PDA

View Full Version : Another possible FW-190 bug.



Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 10:53 PM
Did more speed tests:

at SL:

P-51D: 591km/h
FW-190A-8: 589km/h
FW-190A-9: 597km/h

Now look at 3,000m

P-51D: 660km/h (that is approx 409 mph!)
FW-190A9: 603km/h
FW-190A8: 573km/h !!!!!

Obviously this must be some kind of bug, FW-190 speeds seem to have real problems. I can't see that the A-8 is only supposed to do 573km/h at 3,000m, before it would do about 605km/h (down 32km/h), the A-9 about 608 (down 5km/h).

All test Crimea, noon, over water, rad closed, 100% fuel, default loadout, auto prop-pitch, no-cockpit (TAS).

I have tracks.

Cyrano
11-28-2004, 11:10 PM
I just ran the same test with the A9 only.
I got 627kph on Manual prop at 3000m
620kph on Auto prop.
Ran the test twice, once with 25% fuel and second time with 100% and got essentially the same results both times.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 11:14 PM
Tests should be made with auto pitch, manual simply causes over-reving and fast overheat. Always use 100% fuel also.

What are your test conditions?

Try A-8 and with my conditions and tell me what you get. Then try P-51D.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 11:21 PM
Just did same test with A-9, 25% fuel and got 606km/h. My problem is with the A-8 doing 573km/h.

Cyrano
11-28-2004, 11:47 PM
Hunde,

With the A8 I got 580kph
With the P51D I got 665kph.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 11:57 PM
Those numbers are both about 5 above what I got. But you got 14 more with A-9. We must have something setup different. Also, in your A-9 test you should get about 3km/h more with 25% fuel as aopposed to 100% fuel.

Cyrano
11-29-2004, 01:18 AM
Hunde,

I tried the A9 one more time. I kept the Prop pitch on Auto the whole time and got 610km/h at 3000m. Incidently this is the exact speed Il2 Compare (2.04) has for that altitude. The A8 should hit 600km/h according to that version. I think a new one is coming out soon, perhaps they changed the speed on the A8 or perhaps you need to let your machanic win at poker from time to timehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-29-2004, 02:05 AM
wow 660 for a P51 at 3000m, that's pretty close to the performance a LowLevel OPTIMIZED D9 would get!
what speed do you get at 5k in the P51 ?
mach1 ?

OldMan____
11-29-2004, 03:22 AM
Hunde, think is that same problem that made some tests of mine give max speed of 530 to A8 at SL a few times while sometimes got correct speed. It seems something that is not always repeatable.

Also sending you a PM with more info.

Col.Kurtz
11-29-2004, 03:37 AM
Diffrence between best Performance point of low gear and worst at shifhting point should be 10km/h
Or between SL Performance and worst performance at 3000m:
23km/h at 1.42ata
~10km/h at 1.58ata
So for a A5 @1.42ata
668km/h SL
598km/h 1200m
588km/h 3000m

So the difference in IL2 is so high at Low alt because performance below 3000m is overmodelled for FW190 series.
Speed should be(real) :
565km/h SL for A5 (560km/h German manual with ETC)
565km/H SL for A8 with 1.58 Boost or 545km/h with 1.42ata
Data above already without ETC

Mustang Speed is ok from my knowledge
I have for P51B 67hg
577km/h SL
643km/h @3000m

For P51D @ 67HG (this is nearly same engine as Spit9LF Merlin66)
587km/h SL
660km/h @3000m

So Speed for Mustang is ok it is also modelled with rised boost of >70hg (21LB in game)
So it should be as fast or near a FW190 D9 at low alt

Hunde_3.JG51
11-29-2004, 03:39 AM
Thanks OldMan.

BlackSheep, that has been the case with the P-51D for a long time. That is why in my tactics posts I always say to avoid Mustangs at 2-4,000m because they are much stronger there. The thing is that they increase slightly more until about 3,500+m, then they actually decrease in speed until about 5,750m, at which point it increase until 7,500m, then it steadily decreases from there up.

