PDA

View Full Version : No new Fw 190 A's will be added to this game



mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 08:05 AM
How do you feel about that ?

ianboys
02-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Given that we have six types of Fw-190A and many many subtypes (incl. F-2, F-8 etc) I think we are doing very well and have plenty.

What do you want, a revolution?

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 08:17 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifOk, for someone like you who doesnt give a toss about the Fw 190 you are satisfied with the way it is.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I would have liked to have seen, after 5 years, proper Jabo loadouts, and maybe one Fw 190 A that isnt a Jabo version.

[ps maybe you object to having a Fw 190 that flies like a fighter]

Brain32
02-23-2006, 08:22 AM
No new versions doesen't suprize me at all, it does not mean they will not fix issues with the current models which I consider far more important, we have enough versions IMO, loadouts can be changed and FM can be adjusted with the current versions so NP...

JG7_Rall
02-23-2006, 08:31 AM
I guess we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed for a proper 190 in a later edition of BoB

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 08:32 AM
Brain32, I dont think you catch my drift: Oleg will not implement anymore changes to the current Fw 190 we have. The Fw 190 A5 1.65 was not a 'new' aircraft. I dont want a new aircraft all I asked was that 1C consider introducing the Fw 190 A4 at correct boost settings 1.42 ATA.

This will not appear in any IL2/PacFighters sim, nor will any other fighter Fw 190 Anton.

JG4_Helofly
02-23-2006, 08:38 AM
But spit IX 25 lb and k4 we got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

We have so many planes who never saw action or take off, but not all of the important basic planes. I don't understand this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Brain32
02-23-2006, 08:40 AM
Wait m8, are you saying that you know from relyable sources that FW's FM will not be touched in this game anymore? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
So, we can forget vector roll and better E-retention, roll rate fixed, initial dive acceleration, etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-23-2006, 08:44 AM
It`s not as if the 190 is the ONLY plane not have a zillion variants or loadouts. 190 is very well represented, in fact, better represented than any other sim out there. There are multple US, UK and Soviet planes missing extras.

What? You just want YOUR plane to have everything? Of course, you do, bugger anyone else, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

robban75
02-23-2006, 08:46 AM
I kinda wonder why though?
Oleg has done a fantastic job with this sim, but with the latest additions of superboosted allied planes(IX +25, Mustang III) we could really use some j¤ger versions beside the Dora.

The 190 crowd is by far the most passionate on this forum. Or in other words, the most demanding.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Perhaps Oleg is just fed up? It's not a justifiable reason not to include true J¤ger 190's, but I can understand if Oleg has had enough.

robban75
02-23-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s not as if the 190 is the ONLY plane not have a zillion variants or loadouts. 190 is very well represented, in fact, better represented than any other sim out there. There are multple US, UK and Soviet planes missing extras.

What? You just want YOUR plane to have everything? Of course, you do, bugger anyone else, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Please Seafire, you're not really adding anything to this discussion.

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s not as if the 190 is the ONLY plane not have a zillion variants or loadouts. 190 is very well represented, in fact, better represented than any other sim out there. There are multple US, UK and Soviet planes missing extras.

What? You just want YOUR plane to have everything? Of course, you do, bugger anyone else, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Yup because all I ever fly is Fw 190's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif those who fly on the same servers know and so does Pingu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that I fly many different aircraft for both red and blue.

The Fw 190 is not all that well represented, as a Jabo, which all A versions are, I can name some very notable ommisions from the loadout options.

But lets say for one minute that I agree with you, the Fw 190 we have in game is very well represented. Unfortunately the Fw 190 we have in game is not a Jaeger. Oleg has done his best to model us the Jabo variant and convince all of those non Fw 190 fans out there that of the 19,000 or so produced 95% were derated bomb trucks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where did all of the Fw 190 fighters go? Ok we got the Dora9 but that appears only from Winter 44 onwards.

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Wait m8, are you saying that you know from relyable sources that FW's FM will not be touched in this game anymore? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
So, we can forget vector roll and better E-retention, roll rate fixed, initial dive acceleration, etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

A very reliable source, who communicated with Oleg to help get the inclusion of the A4 at 1.42 and also provided information reg the Fw 190 A5 1.65 ect, told me that we can forget anymore Fw 190s in this sim.

Bartolomeo_ita
02-23-2006, 09:00 AM
fw was the best fighter in the whole world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
02-23-2006, 09:25 AM
How about you guys cool down a little. We have plenty FW's in the game and most of them are extremely effective fighters.
There are few issues here and there but show me a plane that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I could use more Focke Wulfs but You have to admit it, we have six A serie FW's and three long nose late models. That's more then decent for me.

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 09:44 AM
Im happy that you are happy Jaws

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
I guess we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed for a proper 190 in a later edition of BoB

Unless 1C heed the data that they have been sent(which they have shown no indication of doing) I doubt they will look past the current data they already have for the type.

SeaNorris
02-23-2006, 09:51 AM
Haha FW-190 needs fixing?

Of course it does, I never understood why its like that. I can use the Fw-190 very well against most fighters, but it still lacks something.

SeaFire, and thats like saying we don't have enough Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif we have uber boosted Spitfire, that should be enough uberness for allies.

RegRag1977
02-23-2006, 10:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Grrr! What a pity for such a superb sim not to have a Fw190A J¤ger! I think that this really is non sense!

The worst thing in this fantastic sim is that F... Fw flight model...

Man, it's a very sad day for us Fw Fans...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gifHelp, Oleg, i don't want to be a Jabo pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Interminate
02-23-2006, 10:20 AM
BUMP

Willey
02-23-2006, 10:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TX-Zen
02-23-2006, 11:00 AM
No new 190's or variants on existing makes me rather glum I must say.

