets call other FW curve as urve A. Well A5 new and A8 have curve B.. and their ATA display show a curve C that is neitherof them.

At 3500 meters it behaves well (max 598 kph) at same height old A5 makes 573. At 5k meters the old A5 gets 600.. new one gets 570.

Now I am really confused if this new A5 is Better, equal or worse than old one..

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 05:57 AM
Best would be, if Oleg would like to answer our questionshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 06:11 AM
New example:

2500 meters.. ATA gauge shows ata 1.65 max speed 578 kph TAS

2000 meters ATA gauge shows ATA 1.4 max speed is 602 kph TAS


It seems ATA gauge is really messed up. That combined with completely different supercharger setup (when compared to normal A5) makes us have no Idea what we have in our hands.


I will make a max speed table for each 500 meters from 0 to 5k. Hope this helps discover what exacly we have.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:08 PM
Rikimary, why you need to look at ATA cauge to see that your speed is droppin? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif i see it from speedbar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i never felt any need for looking at ATA cauge or such non important, even if im testing. cos, Its not real engine, which needed to be care for, like pressures etc..

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-11-2006, 12:12 PM
Because ATA is shwoing kind of power of engine, so u know when ur engine isnt produceing much power.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:21 PM
can you see it from your speed? isnt that only mathematical and graphical trick what ATA shows? does it really have connection to power you got from engine? i trust on speed and acceleration i see, not what ATA shows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif cos thats what i need in action, not my ATA rating.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:23 PM
not my, but plane.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
can you see it from your speed? isnt that only mathematical and graphical trick what ATA shows? does it really have connection to power you got from engine? i trust on speed and acceleration i see, not what ATA shows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif cos thats what i need in action, not my ATA rating.

It shows you if you are in the best altitude for performance of your plane. Most planes do not suffer as much as FW in worst part of charger curve. But in a FW A5 for example is just dumb to fight beween 2300m and 3200m, because you have much less power on that level. Also this is not 100% fix, since it chanes from map to map and by your speed.

Now to discover best level to fly on new A5 you must guess because the Ata gauge is not telling the true.


If ATA was not important, It would not be a gauge as big as any other, neither more at view than RPM gauge on german planes.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 06:26 PM
why there is IL-2 compare programs?
and..
you cant trust only for your plane gibbage, you HAVE to know, which alt your plane is better, than the enemy plane, or you would die. you cannot trust only on the best altitude for performance of your plane.. see? if you blindly trust your plane, that now it makes its magic at best it can, enemy plane can be even better at that alt, but not anymore 1000m higher or lover http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif even if its not the best for your plane, but its still better than for the enemy.

rude question: how hard i have to hurt your feelings before you understand that you are wrong?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-12-2006, 12:53 AM
Stafroty: maybe u dont know, but Every patch somethin change, in 4.03 somethin changed also, and il2 compare isnt magic program that will show right performance of ur ac every patchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Stafroty, what for is this discussion? We dont need ur talking, that ATA isnt important, power isnt important, nothing is important. If u are blind noone can show u anything.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 01:17 AM
if you believe that this sim really is important for your life...

Rikimaru, i dont see that i got anything against you, if you dont want that to be. we can for sure arrange things that we would both have fun as you would try to insult me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i can only insult myself, but i can also insult you with your own thinking.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 01:18 AM
as again, do you trust more on ATA rating than on speed and acceleration?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-12-2006, 01:19 AM
I believe, that something is wrong, if something is wrong, I would like to report it, and someone would correct it.

Edit: Everything is important in my life, even sim.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 01:24 AM
why you need to believe if something really is wrong? cant you just drop believing and start to understand?

is everything so importand, that you would never let anything go?

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
as again, do you trust more on ATA rating than on speed and acceleration?

YES.. for Sure. BEcause Speed and aceleration must e measured by time and ATA is instantaneous DATA.


If it is so easy, please make us a graph ofa ltitude performance of new FW. You will find out that is very costly to dig up all that info by testing plane speed, climb etc every 100 meters.

Ratsack
02-12-2006, 08:31 AM
I just did some tests at 2,000 m and I get results similar to yours, Old Man. (Conditions: Crimea, 1200, 100% fuel, default load.) The new A5 is about 10 km/h slower than the old at that altitude (IAS). The A4 matches the new A5 at 2,000 m as close as makes no odds. The surprises for me were that the A6 was consistently 10 km/h faster than the old A5 (why?), and that the A8 was the slowest of the lot, by about 20 km/h (??!!).