BBB_Hyperion
11-29-2004, 04:12 AM
Sry i dont agree on A8 Topspeed

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

There are severe Problems with Topspeeds under Bombload conditions too see other thread.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-29-2004, 07:32 AM
wow our D9 is by 30kph (44/C3 Model) or 40kph(45/MW50 Version) slower than the one in that chart.

i do get ~678 in the 44 D9 at Crimea @5700m
under same conditions i get ~660 for the 45 D9.

aborted test once overheat message appeared and speed did not seem to increase anymore.

that is 660 vs 702 kph, quite a nice difference.

robban75
11-29-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
wow our D9 is by 30kph (44/C3 Model) or 40kph(45/MW50 Version) slower than the one in that chart.

i do get ~678 in the 44 D9 at Crimea @5700m
under same conditions i get ~660 for the 45 D9.

aborted test once overheat message appeared and speed did not seem to increase anymore.

that is 660 vs 702 kph, quite a nice difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's strange. I'm able to reach 715km/h at 5500m in the '44 D-9. This is correct according to historical speedcharts. But on the otherhand, the '44 version is much to slow at SL. 605km/h in-game vs 620km/h+ in RL.

The '44 Dora climbs better and is faster at alt compared to the '45 version, indicating the use of higher octane C3 fuel. But it's level acceleration is excactly the same as the '45 version up to 550km/h, and its topspeed at SL is lower. The '44 Dora should be better than the '45 version in every way but it isn't. Something is very strange with this bird.

faustnik
11-29-2004, 09:56 AM
Hunde,

Do you need more people to test, or do you have enough info to send to Oleg? Let us know what you need to get a package together to send to 1C.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-29-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
wow our D9 is by 30kph (44/C3 Model) or 40kph(45/MW50 Version) slower than the one in that chart.

i do get ~678 in the 44 D9 at Crimea @5700m
under same conditions i get ~660 for the 45 D9.

aborted test once overheat message appeared and speed did not seem to increase anymore.

that is 660 vs 702 kph, quite a nice difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's strange. I'm able to reach 715km/h at 5500m in the '44 D-9. This is correct according to historical speedcharts. But on the otherhand, the '44 version is much to slow at SL. 605km/h in-game vs 620km/h+ in RL.

The '44 Dora climbs better and is faster at alt compared to the '45 version, indicating the use of higher octane C3 fuel. But it's level acceleration is excactly the same as the '45 version up to 550km/h, and its topspeed at SL is lower. The '44 Dora should be better than the '45 version in every way but it isn't. Something is very strange with this bird. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strange i have tested on Auto-Pitch and Auto-Radiators + WEP/erh√¬∂te Notleistung.
is it possible that the difference is that big between auto and manual-pitch (had no time to do the test again)

oh an BTW: i was testing in 3.02bm

Fehler
11-29-2004, 10:12 AM
Hey Hunde.. That's not a bug..

It's a feature!


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

Stiglr
11-29-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>at SL:

P-51D: 591km/h
FW-190A-8: 589km/h
FW-190A-9: 597km/h
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see where an A8 Sturmbock should be within 1 mph (or @2km/hr) of a P-51D at ANY time. Only a Dora should get very close to a late Stang.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-29-2004, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>at SL:

P-51D: 591km/h
FW-190A-8: 589km/h
FW-190A-9: 597km/h
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see where an A8 Sturmbock should be within 1 mph (or @2km/hr) of a P-51D at ANY time. Only a Dora should get very close to a late Stang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you'r da brain, i don't see a FW190A7 Sturmbock in game... we don't even have an A7...

HayateAce
11-29-2004, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Something is very strange with this bird. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, something is stange between your various computer systems. Recall back when folks with AMD machines couldn't roll the P38 like other processors?

I wonder if different comp systems are yielding different speeds? If so, we end up with birds that will be calibrated to their most favorable machines, leaving other players with sub-par performers, friend and foe alike.

OldMan____
11-29-2004, 05:03 PM
FW is as fine as it could be.. Alittle bit too nervous.. but I don‚¬īt care.. A little bit of fun for us.

FW speed has some bugs related to loadout, I felt noghing else wrong.

Col.Kurtz
11-29-2004, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Sry i dont agree on A8 Topspeed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ofcourse you can use that data!
BUT
From my Data i have more than one source avaible (A8r2/GM1/A8/FW190 Ta152 serie comparsion/D9)
all from Focke Wulf with filled and polished surface+Wheel Doors closed
I dont see why Focke Wulf should use wrong data in their Performance sheets when they display the performance of their Fighter series.
So i trust this Data more.
The A5 has also a SL performance in one sheet of
568km/h but Handbook gives 560km/h.
Also remembre that most late FW190 had ETC fitted as standart at East and Westfront because of the need of Droptank(west) or Bomb(east) and Wheeldoors where open like at the BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Only few Planes had better eqipment like JG26 with Erla Aufh√¬§ngung for the Droptank

Hunde_3.JG51
11-29-2004, 07:06 PM
This was Oleg's response:

"Were you get data cor comparison of the speed on these altitudes for the A8 and A-9 (especially interested for A-9 and with which engine - there was 3 different engines in a seriese of A-9, we model just one)"

I honestly have no idea what he is saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I hope he didn't think the numbers I sent him were supposed to be real data, it was in-game data. I would think the inclusion of tracks would make that obvious.