In general I don't campaign for the 190 to get anything, my main concern is the energy modelling in the sim and if thats ever corrected then the 190 (and all other energy fighters) will be in proper form.

But to hear that what we have now is the end of the line...well that just bites. No jager versions, no D11/12/13, no Ta152C, no new loadouts or drop tanks...bloot.

I have no problem overall with what we have now and the 190 is well represented for the most part...but I've always felt that considering the Luft only produced 2 main fighter types, I think they should be as fleshed out as possible. We're in good shape, but not as good as it probably should be all things considered.


Everyone always says 'maybe in BoB' but I really doubt it. It will be more complex than FB and have better graphics, but I seriously doubt the overall physics engine will be dramatically improved and I genuinely believe that energy fighters will be just as hampered there as they are right now.

Personally I could live without a dozen 190 variants if we would just get a more accurate energy model, but thats just me.

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 11:02 AM
Decent Energy modelling is essential for BoB. Pity there has been a deterioration in the FM ever since Pacific Fighters was released.

HayateAce
02-23-2006, 11:07 AM
We need more P47 variants. After all, it did win its battles over the 190.

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

MystiqBlackCat
02-23-2006, 11:14 AM
I'd be pretty happy with the Anton's if we could get a little positive tweaking on the FM's. I fly them online near exclusively.

Seems like with every passing patch they get hurt a little more, Climb, Accel, overheat times. Really sucks that we can't get a Jaeger version or at least a Jaegar load-out.

Think if we throw money at devs then we could get one?
::takes out credit card:: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AustinPowers_
02-23-2006, 11:14 AM
Another 190 would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
We need more P47 variants. After all, it did win its battles over the 190.

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

Thought I smellt a turd in this thread, just found it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Daiichidoku
02-23-2006, 11:33 AM
a true shame

we dont need any new 190s

but we need the ones that we already have, and give them the proper Ata rating to correspond with Jaegers/western front types

having no bomb rack and outer guns as an option would be nice, too

after all, this is NOT merely an "eastern front" sim anymore, is it? not, at least, since it has been expanded with AEP and PF

anyone know if we are still saddled with the "fuel leak bug"

Jaws2002
02-23-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Grrr! What a pity for such a superb sim not to have a Fw190A J¤ger! I think that this really is non sense!

The worst thing in this fantastic sim is that F... Fw flight model...

Man, it's a very sad day for us Fw Fans...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gifHelp, Oleg, i don't want to be a Jabo pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Look cry baby. If you can't fly it, doesn't mean the FW is not a fighter.
I bet you won't do any better in P-51 or P47. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

mynameisroland
02-23-2006, 11:43 AM
Please dont give me this diatribe mate, every good Fw190 pilot can get spadeloads worth of kills.

Does that mean the Fw 190 FM is remotely accurate? No, it means it has 4 x 20mm cannons and is fast.

LUFT11_Hoflich
02-23-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Decent Energy modelling is essential for BoB. Pity there has been a deterioration in the FM ever since Pacific Fighters was released.

OT but BoB related... Wasn't the Spit MkI used in the BoB had the same carburator engine as the Hurricane MKI that quit when doing Neg G's?

That was how many LW pilots escaped when in trouble, just point the nose down and get the F*$& away from there!!!

Am I wrong?

Thanks
H¶f...

luftluuver
02-23-2006, 12:02 PM
After the A-5, all 190s should be <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">pure</span> fighters as we have the jabo equivalent with the F-8. This does not help the early model A-4 though. What is needed is a F-1. The 1.65 A-5 can be a sub for the F-2.

This is what I think the lineup should be for what we have now:

Fw-190A-4, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>
Fw-190A-5, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>
Fw-190A-5, 1.65ATA <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">jabo</span>
Fw-190A-6, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>
Fw-190A-8, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>
Fw-190A-9, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>
Fw-190F-8, naturally a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">jabo</span>

Jaws2002
02-23-2006, 12:08 PM
Roland


My comment was not addressed to you, but to the above poster. His tone bothered me and trust me it bothers Oleg too.
Don't you think that Oleg may have changed his mind about antons, after the reaction of some noisy members of the community to the last patch?
The A5 @ 1.65 ATA may not be the a fighter version, but it makes a great Jabo. I don't know how much data you can find about A-5 fighter running at that boost setting in 1943 anyway.
The rest of the foke wulfs are all capable fighters. The A4 should get the 1.42 boost but it can still fight as it is and is arguably the best fighter for 1942 in game.
I have been flying FW-190's for some four years in this game and I know how they evolved. The foke wulfs we have now are light years above the fw's in original IL-2 or FB.
Ever since PF came out the butcher birds got better from patch to patch. They became effective fighters.
There are some issues with acceleration and boost pressure, but they became way more deadly machines.
I would like to see them fly exactly like in the books. But we are so late in this game's life that would be a better idea for Madox games to move on to next game.
The more time they spend in adjusting this game the older BOB's game engine will be when the game is released.
I love Foke wulfs, they are my favorite birds of the war and in the game. I fly them as much as I can. But honestly some people here are much to noisy and pretend the Butcher birds are the most abused birds in the game. well they are not. At least not any more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
02-23-2006, 12:17 PM
Speaking as a card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (and I have the complimentary coffee cup to prove it), Running Dog of Yankee Imperialism and all 'round Yankwhiner, I think it's a damned shame that the fighter that was considered the best the Axis had for the better part of 4 years is not in the game, and a not entirely accurate ground attack version is filling in.