In all cases, manual prop at 100% pitch added about 10 km/h.

I also tested the R1 load out on the A6 while I was at it. The R1 with drop tank costs about 30 km/h, and about 20 km/h with the drop tank discarded. That€s quite an anchor.

On the subject in hand, it looks as if the new A5 has had a change in supercharger gears as well as higher boost added. It€s almost as if it€s behaving like a cropped supercharger compressor: spinning slower at low altitude to make more break horsepower available. It's not impossible to achieve a higher power output this way and, with careful gearing, even get a higher boost (and therefore more shaft horsepower, too). This is what was done on the Merlins in the Spitfire LF MkV. I just don't know if this is what BMW did on this jabo version of the Focke-Wulf.

Ratsack

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 08:55 AM
Unfortunately I don´t have much data about this engine history. Maybe soemone else have precise data about this. I would really love some power charts for all FW in game (since ATA gauge is not working). It would help a lot to adjust combat style.


For now the best advice I can give is that when ATA gauge points 1.4 ata.. it has the greatest performance.

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2006, 09:25 AM
dont put too much value in the ata guages. Oleg has said they are just for show, that is to say there is NO complex engine simulation going on that calculates power. The ata stuff is just something simple based on rpm and alt. The only thing that matters to Oleg is the MIL (100%) and WEP (110%) throttle settings. So if you have test data at lower settings based on ata, you wont be able to use it to compare to.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
dont put too much value in the ata guages. Oleg has said they are just for show, that is to say there is NO complex engine simulation going on that calculates power. The ata stuff is just something simple based on rpm and alt. The only thing that matters to Oleg is the MIL (100%) and WEP (110%) throttle settings. So if you have test data at lower settings based on ata, you wont be able to use it to compare to.

I know that target (not that I like it), but even at 110% and WEp the ata gauge is plain WRONG. Very wrong. So that it is misleading. People think they are loosing power but they are not.. or vice versa.

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know that target (not that I like it), but even at 110% and WEp the ata gauge is plain WRONG. Very wrong. So that it is misleading. People think they are loosing power but they are not.. or vice versa. It is wrong on many planes.. Which is why you shouldnt go by it.. Go by performaces only.. does it make it to alt like it should when flown like it was.. Does it have the right top speed.. etc.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know that target (not that I like it), but even at 110% and WEp the ata gauge is plain WRONG. Very wrong. So that it is misleading. People think they are loosing power but they are not.. or vice versa. It is wrong on many planes.. Which is why you shouldnt go by it.. Go by performaces only.. does it make it to alt like it should when flown like it was.. Does it have the right top speed.. etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this plane behaved like the data say it should I would agree. Bu tit is completely insane. Most height it is slower than 1.42 ata version (and slower means 20 km/h)

CUJO_1970
02-12-2006, 05:27 PM
Well, at least it overheats fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CUJO_1970
02-12-2006, 05:36 PM
AFAIK, BMW didn't do anything different to the supercharger impellor. IMO any changes would have been to the supercharger drive ratios.

I.E., the first gear spins X times faster than the crankshaft at lower altitudes and the second gear spins X times faster than the crankshaft at higher altitudes.

Boost pressure was just that - the amount of pressure built up in the cylinder.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
AFAIK, BMW didn't do anything different to the supercharger impellor. IMO any changes would have been to the supercharger drive ratios.

I.E., the first gear spins X times faster than the crankshaft at lower altitudes and the second gear spins X times faster than the crankshaft at higher altitudes.

Boost pressure was just that - the amount of pressure built up in the cylinder.

So.. theoretically since this boost should be to <1k. The second gear was probably untouched right? And we should expect same performance on it?

darkhorizon11
02-12-2006, 11:00 PM
Thanks Tagert I guess that explains a lot then... I noticed a huge increase in performancein these planes yet the guages doesn't show it...

Hopefully that will all change come BoB...

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-13-2006, 12:14 AM
Lol? Huge increase of performance? Are we playing the same game?

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 12:37 AM
its kinda hard to trust in such cauges when they do not work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oldman, you can now get it hard by saying thats why we are whining here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 12:38 AM
is start to `Believe´ in Oldman and MaxGunz, they must be messiah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the Lord (not OLeg this time, but his apprentice) must been talked to them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gunkan
02-13-2006, 02:53 AM
Good post. I hope they correct this crazy data for the FW190 speed charts. There were reports of FW190A8 in dirty configuration (bombs's rack) escaping from Yak3's at sea level.