Anyway, I sent back another e-mail explaining that my concern was with the A-8, not the A-9, and about the drastic change from previous versions.

Also, looking at new IL-2compare it still has old performance numbers for A-8, mine are much different now.

At 6,000m I got 663km/h on auto pitch (which is right) and 679km/h on 100% manual! That is as fast as La-7 even though there is fast overheat. Something isn't right. A-8 shouldn't do almost 680, and it should do more than 574km/h at 3,000m. At least IMO.

clint-ruin
11-29-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
This was Oleg's response:

"Were you get data cor comparison of the speed on these altitudes for the A8 and A-9 (especially interested for A-9 and with which engine - there was 3 different engines in a seriese of A-9, we model just one)" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get data for comparison of the speed at these altitudes for the A8 and A9? Especially interested for the A-9, and specifically with which engine type - there were 3 different engines used in [serial?] A9s, we only model one in game.

Just seems to be asking you which real data you want to compare your results to, especially given that there were 3 different types installed in A9s [apparently - I have no idea]. I don't think he has an issue with your tests - but wants to know what you think they should be instead.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-29-2004, 10:29 PM
Clint, that is kinda how I took it as well.

But how should it be? I am not sure but why the 30+km/h cut in speed? Wouldn't that be worth putting in the readme, that is about as big of a cut in speed as you will ever see.

Note Clint I am not directing my comment at you. And to be honest, I don't see how Oleg could possibly take my e-mail like that, I was obviously saying that the A-8 was much slower than previous versions. I even asked if this was on purpose or a bug. I would understand if he said that he came across some new data or something, but like I said 30+km/h is a big chop. Oh well, language is a funny thing.

Copperhead310th
11-29-2004, 11:33 PM
sorry but i really just don't see a bug here.

examples of a a bug....

B-17's static aircraft wheels don't touch the ground when the static plane is placed on the map.

bf-109 ai's crash into each other on take off

p-40's spontanuiosly explode for know reason above 400kph.

those are bugs.
My FW-190 isn't as fast as it used to be.....
well now friends that hardly qualifies as a bug.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
11-30-2004, 12:11 AM
Right, like P-47 roll rate was never "a bug"?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 12:32 AM
Hey Copper, it gets old. Lets chop 30km/h off every allied plane at various altitudes then if it is no big deal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Anyway, here is latest response from Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

"There was no one change for the 190A-F series. Just prop pitch device was changed for better one in D-9. Thats all."

Anyone can test FW-190 before patch at 3,000m and get 603km/h max speed (as it says in IL-2compare), now test in 3.02 and you will get 574km/h at 3,000m. This change is obvious if tested.

I believe this would make the FW-190A-8 the only plane in FB/AEP/PF that is slower at 3,000m than SL (and by 14km/h).

This doesn't bode well for the FW-190A-5 and A-6 bug when carrying "U" variant (factory conversion) ordinance. I told Oleg I wouldn't take any more of his time so I did what I could.

csThor
11-30-2004, 01:47 AM
Uhm ... I seem to remember that 3000m was a rather critical altitude with the 190As as the engine would switch to the second charger gear a little above that alt, but slightly below and directly at 3000m the performance left much to be desired ... A-9 might be different because of different engine version and prop.

clint-ruin
11-30-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Oh well, language is a funny thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup yup. No prob, I have no idea what's going on with the FW anyway. However as CsThor suggests I would imagine that charger state changes would influence each segment of the ramp up to altitude - and since this is an auto system in FB, hard to test out exactly, yeah?

3000m in Il2c 2.05 shows that the engine performance drops sharply and picks up again, Csthor is most likely right about what's going on there. Other planes have little nibbles out of their performance curve for the supercharger changing at different alts as well. That's pretty much its worst drop in speed at alt out of the entire chart, wouldn't expect it to do there well myself.

So basically performance will drop at 3000m and then pick up - higher performance either side of it due to more appropriate charger settings being chosen there.