As a supporter of the concept of at least relative realism, I can't see how anyone would NOT want an accurate FW 190 Anton as much as I want an accurate Mustang, Jug, or P-38.

It is in ALL our interests to have the relative strengths and weaknesses of all the aircraft in the sim are portayed proportionately to each other as accurately as possible.

cheers

horseback

JG54_Arnie
02-23-2006, 12:42 PM
I hope that the FM problems that cause energy fighters to do bad compared to turn & burn fighters is something too complex by now to fix properly in the whole game we have now. Since this would mean Oleg would be able to get a good shot at it for BOB with a fresh start plus all the experience gained from IL2.

At least, as a community we should make clear to Oleg that this is what we are hoping for. And I'm sure that since he is quite into flying and all the mechanics around it that he is aware of the problem himself. Or that at least he is able to acknowledge it if asked about this in a proper way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
02-23-2006, 01:48 PM
You buggers check the ATA gauge on A4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-23-2006, 02:13 PM
Sorry Jaws, everyone know that ATA gauges, arent properly working, and 1.42 is really 1.32, its just bug, even Oleg said thathttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Noone said that FW190 cannot earn kills, ofcourse it can, even fiat G.50 canhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But your talking looks like "FW190 can shoot down plane, it have 4 cannons, and 540-590km/h speed, so its superb, and nothing is needed to change it". I also would like to see real version of P51, and especially P47, which i think is most derated plane in this game, just side-by-side with Anton.

Jaws2002
02-23-2006, 02:18 PM
After the 4.04m patch I see thew ATA gauge in A4 at 1.4. Is that gauge wrong?

JG7_Rall
02-23-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
How about you guys cool down a little. We have plenty FW's in the game and most of them are extremely effective fighters.
There are few issues here and there but show me a plane that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I could use more Focke Wulfs but You have to admit it, we have six A serie FW's and three long nose late models. That's more then decent for me.


yarrghh!!!


The point isn't to get more 190's, because, like you said, they're well represented (as far as model types go). However, what we want is for the current 190's to be correctly represented as jager fighters!!! It's a simple concept!

Unknown-Pilot
02-23-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
And I'm sure that since he is quite into flying and all the mechanics around it that he is aware of the problem himself. Or that at least he is able to acknowledge it if asked about this in a proper way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That assumes he sees it as a *problem*. I'm certain he sees the difference in plane types, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't by design, or desired.

We make a lot of assumptions about what his goal for this sim is/was, and most tend to assume that goal is maximum possible realism.

That _may_ be true, but then again it may be true with caveats.

Given how long it's been around, how *blatant* it is, how easy it would be to add other things that would cause the TnB'ers problems beyond the energy modeling, how clearly we (collectively) want it changed, and the very nature of the modeling of aircraft like the 190 and certain VVS planes (specifically); I'm convinced he has made his game the way he wants it to be.

Kinda gets into the nebulous idea of truth being relative, that leftests and shrinks like to bandy about, but it may be "right" to him for *whatever* reason, and if so, it won't change.

(and no, I'm not claiming nationalistic bias, once we got AEP and PF it became evident it wasn't about nations, it was about plane design/type/flying style)

JG54_Arnie
02-23-2006, 03:00 PM
Very true.

But I think that the fact that IL2 was originally only designed to be an IL2 simulation, focussed on low level combat on the russian front. I suppose at the time Oleg didnt create it with energy fighting in mind.
I hope this will be different for BOB, since it created from a different point of view. But ofcourse, we can only hope.
But it would be nice if we could get some idea of what Oleg's thoughts are on this. And if necessary could get this idea to Oleg in a polite way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-23-2006, 03:11 PM
I would be just happy with a few minor corrections. Like corrected roll rate and corrected speed at altitudes not equal to sea level.

Other maisn issues to FW are related to new FM I suppose, since it lost for example the capability of outclimb planes at high speed.


But for TBOB expansions I really hope we get a better Anton representation.

I want to see Spitfire pilots CRY in despair in 1941!!!

Aymar_Mauri
02-23-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
And I'm sure that since he is quite into flying and all the mechanics around it that he is aware of the problem himself. Or that at least he is able to acknowledge it if asked about this in a proper way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
That assumes he sees it as a *problem*. I'm certain he sees the difference in plane types, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't by design, or desired.

We make a lot of assumptions about what his goal for this sim is/was, and most tend to assume that goal is maximum possible realism.

That _may_ be true, but then again it may be true with caveats.

Given how long it's been around, how *blatant* it is, how easy it would be to add other things that would cause the TnB'ers problems beyond the energy modeling, how clearly we (collectively) want it changed, and the very nature of the modeling of aircraft like the 190 and certain VVS planes (specifically); I'm convinced he has made his game the way he wants it to be.

Kinda gets into the nebulous idea of truth being relative, that leftests and shrinks like to bandy about, but it may be "right" to him for *whatever* reason, and if so, it won't change.

(and no, I'm not claiming nationalistic bias, once we got AEP and PF it became evident it wasn't about nations, it was about plane design/type/flying style) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No truer words have been spoken in this forum. Specifically these ones: "he has made his game the way he wants it to be"

Excellently well put, Unknown-Pilot.

rugame
02-23-2006, 03:24 PM
We make a lot of assumptions about what his goal for this sim is/was, and most tend to assume that goal is maximum possible realism.

Thats funny, you dont have to be a plane nut to see that this sim is not even approaching maximum realism.

So many little things missing....such a shame.

I like the 190, wish it was better becasue i get frustrated flying it, it seems to struggle doing things it was well known for and that other planes pull off easily.