This data-shaking patch after patch is simply hilarious.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 03:26 AM
were yak3.s and yak9:d used in combo in real?? YAK 3 cathes in level and in climbing, forcing to turn, when enemy turn, yak9 enter the zone and eat. YAK3 could be really nice team play plane,now it prefers more lone wolf mentality. just pull da damn stick..

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 03:32 AM
Some of you guys sound like you resent the FW190A being fast. Sorry about this, but it was.

That said, the more I look at it, the more our in-game FW190A-8 looks like a jabo. It's even got the right canopy.

Ratsack

robban75
02-13-2006, 04:27 AM
Something is not right.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart16.jpg

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Something is not right.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart16.jpg

Really weird huh?

Can you make the favor of testing A8 as well and put side by side to it? If you don´t mind of course. I think it bahaves exactly liek 1.65 A5. And that we just inherited a set of flaws that we have been carring on A8 for long time.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 06:22 AM
FW with 1,65 ata was perfect before these tests and wonderings arrived here on forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif people really thought that boy im flyin an rocket now cos they believed so, some time. some longer some not so long, those who question the "truth" finds the truth, some will never find it even it they believe in "it"

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
FW with 1,65 ata was perfect before these tests and wonderings arrived here on forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif people really thought that boy im flyin an rocket now cos they believed so, some time. some longer some not so long, those who question the "truth" finds the truth, some will never find it even it they believe in "it"

The cynic in me would like to agree with you about the placebo effect. I have to say, however, that this is not what I saw the other night on Spits vs 109s. A lot of people started on the A-5 1.65, but pretty soon there were more plain A-5s and A-6s flying around. I was one of them, too. I found the new A-5 1.65 overheated too quickly.

Ratsack

FERRER_D
02-13-2006, 07:17 AM
http://i1.tinypic.com/np1l5i.gif

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 09:17 AM
Well, that was a useful and enlightening contribution to the discussion.

Ratsack

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 11:31 AM
I found the new A-5 1.65 overheated too quickly.

sooo, power and that kind of things are not in connection with overheating.
Overheating is caused by different maths, right?

Ratsack

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I found the new A-5 1.65 overheated too quickly.

sooo, power and that kind of things are not in connection with overheating.
Overheating is caused by different maths, right?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry mate, I don't understand what you're trying to say or ask.

cheers,
Ratsack

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 12:40 AM
IF 1,65 ata isnt producing any more power, less than with 1,42 ATA, why it still does make more heat??

so, power output isnt in direct connection with overheating. see my point? same engine, cooling etc, but different power, different overheat. but how can less power create more heat?

so overheating is not in connection directly with power.

Gunkan
02-14-2006, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
IF 1,65 ata isnt producing any more power, less than with 1,42 ATA, why it still does make more heat??

so, power output isnt in direct connection with overheating. see my point? same engine, cooling etc, but different power, different overheat. but how can less power create more heat?

so overheating is not in connection directly with power.

Of course not. In a air-cooled engine, the overheating depends on a, not eought, air flow throught rotary cilinders.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 06:24 AM
why it is so in game then??

Gunkan
02-14-2006, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
why it is so in game then??

-Why the altitude factor is not rightfully modelled? La-7 following K4 to 10K without problems?
-Why the energy model os not working? In IL2, energy planes like P-47 or FW190 don't have the real advantage they had.
-Why can you pull +9G -9G in your plane without pilot tireness? This point is critical.
-Why every patch there is new secret data and they change the speed of some planes?
-Why a P-47 diving is so slow? 6T+2000hp diving (P-47) is not 3T+1700 diving (FW190A8) diving.

My answer is simple: gameplay. This sim is a master piece of software. And software is only a market. Some people demand hardcore sims, but only a little part ¿10%?

MystiqBlackCat
02-14-2006, 12:26 PM
What are the boost settings on the aircraft that we have? Are they all 1.42ATA with the exception of the 1.65ATA A5? Are the A8, F8, and A9 also running at 1.65ATA? Forgive me for not knowing, I'm at work and cant check. I also did some quick research, if you have a better website please share it.