BBB_Hyperion
11-30-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Sry i dont agree on A8 Topspeed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ofcourse you can use that data!
BUT
From my Data i have more than one source avaible (A8r2/GM1/A8/FW190 Ta152 serie comparsion/D9)
all from Focke Wulf with filled and polished surface+Wheel Doors closed
I dont see why Focke Wulf should use wrong data in their Performance sheets when they display the performance of their Fighter series.
So i trust this Data more.
The A5 has also a SL performance in one sheet of
568km/h but Handbook gives 560km/h.
Also remembre that most late FW190 had ETC fitted as standart at East and Westfront because of the need of Droptank(west) or Bomb(east) and Wheeldoors where open like at the BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Only few Planes had better eqipment like JG26 with Erla Aufh√¬§ngung for the Droptank <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course you can use this Data . But Oleg uses Factory Data Specs for FW and it says 580 with Boost. But i must admit i have also 1 for 560 km/h . I dont think 580 is with etc bombrack and maybe other attachments or boost system variantions used on other tests. 578 - 8/9 for etc 501 = 570 add some production qualtity problems and you can go easily to 560 then. But only best available Data is used for all planes except la7 .).

Reaching lower speeds isnt much of a problem look here .)
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/a8speed.jpg

On the GM1 A8 i dont know if it still used a regular boost system cause for high altitude fighters where was the need for a lower alt boost system.

Overall we dont have real production aircraft speed modeled on no plane.

OldMan____
11-30-2004, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
sorry but i really just don't see a bug here.

examples of a a bug....

B-17's static aircraft wheels don't touch the ground when the static plane is placed on the map.

bf-109 ai's crash into each other on take off

p-40's spontanuiosly explode for know reason above 400kph.

those are bugs.
My FW-190 isn't as fast as it used to be.....
well now friends that hardly qualifies as a bug.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spo.. who agrees about apetition to Oleg asking to decrease P47 speed to 180 km/h ? Since in FW is not a bug.. it will also not be abug in P47.

Lets also remove the armor from the plane..

arrow80
11-30-2004, 04:02 AM
The real bug is the ordnance problems, I don't know about the max speeds if they are wrong, but in first place I would like to see the loadout bug get fixed, because this really ruins any JABO mission in A5, or A6http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 06:08 AM
Here is latest response from Oleg:

"It seems that for A8 is confirmed at 3.000 meters. But I don't know how you get 603 in the past, because from AEP 2.04 we have not there really any changes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So it was much early then the PF release.

We will check it why and in the next update we will fix it.


As for the bombs, we didn't check yet, however if it is - it was always."

So that sounds like better news to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

And I understand about the supercharger, and there is a drop in performance at that altitude. But the fact is:

-In all previous versions it did 603km/h at that altitude, now it does 574km/h. Oleg said no change, but there obviously was a change. So IMO trying to rationalize it doesn't make sense when the change was not acknowledged or intended.

-I may be wrong here, but I don't think the FW-190A-8 is supposed to be the only plane (even out of all the FW's) that is slower at 3,000m than at SL, and by 14km/h. Just doesn't seem to make sense, I don't ever remember seeing anyhting where planes were slower at that altitude than at SL.

Anyway, it is being looked at.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 06:41 AM
Arrow, I gave pretty detailed description of "U" loadout bug for A-5 and A-6.

"We will check it later."

So that is good news.

robban75
11-30-2004, 07:10 AM
I just tested the D-9 '45 at 3000m, and all I got was 610km/h! The acceleration was VERY slow aswell. A real D-9 could manage 665km/h at this altitude. What's up with this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The D-9 '44 manages 625km/h at 3000m, but in reality it did 667km/h.

BBB_Hyperion
11-30-2004, 07:56 AM
Yes there is maybe something with the supercharger stages just work on this u loadout error and can confirm most of the observations.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 09:48 AM
I tested the A-4 in 1,000m increments and pretty much got same speeds as before. You can use IL-2compare to see what planes were doing before, (pre-3.00). I will test A-6 and A-9 later to see if they match previous numbers. It seems any differences I notice are from SL to about 3,500m. Above that speeds have been the same as in prior versions.

Robban, I think D-9 '44 hit about 630 before at that altitude, and the D-9 '45 hit about 640. If you could test the Dora '44 and '45 at 1,000m increments and match them to IL-2 compare it would give good indication of changes (if any). I have tested all of the Antons before (pre 3.00) and they match IL-2compares numbers in all FB/AEP versions almost exactly.

I'm not saying what is right and wrong yet, just that it will give good indication of changes. From what Oleg is saying I don't think any changes were meant for any 190A in 3.0. And only prop-pitch device for Dora.

And for people who want to post RL data, that is not what this is about. This is about an unintentional (from the man himself) change that may have gone unnoticed.

Also as a note, when comparing speeds to IL-2compare, the speeds listed there are generally 3 to 5km/h less than what should be seen in-game. For example it says La-7 will reach 603, but it will reach 610 in-game at SL. Yak-1B says 537, but it will reach 541km/h. This is consistent with all planes.

robban75
11-30-2004, 10:18 AM
Here's what I get.(D-9 '45)

5m - 612km/h

1000m - 623km/h

2000m - 621km/h

3000m - 610km/h

4000m - 677km/h

5000m - 698km/h

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 10:40 AM
Just tested A-6 and A-9. The A-6 seems to be about the same as before. A-9 is slower at 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 by about 7km/h. Not near as bad as A-8.

Like I said I am getting normal speeds at 4,000m and above. Slightly faster speeds at SL by approx 3km/h, and lower speeds at 1, 2, and 3,000m with varying degree.

Robban, I'll try D-9's as well later, gotta run.

269GA-Veltro
11-30-2004, 11:14 AM
Thank you Hunde for this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

clint-ruin
11-30-2004, 12:19 PM
Just a quick question Hunde - are you running these tests with wind & turbulence switched on? Would a tailwind/headwind be enough to account for the difference?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 02:49 PM
Clint, I keep wind and turbulence turned on but I start QMB, (Crimea map) at noon and take off in the same direction every time. My results are the same every time with no variation whatsoever. If I get a speed one time, I will get the same speed if I try it 50 times (trust me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif). I have yet to see wind play a part in my testing as speeds are very exact and consistent. Also, these are Oleg's guidelines and give "ideal atmospheric conditions." Take an aircraft, test its speed, and then retest as many times as you like and I will guarantee you get the same result every time. Like I said, I must have done hundreds of these by now.

Also, all my past tests were done under exact same conditions.

Still, I will try with wind and turbulence off but I guarantee that if there is a change, it would be a global one and effect all of the planes I have tested. In other words, if I turn off wind and the FW-190A-8 suddenly regains the 30km/h it lost, then every plane I have tested will gain 30km/h and then we have a real problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Oh, one more note. When I do these tests I must look like some deranged lab mouse as I punch the "elevator trim positive" and "elevator trim negative" buttons back and forth trying to get it perfect.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 03:12 PM
To all, also note that in Hyperion's chart that no plane is slower at 3,000m than at SL, not even close. Nor is any plane in PF. Whereas the A-8 is 14km/h slower so I think we can put to rest if it is a bug or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

clint-ruin
11-30-2004, 03:27 PM
Cool, just thought it would be awful if we're digging around inside the performance of a plane only to find that the wind direction/speed got changed on the test map, not the plane :>

Got me curious to try to replicate it myself now.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-30-2004, 03:50 PM
Clint, I tested alot on this map recently with all types of planes and the numbers are pretty consistent with past numbers, except for some 190's below 4,000m. If wind was the cause I would have noticed it right away as it would have had a much broader effect, and like I said the A-8 is actually slightly faster than before at SL. I'm confident Oleg will find the cause of the problem and all will be well.

Oh, and my last post wasn't directed at you, it was just a general statement, sorry if it seemed that way I should have made that clear (fixed now).

Von_Rat
12-01-2004, 02:25 AM
i tested 44 d9 at 3000m, crimea map, 25% fuel, wep, rads closed, auto, got 623kph.

under the same conditions a p47 gets 618kph,,,,, this can't be right, shouldn't a d9 be much faster than a p47 at this height.

robban75
12-01-2004, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i tested 44 d9 at 3000m, crimea map, 25% fuel, wep, rads closed, auto, got 623kph.

under the same conditions a p47 gets 618kph,,,,, this can't be right, shouldn't a d9 be much faster than a p47 at this height. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got the same results as you Von_Rat. The '45 is even slower 610km/h. P-47 fliers have been commenting on being able to catch the Dora in level flight. Check out this chart and compare it to what we have in game. Nr:2 is for the '44 D-9 and nr:4 is for the '45 D-9, this speedchart is with an ETC 504 rack. http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Von_Rat
12-01-2004, 02:05 PM
robban75,,, thats a great chart.

i know hunde has told oleg about speed issue with the antons, but has anybody informed oleg of the d9s speed problem? according to that chart theres a massive differance beteewn the d9s realife top speed, and what we have in game.

if im not mistaken p47s shouldnt be catching doras in level flight at this alt, if they start co e.

i hope this is gonna get fixed,

hmmm has anybody checked the ta 152 at these kind of altitudes. p47s have been catching my ta at lower altitudes, i thought i missed judged their e state, but now i'm not so sure.
i've tested ta152 at 9000m, the p47 is only slighty slower at that altitude, in game. that can't be right either. the ta's either to slow hi up, or the p47 to fast.