But hey we have 3 versions of the TB3, you gotta be happy about that.

Jetbuff
02-23-2006, 03:32 PM
Would love to see a properly rated A-4. But quite honestly, at this point in time, Oleg could take away some planes and I'd still be nothing but grateful. There is support, there is dedicated support and then there is Olegian support. It's in a class of its own! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I now wear my fanboi colours proudly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
02-23-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by rugame:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We make a lot of assumptions about what his goal for this sim is/was, and most tend to assume that goal is maximum possible realism.

Thats funny, you dont have to be a plane nut to see that this sim is not even approaching maximum realism.

So many little things missing....such a shame.

I like the 190, wish it was better becasue i get frustrated flying it, it seems to struggle doing things it was well known for and that other planes pull off easily.

But hey we have 3 versions of the TB3, you gotta be happy about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...name the WWII combat flight sim that does it better, if you can. Perfection, or any other superlative as a goal does not imply perfection, or maximum realism, or what have you as even something you can hope to reach- It only implies the strong efforts. It is completely unreasonable to point out that the sim does not offer maximum realism. if it did, then about 10% of the players would qualify to play the sim- the rest would be co-pilots, bomber pilots, bombardiers, navigators, etc., because the sim would be "maximum real" and that means having the qualifications to be a pilot. It would also subject you to G force, hypoxia, and other unpleasant things. Nothing is "maximum realism" except for the real thing. No matter how gee-whiz our PCs are, there still is no reasonable way to even begin to simulate what this sim does perfectly, or in other words, with 'maximum realism'.

This sim is as close as we can get currently. Like it or not "better" does not currently exist. The pursuit of perfect is just that: a pursuit

OldMan____
02-23-2006, 03:40 PM
Importatn to state that most FW fans are not "angry " with oleg. We just miss someof the Fw advantages that we had in previous versions. Many planes had their issues solved since 4.0. FW didn´t.


Since this Fm is a TBOB BETA flight model. IT is its purpose to collect info about problems on it. We are pointing one! Hope this is taking in consideration to TBOB. Making a beta an not using its feedback... its...

Chuck_Older
02-23-2006, 03:43 PM
I know what BOB means

what is the "T" in TBOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-23-2006, 03:44 PM
I think that Oleg and his team should concentrate, to correct basic aircrafts like : BF109, FW190, P45, P51, Spitfire, Yak's, and La's. Some of them are made more correctly, some are a lot less. Noone need a lot of versions of FW190, there isnt such big difference between them, i would be happy if it would be correct jager A4 for early sets, and correct jager A8 for late sets, because these planes were most popular. Maybe now FW190A is modelled right, but only if we have in mind JABO versionhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont really care of hiper uber Dora 11 or uber super Yak version XZY. Just correct what we have now, and most of us will be happy(some of us will never behttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

OldMan____
02-23-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I know what BOB means

what is the "T" in TBOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

people started using the T to make a difference form Other BoBs.. just copying them

carguy_
02-23-2006, 04:10 PM
I see and understand the frustration of FW190 fans.It has been always a part of my frustration because in every coop I had either a Bf109 or I was forced to fly a FW190.

What you ppl seem to be missing is: Luftwaffe coops have two planes - the Bf109 and FW190.

Now considering a little truth that one of those two is hampered changes the whole picture.

Only the axis have so little of choice.Allies have multiple fighters with multiple different variants.


I guess also that the vast majority of the community believes that the restricted FM is guilty of energy planes being unable to perform their real life energy tactics.
Well,you obviously did not try one of beta patches that were there - 4.01 beta 6 or 5.
The FW190 in one of those two(I don`t remember which) was exactly the plane pilots and charts were talkin about.

The beta tested by me and many others revealed that planes like P47/FW190/P51 CAN be what they should be.

P51 drivers?Haven`t you had the best Mustang in 3.01?didn`t you think it actually should have been derated accordingly and it would be the ultimate Pony you were looking for?


Beta patches show clearly that ANY plane can be done up to its real life characteristics without hampering other planes.


Mr.Oleg Maddox however seems not to understand the whole point of modelling energy planes along with jabo variant problems of FW190.As far as I see his replies through 3 years of visiting this forum,the problem does not exist to Mr.Oleg Maddox.


Now do I have a problem with that?Erm yes.Am I pissed everytime a Spit makes an Immelman and blasts me after my B&Z attack?Yes.Do I have 8/1 K/D ratio in FW190?Yes.


For me and those who tested betas the problem is there and it is possible to fix without too much effort.

My personal attitude towards energy planes modelling?IMO it`s natural that they have no voice here.

The game was made for VVS players.
Any fighter was meant to be a little addition to prevent the player from getting bored.

This game does not support energy modelling and even if it CAN be corrected the problem seems to not exist for Mr.Oleg Maddox.
Yeah,sometimes I get REALLY mad at what P47/FW190/P51 represent in this game,but those are just moments.

I simply learned that it is another game.I play to win.If FW190/P51/P47 require hit&run tactics I do exactly so.I do not apply real life tactics in those planes and in result I do mostly very good.
This kind of attitude makes me free of the frustration.

Anyways,if I want to fly a correctly modelled plane I choose a Bf/Me109 or a P39.

However I think that if my favorite plane of all time was the FW190,I would be frustrated every single mission I flew the plane.

PS.Gentlemen,remember that this FM is beta for BoB.We`re playing virtually a beta BoB.This leads me to believe nothing will change in energy fights department.

anasteksi
02-23-2006, 04:14 PM
i'd change 5 new flyables which are coming to a one corrected FW190 (it makes total over 30 new flyables for correct serie of FW190). I don't even have to think about it.. Why we keep getting new flyables if old ones struggle with porblems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I think that time which oleg and his team puts to new flyables should be put to correct those fm issues.

Aymar_Mauri
02-23-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
I see and understand the frustration of FW190 fans.It has been always a part of my frustration because in every coop I had either a Bf109 or I was forced to fly a FW190.

What you ppl seem to be missing is: Luftwaffe coops have two planes - the Bf109 and FW190.

Now considering a little truth that one of those two is hampered changes the whole picture.

Only the axis have so little of choice.Allies have multiple fighters with multiple different variants.


I guess also that the vast majority of the community believes that the restricted FM is guilty of energy planes being unable to perform their real life energy tactics.
Well,you obviously did not try one of beta patches that were there - 4.01 beta 6 or 5.
The FW190 in one of those two(I don`t remember which) was exactly the plane pilots and charts were talkin about.

The beta tested by me and many others revealed that planes like P47/FW190/P51 CAN be what they should be.

P51 drivers?Haven`t you had the best Mustang in 3.01?didn`t you think it actually should have been derated accordingly and it would be the ultimate Pony you were looking for?


Beta patches show clearly that ANY plane can be done up to its real life characteristics without hampering other planes.


Mr.Oleg Maddox however seems not to understand the whole point of modelling energy planes along with jabo variant problems of FW190.As far as I see his replies through 3 years of visiting this forum,the problem does not exist to Mr.Oleg Maddox.


Now do I have a problem with that?Erm yes.Am I pissed everytime a Spit makes an Immelman and blasts me after my B&Z attack?Yes.Do I have 8/1 K/D ratio in FW190?Yes.


For me and those who tested betas the problem is there and it is possible to fix without too much effort.

My personal attitude towards energy planes modelling?IMO it`s natural that they have no voice here.

The game was made for VVS players.
Any fighter was meant to be a little addition to prevent the player from getting bored.

This game does not support energy modelling and even if it CAN be corrected the problem seems to not exist for Mr.Oleg Maddox.
Yeah,sometimes I get REALLY mad at what P47/FW190/P51 represent in this game,but those are just moments.

I simply learned that it is another game.I play to win.If FW190/P51/P47 require hit&run tactics I do exactly so.I do not apply real life tactics in those planes and in result I do mostly very good.
This kind of attitude makes me free of the frustration.

Anyways,if I want to fly a correctly modelled plane I choose a Bf/Me109 or a P39.

However I think that if my favorite plane of all time was the FW190,I would be frustrated every single mission I flew the plane.

PS.Gentlemen,remember that this FM is beta for BoB.We`re playing virtually a beta BoB.This leads me to believe nothing will change in energy fights department.
Spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

PS: My favorite plane is the FW190A, but any similarity between RL FW190A (it's performance in RL or in other sims) and FB/AEP/PF FW190A is purelly coincidental.

darkhorizon11
02-23-2006, 04:20 PM
Do I think adding new FW-190As are a priority?

No, there are other entire models of aircraft sorely missing nevermind a few subvariants of one plane that is already WELL represented.

Would I accept new FW-190As in the game and be happy to have them if 1c threw them in?

Yes I sure would.

Do I think that FW-190s are mis modeled and need to be fixed, and is that a priority in the next patch?

Yup, although once again there are a few problems like this that need fixing not just the 190s bugs...

Chuck_Older
02-23-2006, 04:23 PM
carguy

Be that as it may, the underlying truth behind the wide variety of Allied single seat aircraft and the relative dearth of single seat German (as opposed to Axis) aircraft is simple:

They were the only two Germany decided to manufacture historically and make generally available to it's air force in number

When you pit German aircraft against Allied aircraft, the apparent disparity becomes great- all the Spits, Hurris, Gladiators, Mustangs, Lightnings, Thunderbolts, Tempests...but that is deceiving

The Luftwaffe used French aircraft, and Italian aircraft as well

As far as "German" aircraft go, it's not the game makers' fault that the main single seat fighters produced by Germany numbered only two

That discounts aircraft like the Me 262 and the TA 152, by the way. It's not Oleg Maddox' fault that the German High Command had decided around the beginning of '42 that 'no new [fighter] types would be needed after the war'.

I also disagree strongly that the FM we are seeing now is going to be BoB's FM, carguy. VERY strongly

I would have to agree with you IF BoB was slated to use FB/Il2's engine

It is not, not at all. What's the point of making a new sim engine if things are going to be the way they are with this engine? There's no point. You are seeing elements of the FM, and to my understanding, the elements you see are the ones that FB's sim engine can handle.

At bottom, the Allied pilots tell me the Mustang can't be used as it was historically in the sim, the Thunderbolt can't be used as it was historically in the sim, and neither can the Lightning be used as it was historically in this sim.

So what's really the difference between that condition, and the one with the Fw 190? The Fw 190 is not the only plane that doesn't quite live up to it's real life potential in this sim. Yes it's been around longer. Does that mean that it is more deserving of "correctness" by virtue of it's age? I hadn't known there was a queue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The 109 flies beautifully in my opinion. It's engine cooling system apparently works...unlike the F4U's. It accelerates well in a dive...unlike the P-47...it has great firepower...unlike the P-38...the list goes on. It's not just the 190 that could use attention

Unknown-Pilot
02-23-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Very true.

But I think that the fact that IL2 was originally only designed to be an IL2 simulation, focussed on low level combat on the russian front. I suppose at the time Oleg didnt create it with energy fighting in mind.
I hope this will be different for BOB, since it created from a different point of view. But ofcourse, we can only hope.
But it would be nice if we could get some idea of what Oleg's thoughts are on this. And if necessary could get this idea to Oleg in a polite way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, Carguy laid it on table pretty well. To what he said, I can only add that if it was unintentional to tilt the game toward turner, he could have, long ago, added pilot fatigue over time - leading fewer Gs needed to blackout, longer blackouts with quicker onset, and reduced force on the controls from all this G pullin' (simulating exhaustion) over the course of a single flight - DF *or* COOP (or single player). But he hasn't. If CFS3 could utilize some cool features in that department, it's *certainly* not beyond Oleg's capabilties.

Plus, certain things have been proven wrong so long ago and continue to be beat until this day with no change, it can only lead one to conclude what I said - it was what it was intended to be, and won't change. No amount of effort on our part would result in any persuasion, since it hasn't already.

p1ngu666
02-23-2006, 04:37 PM
if tnb is so good ingame, why isnt servers filled with zeros and ki43s? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
02-23-2006, 04:43 PM
because they ain't sexy enough

Xiolablu3
02-23-2006, 04:50 PM
He is working on BOB fulltime, he is only tying up loose ends on this game now.

Think about people who want other planes Boemher, I know that you want all the versions of the 190 but others want other planes, he cant satisfy everyone.

Wait for BOB, I have a feeling that this is going to be special.

(This part isnt for you, Boemher, but for the mob)

I wonder if people who say that this game is biased towards the turning planes are playing the same game I am? I am a poor 190 flyer at best, but the other day when I took it for a spin I got 6 kills in 5 minutes, all Spitfires. No chest beating, just showing that ANYONE can B&Z in this sim just like anyone can TnB.

If Oleg was intentionally biased towards turning planes (Do you realise how stupid this sounds) then why bother with wing breaks at hi G or blackouts? Do you really need more advantages to BnZ well?? A good BnZer can win out every time against a TnBer in this game.


The bias talk just makes me laugh, as the accusation of bias often comes from people who are obviously biased themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

carguy_
02-23-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Wait for BOB, I have a feeling that this is going to be special.


Yes,quite special.Only that we`ll have to wait like a year to get a FW190,P51,P47,Typhoon or any other specific energy fighter.

Lets see Hurric`n,Spitfire,109Emil and Fokkers.Looks like a T&B game to me.



Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It is not, not at all. What's the point of making a new sim engine if things are going to be the way they are with this engine? There's no point. You are seeing elements of the FM, and to my understanding, the elements you see are the ones that FB's sim engine can handle.


Yes,although reading opinions of real pilots and physicians playing this game,conclusions are concerning.For instant, from 4.01 the hammerhead is impossible to perform.We also get few more maneuvers that deny physics laws.
Basically we tend to believe the new 4.01FM was a step forward.Those who actually know what physics laws are all about tend to agree it was a step backwards.

New engine?First and biggest objective is revolutionary graphics.That is just about the only objective that would work for improving sales and making BoB a hit.As I speak for myself,I hope that it will be all what Oleg Maddox says.I really hope new standards will be set not only in graphics.
I think however that such a perspective is idealism more than anything.There is no big reason why current 4.01FM wouldn`t be upgraded and used in BoB.Writing a whole new engine to make FM revolutionary is idealism because it doesn`t bring nowhere as many profits as graphics.See what support Stigler`s got with his sim.Next to none.
I risk to say that graphics are the biggest sales aswell as immersion factor.People will play BoB,will buy Bob the day it comes out yet they don`t know anything about BoB FM yet.

Lordbutter4
02-23-2006, 05:38 PM
Ok could someone explain the difference in performace to someone whos not a FW nerd? I mean are we talking a difference of .12 ata? And boost at that? If this is the only complaint i dont really see the big deal.

TX-Zen
02-23-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Plus, certain things have been proven wrong so long ago and continue to be beat until this day with no change, it can only lead one to conclude what I said - it was what it was intended to be, and won't change. No amount of effort on our part would result in any persuasion, since it hasn't already.


Big +1

This has been my feeling since I started playing the game and reinforced by watching nearly 5 years of debate, Oleg commentary and a gazillion patches.

I've said before that the grey area (where raw engineering data is incomplete and a judgement call has to be made) is what the issue is and always had been....and Oleg has made it very clear that he feels low wingloaded TnB style fighters have the performance advantage.

Look at the evolution of the game and look at the energy model even now. Don't get me wrong this is a fine game and without doubt the best flight sim ever made. I still play despite all the ups and downs because on the whole it continues to get better.

But imho the core perspective on what air to air combat is all about is set in the designers mind...and with BoB it's unlikely to change.

Xiolablu3
02-23-2006, 07:20 PM
EDIT : Cant believe I actually wasted time making a post trying to 'understand' this 'bias theory'.

Post deleted.

OldMan____
02-24-2006, 04:29 AM
Well anyone could play low.. and send requests to Ubi not 1C :P (talking about BOB).

And for the ones talking about the "no TnB favoritism". We are not talking about TnB versus BnZ. But TnB versus E-fighting.

RegRag1977
02-24-2006, 05:12 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 RegRag1977:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Grrr! What a pity for such a superb sim not to have a Fw190A J¤ger! I think that this really is non sense!

The worst thing in this fantastic sim is that F... Fw flight model...

Man, it's a very sad day for us Fw Fans...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gifHelp, Oleg, i don't want to be a Jabo pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Look cry baby. If you can't fly it, doesn't mean the FW is not a fighter.
I bet you won't do any better in P-51 or P47. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Jaws,

Most Fw190 "derated" Anton pilots, are like myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif, at least very good pilots: we can do very well with the Jabo versions we have now: look for the stats... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Some of them are true aces even if this bird is one of the most demanding (you don't seem to ride it much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).

I have fun with Fw190 as it is now, like others: but i WANT the historical FW190 as a JAger: what's wrong with that? Do you really think that weird? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You know that Fw jocks are very good online, maybe some of your "crybabies" fear the day when Fw pilots will have the JAger Anton http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PS I also fly (on occasions) P47 (i find energy fighting much intersting), and Mustang ( i find their firepower too weak for the one pass kill i favour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) which are also very demanding, I prefer LW types, BUT i always had respect for those guys who try to do the best with their tricky planes.

So you'd better not jump too fast into conclusions! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Oh, yes i forgot, i still don't want to be a JaBo pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif...

Regards!

French FW190 pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MrBlueSky1960
02-24-2006, 05:26 AM
The way I look at it is your very lucky... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Imagine how the Whirlwind Whiners feel... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bearcat99
02-24-2006, 05:27 AM
Consider the following...... There are 198 flyables in this sim.... of those there are 14 Spitfires, 15 Yaks, 10 Zekes, 15 109s and 10 190s..... each with a slight difference within the variation.... frankly sometimes I think we expect too much from this what 7-8 year old engine? Not that I am making light of your feelings at all.. but I think as a community we are spoiled rottten sometimes. How long is 1C supposed to keep working on this thing.... and for nothing I might add... I have my issues with a few planes in this sim for sure.. and I would love to see a few more... varients of planes already in here.. and planes that arent in here and frankly should be.... like an Avenger... but man oh man..... I dont complain but so much because warts and all.. what few there are really when you compare it to the crop of avialable sims out there...... this series is so far above anything else out there as an overall package.

RegRag1977
02-24-2006, 05:31 AM
Hey Bearcat, you're the wise man! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-24-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Consider the following...... There are 198 flyables in this sim.... of those there are 14 Spitfires, 15 Yaks, 10 Zekes, 15 109s and 10 190s..... each with a slight difference within the variation.... frankly sometimes I think we expect too much from this what 7-8 year old engine? Not that I am making light of your feelings at all.. but I think as a community we are spoiled rottten sometimes. How long is 1C supposed to keep working on this thing.... and for nothing I might add... I have my issues with a few planes in this sim for sure.. and I would love to see a few more... varients of planes already in here.. and planes that arent in here and frankly should be.... like an Avenger... but man oh man..... I dont complain but so much because warts and all.. what few there are really when you compare it to the crop of avialable sims out there...... this series is so far above anything else out there as an overall package.

Yeah... This "sentiment" didn't seem to stop you from whining about the overrated Mustang, now did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The very idea that anyone could come in here and say that wanting a proper 190A stems from being "spoiled" is incredulous. It reaks of fanboi-ism and Oleg-worship. (and for it to be from a mod no less..... might want to check your nose, y'know, just in case....)

There is no excuse for there to NOT be a proper 190 in the sim, when "FW-190" is *supposed* to be represented already. It's not calling for new planes to be added or anything greedy like that. It's calling for accountability and accuracy. You know.... like some people do for the Mustang...?

Energy fighters overall, have gotten a raw deal in this series since day one for no justifiable reason. And the 190 in particular has been screwed, over and above just being an energy fighter by design, it's view, it's derated modeling, it's lack of roll advantage at speed, etc.


Great sim, plenty of cool freebie, lots of fun, and the 190 is still good in it, but it's not right.

Absolutely unbeleiveable that ANYONE would come in and suggest that inaccuracy should be gladly accepted.

AustinPowers_
02-24-2006, 08:11 AM
A new FW would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RegRag1977
02-24-2006, 08:34 AM
Shagadelic, baby http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

carguy_
02-24-2006, 08:49 AM
It`s really crazy that with so many flyables we keep asking for more.

Think about it though.This game suffered from bad priorities.It`s 2006 and we have one Ju88 variant,we don`t have torpedo planes(He111),ships to fill out PTO,we don`t have flyable Pe2 or IL10.

The whines are a bit excused.People wanted western front and pacific yet they thought it could ever be completed.1C should know that they will not be able to complete what they implemented and that there will be whines.

My point is that there is nothing special about the whines because those are legitimate.

FW190Anton was there from the start,it served in eastern front and the light variant was common.

Hence I really would like others not to place the FW190 problem in the same line.

1.It`s one of two LW fighters.
2.It served in eastern front.
3.It is easy to modify/implement the light Anton.


The problem LW players have is bigger than any other`s "side".We`re missing an addition which is essential.

Show me a plane that has the same/higher addition priority.

Pirschjaeger
02-24-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by ianboys:
Given that we have six types of Fw-190A and many many subtypes (incl. F-2, F-8 etc) I think we are doing very well and have plenty.

What do you want, a revolution?

I would be satisfied with the correct versions. From what I understand, the A4 is a detuned version while the common version is not available. A4 is the only 190 I fly so the historical accuracy is more important to me.

Pirschjaeger
02-24-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Consider the following...... There are 198 flyables in this sim.... of those there are 14 Spitfires, 15 Yaks, 10 Zekes, 15 109s and 10 190s..... each with a slight difference within the variation.... frankly sometimes I think we expect too much from this what 7-8 year old engine? Not that I am making light of your feelings at all.. but I think as a community we are spoiled rottten sometimes. How long is 1C supposed to keep working on this thing.... and for nothing I might add... I have my issues with a few planes in this sim for sure.. and I would love to see a few more... varients of planes already in here.. and planes that arent in here and frankly should be.... like an Avenger... but man oh man..... I dont complain but so much because warts and all.. what few there are really when you compare it to the crop of avialable sims out there...... this series is so far above anything else out there as an overall package.

I agree with you BC, we have enough. It´s probably time to start concentrating on the details if 1C wants to continue improving the game. We don´t need anymore planes to whine about, we have enough.

Besides, BoB is supposed to be released this year. It would be a shame if it took 2 weeks longer because more flyables were being created for IL-2. Isn´t there a point when the makers of a sim release the codes for third parties to add to and improve the game?

JG4_Helofly
02-24-2006, 09:33 AM
Because we are talking about FM lets see what Oleg will programm for tbob. In the tbob key features you can read this:

"Even more precise flight model €" Based on the Forgotten Battles FM development with additional modules of precise calculations. "


Does it mean no chance for much improvement?
I am not a programmer so I ask you what does this mean? If the il2 fm has basic physics it can improve with the" additional modules of caluculations" or not?
What could this modules be?

Is anyone programmer hier? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. There was a question what the "t" in tbob means. It means "the" the battle of britain.

Chuck_Older
02-24-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Consider the following...... There are 198 flyables in this sim.... of those there are 14 Spitfires, 15 Yaks, 10 Zekes, 15 109s and 10 190s..... each with a slight difference within the variation.... frankly sometimes I think we expect too much from this what 7-8 year old engine? Not that I am making light of your feelings at all.. but I think as a community we are spoiled rottten sometimes. How long is 1C supposed to keep working on this thing.... and for nothing I might add... I have my issues with a few planes in this sim for sure.. and I would love to see a few more... varients of planes already in here.. and planes that arent in here and frankly should be.... like an Avenger... but man oh man..... I dont complain but so much because warts and all.. what few there are really when you compare it to the crop of avialable sims out there...... this series is so far above anything else out there as an overall package.

Yeah... This "sentiment" didn't seem to stop you from whining about the overrated Mustang, now did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on now, this is just BS, pure baiting. He never whined about it, he asked how these things got done, he asked about the process and why the decisions were made. There's a big difference between asking about how a large change gets made, and saying that the change was wrong. The only reason you mention whining is because you don't agree with BC, so this is an easy button to push. There's no need for that

Chuck_Older
02-24-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:


P.S. There was a question what the "t" in tbob means. It means "the" the battle of britain.

The the? Thanks thanks a a lot lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG4_Helofly
02-24-2006, 10:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
"the" for the battle of britain. Better now? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
02-24-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Consider the following...... There are 198 flyables in this sim.... of those there are 14 Spitfires, 15 Yaks, 10 Zekes, 15 109s and 10 190s..... each with a slight difference within the variation.... frankly sometimes I think we expect too much from this what 7-8 year old engine? Not that I am making light of your feelings at all.. but I think as a community we are spoiled rottten sometimes. How long is 1C supposed to keep working on this thing.... and for nothing I might add... I have my issues with a few planes in this sim for sure.. and I would love to see a few more... varients of planes already in here.. and planes that arent in here and frankly should be.... like an Avenger... but man oh man..... I dont complain but so much because warts and all.. what few there are really when you compare it to the crop of avialable sims out there...... this series is so far above anything else out there as an overall package.

Yeah... This "sentiment" didn't seem to stop you from whining about the overrated Mustang, now did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on now, this is just BS, pure baiting. He never whined about it, he asked how these things got done, he asked about the process and why the decisions were made. There's a big difference between asking about how a large change gets made, and saying that the change was wrong. The only reason you mention whining is because you don't agree with BC, so this is an easy button to push. There's no need for that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly any P-51 D for a week solid.. nothing else.. then come back here and tell me how great it is. I DARE you. I am certain that no one in here expects the P-51 to be a rocket.. or the "best plane" in the sim... and yes it is more stable with this patch.. but it cant catch a cold... cant hit a barn....holds energy like a sieve... has the acceleration of a DC3. I hope it gets fixed........ right now? It is terrible.

Fly it.

I have had '43 G6s with 50%fuel pass me in a 1k climb. I have had Do335s with 2200lb bomb and 50%fuel pass me in a climb.... I dont know what happened. The P-51 is so bad that I have no doubt that Oleg will fix it. I dont do charts and am not going to calculate a darn thing... fly the plane. I challenge you to fly the P-51D for a week stariaght.. online and/or off... for at least 20 minutes a day... against any Axis aircraft.. then come back here and tell me how much improved it is. I DARE YOU to do that and not lie.

Hmmm... I'm not saying anything against or for anybody... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jumoschwanz
02-24-2006, 12:47 PM
The FW190? It would be nice to have some links to documents of how it is allegedly "porked".

I know you can read almost any WWII history book and find how dominant it was in 1942 and earlier, and how competent it was after 1942.

It's performance in this sim does not back up or align with the history books or pilot accounts though, and it never has in any patch since the sim came out in 2001. The bf109 has always been the hands-down favourite for axis pilots in this sim, not the fw190, which was prefered in WWII by the majority of pilots if given a choice.

I don't have any historical documentation that we have been given lower rated engines in the early 190s, But I have heard it over and over again on this forum that that is the case.

I am sure it would be an easy adjustment to the flight model to make the early 190 a "fighter" or western front spec. item.
Yes I am very grateful that we have this sim and everything in it, I just hope that it's creation and subsequent patches and tweaks have always been objective as Oleg could make them.

Jumoschwanz