If so does the extra horsepower in later models, A8, F8, A9, overcome the increased wieght? If no then they should accelerate slower than earlier models as they seem to do. I have seem some comparisons of the new A5 with A8s and F8s in this thread and I dont think that they are as relevent as comparisons with the 1.42ATA A5 because of the increased wieght in the later versions. There were no changes in the production of engines for the Anton series for the A4-A9 and including the F8 and G8. So the Wulfes are all running the same engine but later versions have more wieght due to extra armor and heavier firepower. Changing the boost is not necessarily a manufacturer's job, it can be done when attaching the engine to the airframe or later on in the field and no documentation that I have found has mentioned anything about BMW producing uprated 801D engines.

With all of this in mind I just want to try and keep everyone on topic, basically the new A5 should accelerate better, be a little faster, and climb slightly better than the old one on paper.

Link to a quick webpage on BMW801 radial:
BMW801 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801)

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-14-2006, 02:32 PM
MystiqBlackCat - but it doesnthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If im not wrong, the engine was the same, but they used EN, and that was some kind of cooling system(?), that allowed to run engine on higher ratio. So the weight didnt changed really, i guess the only change in armor was A8 with some R_kit_jabo_version.

Jaws2002
02-14-2006, 02:37 PM
There were no changes in the production of engines for the Anton series for the A4-A9 and including the F8 and G8. So the Wulfes are all running the same engine but later versions have more wieght due to extra armor and heavier firepower.


Wrong. There was power increase between versions.
Fw-190A8 in fighter configuration had 2100PS or 2050hp at 1st gear supercharger FTH using 1.58ata@2700U/min.
That with something like 160 kg weight increase over A5.

MystiqBlackCat
02-14-2006, 07:20 PM
Rikimaru- I expect that the weight of the aircraft would go up considerably with the extra armor and larger guns, I am looking now but I am having trouble finding the weights for individual variants. Best I have found is that the A8 combat weight is 4,900Kgs.

Jaws- Could you link me to some referrences for those engine changes or reccomend a book? The books I have don't mention these small changes, neither does the website I was looking at when I was at work. I'm still skimming the material I have for specific changes.

Jaws2002
02-14-2006, 10:47 PM
There is a gentleman posting on Aces High forum from http://www.white1foundation.org/. Crump.
His is restoring a FW-190 found in Norway to flyable condition. He is the most knowledgeable person I saw on the forums when it comes to FW-190. He is also posting in The Focke-Wulf Consortium. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8). That's where I got this info.

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:
Rikimaru- I expect that the weight of the aircraft would go up considerably with the extra armor and larger guns, I am looking now but I am having trouble finding the weights for individual variants. Best I have found is that the A8 combat weight is 4,900Kgs.

Jaws- Could you link me to some referrences for those engine changes or reccomend a book? The books I have don't mention these small changes, neither does the website I was looking at when I was at work. I'm still skimming the material I have for specific changes.

You must be carefull with this data. THere were A8 versions with heavy armor to face bombers gunners. This ones were capable of deflecting .50 in favorable conditions.


But this is NOT the version we have in game. We do not have this armor.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Gunkan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
why it is so in game then??

-Why the altitude factor is not rightfully modelled? La-7 following K4 to 10K without problems?
-Why the energy model os not working? In IL2, energy planes like P-47 or FW190 don't have the real advantage they had.
-Why can you pull +9G -9G in your plane without pilot tireness? This point is critical.
-Why every patch there is new secret data and they change the speed of some planes?
-Why a P-47 diving is so slow? 6T+2000hp diving (P-47) is not 3T+1700 diving (FW190A8) diving.

My answer is simple: gameplay. This sim is a master piece of software. And software is only a market. Some people demand hardcore sims, but only a little part ¿10%? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the force is with you.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:22 AM
why are the people (me as well) talkin here like that the issue of engine problems like it would be a real plane engine, which has the problem without gettin it that its just game code.

Jaws2002
02-15-2006, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:
Best I have found is that the A8 combat weight is 4,900Kgs.




You are about at least 500kg too heavy for a basic light fighter A8. Is like you would carry around five fat pasangers on it.

MystiqBlackCat
02-15-2006, 07:54 AM
The wieght that I found is combat weight, i.e. full fuel and armament. I believe that includes a bomb as well, which would explain the extra 500kg. Thanks for the sites btw, I'm looking over them now.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:
Best I have found is that the A8 combat weight is 4,900Kgs.




You are about at least 500kg too heavy for a basic light fighter A8. Is like you would carry around five fat pasangers on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or tall, or strong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 08:06 AM
"A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist." "But that," replied the Universe, "has not created in me a sense of obligation."


what does that obligation means? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif kinda owning?

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 08:11 AM
oh, Duty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) i learn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif