PDA

View Full Version : OLEG WULF not Focke Wulf is in fb



GINNER_SK
02-18-2004, 11:16 AM
may be i will translate it later, or do it someone for me. i have no permission to publish it, thatway no name. but this wrote a man which knows people they fly fw 190 now, and he know everything about fw, because he spend many years to recostruct a flyable fw190. this he wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wir haben schon sehr viel Schriftverkehr zu dem Thema Fw 190 mit den >Fliegern der PC / Il 2 Programme gehabt. Es ging um die wenig korrekte >Darstellung des Fw 190 Cockpits und eben auch um die schlechten >Flugeigenschaften der PC-Simulator-Fw 190. Da ich erst in wenigen Wochen >unsere FW 190 das erste Mal fliegen werde, kann ich derzeit keine eigenen >Erfahrungen zu den Flugeigenschaften schildern.... Fest steht, dass die Fw >190 eine sehr hohe Start- und Landegeschwindigkeit hatte, was nicht sehr >günstig ist. > >Wenn man jedoch die alten Flugberichte- auch die von den Vergleichsflügen >der alliierten Luftwaffen gegen P-51 / Spitfire / etc.- vergleicht, so war >die Fw 190 ein extrem wendiges und schnelles Jagdflugzeug. Es war der am >st¤rksten bewaffnete J¤ger des WKII. Jedoch waren die Flugleistungen der Fw >190 mit Sternmotor über 7000 mtr nicht mehr ausreichend ( Motorleistung fiel >zu stark ab und der Luftwiderstand wurde zu groß, sodass man daraufhin die >wassergekühlte Fw 190 D-9 konstruierte ). Das Folgemodell der Fw 190 D-9, >die Ta 152 war allen kolbengetriebenen J¤gern dann überlegen.<<<<< we pay for a game there is no historical fw 190 , but some oleg wulf bull****.....sure - ow 190 - is good and real in fb!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

GINNER_SK
02-18-2004, 11:16 AM
may be i will translate it later, or do it someone for me. i have no permission to publish it, thatway no name. but this wrote a man which knows people they fly fw 190 now, and he know everything about fw, because he spend many years to recostruct a flyable fw190. this he wrote &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Wir haben schon sehr viel Schriftverkehr zu dem Thema Fw 190 mit den &gt;Fliegern der PC / Il 2 Programme gehabt. Es ging um die wenig korrekte &gt;Darstellung des Fw 190 Cockpits und eben auch um die schlechten &gt;Flugeigenschaften der PC-Simulator-Fw 190. Da ich erst in wenigen Wochen &gt;unsere FW 190 das erste Mal fliegen werde, kann ich derzeit keine eigenen &gt;Erfahrungen zu den Flugeigenschaften schildern.... Fest steht, dass die Fw &gt;190 eine sehr hohe Start- und Landegeschwindigkeit hatte, was nicht sehr &gt;günstig ist. &gt; &gt;Wenn man jedoch die alten Flugberichte- auch die von den Vergleichsflügen &gt;der alliierten Luftwaffen gegen P-51 / Spitfire / etc.- vergleicht, so war &gt;die Fw 190 ein extrem wendiges und schnelles Jagdflugzeug. Es war der am &gt;st¤rksten bewaffnete J¤ger des WKII. Jedoch waren die Flugleistungen der Fw &gt;190 mit Sternmotor über 7000 mtr nicht mehr ausreichend ( Motorleistung fiel &gt;zu stark ab und der Luftwiderstand wurde zu groß, sodass man daraufhin die &gt;wassergekühlte Fw 190 D-9 konstruierte ). Das Folgemodell der Fw 190 D-9, &gt;die Ta 152 war allen kolbengetriebenen J¤gern dann überlegen.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; we pay for a game there is no historical fw 190 , but some oleg wulf bull****.....sure - ow 190 - is good and real in fb!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

Gato-Loco
02-18-2004, 11:23 AM
Great! Now go back to the store and get your money back.

crazyivan1970
02-18-2004, 11:26 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

x6BL_Brando
02-18-2004, 11:26 AM
Ach so....does anyone have the German for "Get a life!"?

JHAT__
02-18-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
Ach so....does anyone have the German for "Get a life!"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holl dir dein Leben zurueck?
Lebe?

Anyone?

JHAT

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2004, 11:39 AM
Pity I don`t understand, but I think I get the idea...

I have a theory about whines on FMs to Oleg. It`s not that there`s anything wrong with the FMs/DMs or anything else in FB.

This is simply a continuation of the war of FB online.... Can`t shoot down that I153, jump and complain, Focke Wulf failed to down that LA5, no problem, just fight by other means- complain to Oleg!

It`s a war guys, he who bully`s Oleg the most overall wins!

mman1066
02-18-2004, 11:55 AM
Not trying to add fuel to the fire however, I remember that Kurt Tank dismissed the 109 as a "thoroughbred that only experts could fly well" while his 190 was an easy to fly plane that your average pilot could use to engage the enemy with success. I would say the opposite is true in FB.

BlitzPig_MM

oFZo
02-18-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GINNER_SK:
Wir haben schon sehr viel Schriftverkehr zu dem Thema Fw 190 mit den &gt;Fliegern der PC / Il 2 Programme gehabt. Es ging um die wenig korrekte &gt;Darstellung des Fw 190 Cockpits und eben auch um die schlechten &gt;Flugeigenschaften der PC-Simulator-Fw 190. Da ich erst in wenigen Wochen &gt;unsere FW 190 das erste Mal fliegen werde, kann ich derzeit keine eigenen &gt;Erfahrungen zu den Flugeigenschaften schildern.... Fest steht, dass die Fw &gt;190 eine sehr hohe Start- und Landegeschwindigkeit hatte, was nicht sehr &gt;günstig ist. &gt; &gt;Wenn man jedoch die alten Flugberichte- auch die von den Vergleichsflügen &gt;der alliierten Luftwaffen gegen P-51 / Spitfire / etc.- vergleicht, so war &gt;die Fw 190 ein extrem wendiges und schnelles Jagdflugzeug. Es war der am &gt;st¤rksten bewaffnete J¤ger des WKII. Jedoch waren die Flugleistungen der Fw &gt;190 mit Sternmotor über 7000 mtr nicht mehr ausreichend ( Motorleistung fiel &gt;zu stark ab und der Luftwiderstand wurde zu groß, sodass man daraufhin die &gt;wassergekühlte Fw 190 D-9 konstruierte ). Das Folgemodell der Fw 190 D-9, &gt;die Ta 152 war allen kolbengetriebenen J¤gern dann überlegen.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; we pay for a game there is no historical fw 190 , but some oleg wulf bull****.....sure - ow 190 - is good and real in fb!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Loosely translated:
(hey, I'm not German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

"We already had a lot of written contact with IL2-game-pilots. It was about the not very correct 190 cockpits and also the bad flight characteristics of the simulator-FW190. Because I will fly our own 190 in a couple of weeks I can't say anything about the characteristics yet.
Facts are the 190 had very high take-off and landing speeds, which isn't very good. howvere when (if) you look at the comparison-flights of allied airforces against P51/Spitfire, etc, you'll see the 190 was an extremely manouvreable (sp? whatever) and fast fighter. It was one of the most powerful armed fighters of WW2.
The engine power of the radial engine wasn't sufficient over 7000m so the FW-190D-9 was designed."

I have no comments on the content (as I'm no 190 expert), just a translation.

edited mistake

-oFZo
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigHolland.gif
Founding member and Offical Keeper of The Herbs of the Eurotrolls.

"I have given you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use." - The Bible

[This message was edited by oFZo on Wed February 18 2004 at 12:00 PM.]

[This message was edited by oFZo on Wed February 18 2004 at 12:01 PM.]

Chuck_Older
02-18-2004, 12:23 PM
Why all the WurgerWhining again????


This is getting to be an interesting exercise in my memory: have I replied to this thread yet? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Because we go over the same ground.

Fuel and oil we will be running a present day Focke-Wulf on isn't the same as 1945 fuel and oil

Many hundreds of pounds of ammunition and weaponry will not be on a present day Focke-Wulf

Many modern improvements will be on a modern Focke-Wulf as a given just in making the aircraft pass inspection for civil flight.



Comparing anyone's restored FW190 A-5 or whatever will not be as perfect a yardstick for gauging FB's FW-190 A-5 or whatever model you choose.

It's fantastic that these warbirds are really flying in real life. But just beause so and so flys a FW-190 today, it doesn't mean that so and so flys a combat prepped FW-190 today.

Take the Allison engine from P-40s and P-38s for example. These same engines from the '40s can now be made very powerful and reliable with little to no blow-by (one of the engine's traditional problems). A P-40 flying today with one of these Allison engines would not be representative of a 1940's P-40 in terms of performance.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Zen--
02-18-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mman1066:
Not trying to add fuel to the fire however, I remember that Kurt Tank dismissed the 109 as a "thoroughbred that only experts could fly well" while his 190 was an easy to fly plane that your average pilot could use to engage the enemy with success. I would say the opposite is true in FB.

BlitzPig_MM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I tend to agree with you MM, good point.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

clint-ruin
02-18-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mman1066:
Not trying to add fuel to the fire however, I remember that Kurt Tank dismissed the 109 as a "thoroughbred that only experts could fly well" while his 190 was an easy to fly plane that your average pilot could use to engage the enemy with success. I would say the opposite is true in FB.

BlitzPig_MM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I tend to agree with you MM, good point.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think some of these comments might refer to other aspects of the plane rather than just combat handling.

Particularly - takeoff torque, landing gear width, armament [6 gun 'spray' pattern like the US used rather than a 3 gun 'sniper' pattern as with the 109], durability, engine management, etc.

Some things just won't come across in a simulator.

That said - in each and every sim I've played I've always found the FW190 to be very .. naturally unstable? Twitchy at best. What might Warbirds and EAWs and Janes and other sim developers be basing this on, do you think?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Copperhead310th
02-18-2004, 12:33 PM
I havce to agree with Chuck here. it's beating a dead horse all over again.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Korolov
02-18-2004, 12:35 PM
You could always go buy and play CFS3.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

blabla0001
02-18-2004, 12:36 PM
Yeah, cursing at the game developer will get you what you want GINNER_SK.

People respond very well to that, I am the same, when people start cursing at me I am going to do what they curse......not.

mman1066
02-18-2004, 12:49 PM
Hmmm, never played those, or flown a real 190 or any other type of plane for that matter. I don't fly the 190 in FB very often because it wont turn and I can't aim very will with the gunsight the way it is.

In other words, I am no expert in FB or in the real world. Just found that to be a strange contradiction. Fact is, none of us are ever going to fly an actual 190 so I guess all of this talk is moot.

BlitzPig_MM

plumps_
02-18-2004, 12:49 PM
Lol. The important part of the original quote is:

Since it's going to last a few weeks before I will fly our FW 190 for the first time, I can describe no own experience about the flight characteristics at the moment.

p1ngu666
02-18-2004, 01:00 PM
190 is abit un natural, it is manoverable tho, u can be pointin elsewhere very quick (in roll atleast)
but its high wing loading, i feel its pretty acurate fm. im not gonna fly a 190 to confirm

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Red_Storm
02-18-2004, 01:16 PM
THis is starting to piss me off! THe only thing wrong with the 190 in FB is that it doesnt have a complex DM. For these online furballs the 190 sucks, but in a real war, considering logistics, ground attack roles, defence roles and intercept roles, the 190 was the king. Just because it doesnt shoot down everything in your sight in a furball doesnt mean it's undermodeled. Oh, I've been flying the FW since it was first released in IL2 and im an all time FW-190 lover. I would just hate to see my FW get raped by point-*****s who want to make it an easy ride.

Snow_Wolf_
02-18-2004, 01:48 PM
The Focke Wulf in this game is fine i am guess some people are trying to turn fight with them. Now if you look carefully at the wing of the 190 u should notice there is no slat on it like the 109. (I am guessing this is why the 190 does not climb as well as the 109 as the slat are suppose to improve the attack angle of the wing aka high angle of attack before stall) Not to say the 190 did more hit and run raids over southern England when they first came out. I fly this bird everytime i go on Fb. It is a very touchy plane but if you are low and slow you are good as dead (but that the same with almost all planes)

Snow_Wolf_
02-18-2004, 01:58 PM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

This may also answer some of the questions
InJuly 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke-Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report.

SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
TheFW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres].

At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190


Climbhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifuring comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.

Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m].

The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.

The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.



SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A
Theaccount below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942.
TheFW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet.

The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows -

At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB

Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions
of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.
Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions.
Ifthe Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.

The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Maximum Speed: From 0-5,000 feet [0-1525 metres] and between 15,000-20,000 feet
[4573-6100 metres] the Spitfire XIV is only 20 mph [32 km/hr] faster than the FW190;
at all other heights it is up to 60 mph [97 km/hr] faster.

Maximum Climb: The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb at all altitudes.

Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better.

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive.
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive.

JG7_Rall
02-18-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>THis is starting to piss me off! THe only thing wrong with the 190 in FB is that it doesnt have a complex DM. For these online furballs the 190 sucks, but in a real war, considering logistics, ground attack roles, defence roles and intercept roles, the 190 was the king. Just because it doesnt shoot down everything in your sight in a furball doesnt mean it's undermodeled. Oh, I've been flying the FW since it was first released in IL2 and im an all time FW-190 lover. I would just hate to see my FW get raped by point-*****s who want to make it an easy ride.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree with you more. People seem to think that since it was so good in real life (which it was) that it's supposed to be this ultimate ace-maker. But in real life pilots never entered these infamous TnB fights you see online and always seeked surprise and alt. advantage. If you have both of these factors when attacking the enemy online, you will be very successful, just like Focke Wulf pilots where in real life. Get over it people, stick to it's tactics and be patient, we're getting a CDM soon.

Regards,

Hutch

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

lbhskier37
02-18-2004, 02:06 PM
Can any mod check IP addresses? It seems like there are a huge number of posts by new posters whining about the 190 lately, are these all the same guy? All you allied guys who are getting annoyed by this, don't come blaming us normal FW guys we are just as annoyed I think.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Xnomad
02-18-2004, 02:30 PM
The fact that I see so very few Fw 190's on full difficutly servers must mean something! The only places you will see many of them is in cockpit off servers, (where arcade fliers can use the 108 wing cannons in the A9) why? Because the forward view is a bl00dy joke! Any test pilot would have climbed out of the Fw 190 and walked over to Kurt Tank and said "You must be joking?".

I don't know what other people think of the book but in Mike Spick's "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" he tells us how when the Fw 190 was introduced the Luftwaffe pilots would stick around and mix it up with the Spitfires. Previously whilst flying 109's they would dive through, fire and get the hell out of there.

Now if I had the choice in FB to fly against a Spitfire V in a Bf 109 F or a Fw 190 A I wouldn't dream about dogfighting in a 190-A never ever ever. In an 109 F anyday, so something must be wrong? Ok Ok I can fly a Bf 109 in my sleep and don't have much stick time with the Wuerger but that's not why.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Jaws2002
02-18-2004, 03:39 PM
How many A9's do you see in the servers after the last patch? I think there are not too many lately do to the climb handicape. I think there are less A9's with 108's then La7 with 3x20mm.

p1ngu666
02-18-2004, 04:54 PM
im not miffed at deciated fw or whatever fliers. they should by now realise how to fly it effectivly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

ucanfly
02-18-2004, 05:53 PM
Just food for thought.

Remember the old IL2 P-39 and how many complained about the FM and others defended it? What happened there?

Sure there are FB FW aces that are great gamers. Congratulations. That is not the point. The question is - is FB 190 historical or just a good visual representation that's way too twitchy, flies too much like a brick (under 400 mph), but has gobs of firepower?

I'm not expecting it to own any late VVS plane in pure turn and burn , but this thing turns like a medium bomber and spins like an ice skater. AT 375 kph a 1/8 (approx) stick deflection gives a snap roll. hmmm - great handling aircraft. If you don't have way more E than your adversary, you are in trouble with this plane if you need to turn at all. That coupled with the invisidots and poor cockpit viewability, you have a plane that is very tough on FB noobs and those that don't have the FORCE in a no icon situation. Faaar from the pleasure described by many new pilots.


I am very interested in what these future FW flight tests reveal , to see if history really does need to be rewritten to some extent. Any real world comments are appreciated or direct quotes from any other FW pilots as well. But please don't tell me how good a gamer you are, and that since you can get kills that means the FW is historically acccurate.

BS87
02-18-2004, 10:00 PM
How many times does it take before people get it? JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE BUILDS A 190 DOES NOT MEAN THEY KNOW HOW IT FLYS. THe Flugwerks 190 is not even in the air yet!! This is such an invalid argument its silly.

ucanfly
02-18-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
How many times does it take before people get it? JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE BUILDS A 190 DOES NOT MEAN THEY KNOW HOW IT FLYS. THe Flugwerks 190 is not even in the air yet!! This is such an invalid argument its silly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaah but maybe some people think that perhaps that some aerodynamic qualities may be gleamed from a real aircraft based on the FW190 airframe rather than trying to make the same argument based on how an aircraft performs in a game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JR_Greenhorn
02-18-2004, 11:40 PM
I will refrain from commenting on the in game FW 190, but a certain member's insistance on reposting the availibility of FW 190s for test purposes bothers me. I feel that making such claims is misleading, and don't see why Oleg would respond to yet another attack on the state of the FW 190. Here's why I feel the neo-FW 190 replikas are not qualified for the generation of test data for the original:



Has anyone else noticed some of the major changes made to these new FW 190 replikas?

While the ASh-82FN of the replika and BMW 801 of the real thing may both be 14 cyl. radials, that doesn't make them the same engine now, does it? The ASh-82FN is slightly smaller and operates at a slightly lower rpm, yet seems to be more powerful--especially today (as opposed to 60 years ago).

Also, the manufacturer's website goes into some detail about the relocation of the oil cooler to a vacant gun cowling, accompanied an apparently newly designed cooling fan. There are no guns of any kind (obviously), and just a token representation of armour. However it does state that the tailwheel assemblies have real combat experience! Talk about your halo effect...

With these major alterations, in addition to countless subtle changes, do people really think these replikas--when finished and flying--will be an accurate representation of the original, to the degree required for perfomance testing?

Chuck_Older
02-19-2004, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Why all the WurgerWhining again????



Fuel and oil we will be running a present day Focke-Wulf on isn't the same as 1945 fuel and oil

Many hundreds of pounds of ammunition and weaponry will not be on a present day Focke-Wulf

Many modern improvements will be on a modern Focke-Wulf as a given just in making the aircraft pass inspection for civil flight.



Comparing anyone's restored FW190 A-5 or whatever will not be as perfect a yardstick for gauging FB's FW-190 A-5 or whatever model you choose.

It's fantastic that these warbirds are really flying in real life. But just beause so and so flys a FW-190 today, it doesn't mean that so and so flys a _combat prepped_ FW-190 today.

Take the Allison engine from P-40s and P-38s for example. These same engines from the '40s can now be made very powerful and reliable with little to no blow-by (one of the engine's traditional problems). A P-40 flying today with one of these Allison engines would not be representative of a 1940's P-40 in terms of performance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I keep making this very same point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But I guess nobody reads it

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

CHDT
02-19-2004, 08:23 AM
************************
THis is starting to piss me off! THe only thing wrong with the 190 in FB is that it doesnt have a complex DM. For these online furballs the 190 sucks, but in a real war, considering logistics, ground attack roles, defence roles and intercept roles, the 190 was the king. Just because it doesnt shoot down everything in your sight in a furball doesnt mean it's undermodeled. Oh, I've been flying the FW since it was first released in IL2 and im an all time FW-190 lover. I would just hate to see my FW get raped by point-*****s who want to make it an easy ride.
***************************


have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
02-19-2004, 08:27 AM
Look here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855325187/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5278852-5423354#reader-link


Aces on the 190 in the Russian front!!!! Impossible http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jurinko
02-19-2004, 09:27 AM
"Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced."

ehm, I am really hot to test it when getting Spit XIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fw 190A-3 was found by British experts to be comparable with Spit IX under 6,000m. Soon, we can try it in the Aces Expansion. Sure, it will be able to outrun and outdive SpitV, but fight it on equal terms? Just (try to) hit and run-run-run tactics..

UK ace Johnson in August 1942 over Dieppe described as an experienced Fw pilot chased him in turns, loops, anything he could produce from his Spitfire VB and could not get the Hun off.. at last, he decided to fly over own ships which AA scared the Fw enough to break the attack. Will anybody repeat it?

Russian fighter manual describes Fw pilots tactics, first surprise attack from above and rear, then eventually starting turning fight using the right turn. Welcome in HL with that tactics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fw190 is somehow flyable now, but except full real surprise attack it is worthless, having the only option if enemy is at co-energy - run-run-run!!! Oh yes, and that forwardd view really sux!

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

JV44Rall
02-19-2004, 10:56 AM
Hutch said that we're getting a CDM soon.

Any word on how the CDM will be different than current DM?

Are the days of the glass-winged FW numbered?

robban75
02-19-2004, 11:14 AM
I like this part. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive. the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manouverability is concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior of the two in all save the tight turn - the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds,,,"

Will be interesting to see how the FB A-4 will stack up to the soon avaiable Mk IX!

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

blabla0001
02-19-2004, 11:15 AM
"Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced."

ehm, I am really hot to test it when getting Spit XIV.
------------------------------------------------
But it will still out turn the FW190, only just not as easy so you better not try and turn with it and dive away since you can't out climb the XIV either.

kyrule2
02-19-2004, 02:32 PM
Robban, it should be very interesting to see how the A-4 and Mk.IX match-up. This is a point I made awhile ago. The A-4 in FB is the only 190 that I don't like flying as much. Its acceleration and climb seem very poor and it just feels underpowered and sluggish. It falls fairly short of its maximum speed at altitude and feels very sluggish at medium altitudes where it should be strong. If the Mk.IX and the A-4 perform similarly this place will erupt as the A-4 isn't seen as a very good fighter in FB. This is strange to me as the A-4 should be very good but it is out-performed by the 109G-2, Mig-3U fantasy plane, and the La-5 standard IMO. The P-39N is also superior to the FW-190A-4 in '42. This just doesn't seem right to me but oh well. I think the Mk.IX we are getting is a later mark so comparisons may be to later 190 models. Still, I believe the earlier Mk.IX is coming and Oleg has sort of dug himself a hole as far as that is concerned. Just my opinion.

And Rall, I think the days of the glass wing 190's ARE near an end. But I am far more concerned about losing SIGNIFICANT performance with extremely minor damage. Getting tiny love taps from 700m when going vertical and having a top speed of 400+ km/h 90% of the time when you come down. That is what I am hoping is coming to an end.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

Zen--
02-19-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
And Rall, I think the days of the glass wing 190's ARE near an end. But I am far more concerned about losing SIGNIFICANT performance with extremely minor damage. Getting tiny love taps from 700m when going vertical and having a top speed of 400+ km/h 90% of the time when you come down. That is what I am hoping is coming to an end.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Kyrule said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zen--
02-19-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:


UK ace Johnson in August 1942 over Dieppe described as an experienced Fw pilot chased him in turns, loops, anything he could produce from his Spitfire VB and could not get the Hun off.. at last, he decided to fly over own ships which AA scared the Fw enough to break the attack. Will anybody repeat it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is an excellent story by the way, called Duel over Dieppe but I don't recall the name of the book it was in. I think it was a compilation of Western Aces IIRC, but what is cool about the story is the sinister/supernatural way it's told, almost like the FW was a ghost that had come just for Johnson. Read it at least 15 years ago but if memory is still working properly, it was a kind of far out story. Very entertaining.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
************************
THis is starting to piss me off! THe only thing wrong with the 190 in FB is that it doesnt have a complex DM. For these online furballs the 190 sucks, but in a real war, considering logistics, ground attack roles, defence roles and intercept roles, the 190 was the king. Just because it doesnt shoot down everything in your sight in a furball doesnt mean it's undermodeled. Oh, I've been flying the FW since it was first released in IL2 and im an all time FW-190 lover. I would just hate to see my FW get raped by point-*****s who want to make it an easy ride.
***************************


have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for these links. Very interesting and eye opening when comparing to FB model. I especially liked the part about being good for low level because it had such an EXCELLENT VIEW OVER THE NOSE. LOL

BBB_Hyperion
02-19-2004, 03:55 PM
Thx CHDT for never giving up posting this things(For Years now).

Maybe over time someone will read em .)

I can only agree to Kyrule2's tests.

Climb and Combat power Value ranges are not that much concerned of in all Planes not only FW. The 100 % should if i understand this in FB right represent Climb and Combat Power). The Pressure Gauge /RPM allows more detailed testing that it correspondend with most planes 100 % value(If this works right). But i am tired of testing all Planes again and again special after the level stabelizer is gone getting good results takes much more time. Drag is also little low (Or Plane is too fast or TAS/IAS doesnt fit)on all planes special at higher speeds.
We should still remember this is only a sim that can run on a HomePC. This leads to needed compromises in much aspects so we cant exspect all to be 100 % right. So it will never be like the real thing with current limitations there is no doubt. The FW is however a Plane that have been cut most this . Remembering old Il2 Game when only 4 or 5 ppl did fly fw(Greats to MD and some others of the old). The flight model
clearly changed to a easier handling there is no doubt. Compare P39 old Il2 to Il2fb 1.22 too difference is even greater. FW FM changed much DM comes next the developement is clearly in a good direction but it takes time.
In Aces addon we will soon see the Spit and can test and compare em vs FW where more comparison documents exist and can show more errors that havent been mentioned here. The Non Available Data in FB doesnt make it easy to compare tho.

FW is still one of the best Planes in FB right now.

Regards,
Hyperion

Chuck_Older
02-19-2004, 04:01 PM
I call a New Rule.

no more mention EVER of the view out of a '190. It was done to DEATH. Horses don't get deader. Secretariat isn't as dead as that horse. No more, it's worse than boring. It doesn't help, it won't help, it can't help anymore ever again. It's over, it's a dead issue, let's not dig up that moldy corpse, it stinks and Oleg made it clear it would not be changed anyway.

I can't fly the *#^%ing FW 190, either but I am pretty sure it's me that's the problem.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

I can't fly the *#^%ing FW 190, either but I am pretty sure it's me that's the problem.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same.

Its a trickly plane to fly, but its sure as hell deadly in the right hands.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I call a New Rule.

no more mention EVER of the view out of a '190. It was done to DEATH. Horses don't get deader. Secretariat isn't as dead as that horse. No more, it's worse than boring. It doesn't help, it won't help, it can't help anymore ever again. It's over, it's a dead issue, let's not dig up that moldy corpse, it stinks and Oleg made it clear it would not be changed anyway.

I can't fly the *#^%ing FW 190, either but I am pretty sure it's me that's the problem.

*****************************
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude this is a discussion forum. Take a chill pill. The outside view of the 190 is fair game because it is sooo bad and continues to be despite ample historical narrative evidence to the contrary. It may be a compromeise on frame rates, there are many reasons, but IMO BOB addon with FW190 does not have that excuse. Maybe then things will change.

Go outside and exercise if you are sick of reading forums.

Chuck_Older
02-19-2004, 04:16 PM
Somebody is a grumpy ol' grouchy-wouchy, isn't he? Yes he is.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 04:20 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL . Shouldn't post at work I guess.

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 04:22 PM
I dread to think what will happen when the Spit is released. They`ll be two camps- the Focke Wolf and the Spitfire! The war will start on the online servers and end in blood, weeping and gnashing of teeth in ORR!

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-19-2004, 04:22 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Zen--
02-19-2004, 04:34 PM
I must say that I don't fear the spit at all, I really really really hope you guys get what you want and get a good, tight FM that feels right and keeps you all from feeling ripped off. I mean that seriously.

If that means my FW is not as competitive, ultimately to me thats no big deal. It's not the like FW isn't already outclassed by many planes as is...some justified and some not. So we FW jocks ought to be used to fighting planes that have one or more superior attributes I think...if the spit can beat the FW hands down because of FM interpretation, it's not going to bother me. I'd rather that than have the FW win all the time, because then that would mean (to me anyway) for sure the spit got the shaft and then, yes indeed, the wail of the anguished spit pilots would probably cause me to leave the game. (seeing as how the FM of the 190 back in the old days almost did the same and I fear to reopen old wounds)


I would never wish the original 190A5 FM from IL2 on anyone, even my worst enemy. All I hope is that the spit performs as near to what is realistically expected and doesn't get porked or 'balanced'.

If it's done fairly and ends up better than the FW, I'm ok with that personally. My online life is not staked to the performance of my dream plane and I do not personally suffer from it's FM modelling. It doesn't reduce my manliness if an LA7 can do things I can't...I keep right on trucking with what I have.

I just hope for the spit pilot's sake they get something with a reasonably fair model, in the manner of how the mustang slid into the game pretty well without having to be constantly tweaked over 2 years. Don't hear much whining about the mustang which is a good sign and it didn't have to fight the P47 battle either.

If the spit can come in like that, I'll be happy for you guys. Rain or shine, it's not going to perform better than the La7, so it's not like I'm having nightmares about the spit's arrival, but I will sure as hell be disappointed on your behalf if it sucks.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 04:48 PM
That`s a pretty conscientious and thoughtful post, Zen. Thanx. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To be fair I hope that the Spit be dealt with in a realistic manner and not be an anti-gravity defying bird as the out-of-the-box Hurri was.

Cheers.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

FW190fan
02-19-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
That is an excellent story by the way, called Duel over Dieppe but I don't recall the name of the book it was in. I think it was a compilation of Western Aces IIRC, but what is cool about the story is the sinister/supernatural way it's told, almost like the FW was a ghost that had come just for Johnson. Read it at least 15 years ago but if memory is still working properly, it was a kind of far out story. Very entertaining.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


RAF pilot Eric Brown in his book "Duels in the Sky" also describes being in a 20 minute dogfight with a FW190A while flying a Spit IX. Both sides mutually disengaged, as neither pilot could get the upper hand.

He does several direct comparisons in this book and his conclusion was that the Spit XIV and the FW190D-9 were the two premier(piston-engine) fighters of the war.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 04:55 PM
As a flight sim enthusiast I have to say that this game is a tremndous advance in many ways, but my rigorous complaints about the 190 is not because it is my pet plane! I want this sim to be as realistic and historical as possible and this forum provides an outlet for discussing ideas.

There are several problems with providing such a huge planeset in such a quality WWII flight game. Among them are the fact that when you introduce new FMs you run the risk of having ahistorical performance of the new plane against the old planes, and face the possibility of having to tweak many planes to fix the relative historical imbalance. This problem becomes worse as the planeset grows.

I for one love to fly planes that are a challenge (when they are supposed to be "crap" planes), but feel cheated either when a plane feels too unrealistically high performance (like when it climbs about as well as it dives) or when it feels like it is flying in molasses when it had very celebrated handling characteristics historically. Nevertheless I am drawn to the difficulty of flying the 190 and keep away from the extreme ease that is required to kill opponents in the LA7.

I think several planes need some looking at in this regard, and the FW is just one of the most important because of it's role on the Axis side.

I am campaigning for more realism in this game - not for any particular plane to beat up on everyone else.

SKULLS_LZ
02-19-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I like this part. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive. the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manouverability is concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior of the two in all save the tight turn - the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds,,,"

Will be interesting to see how the FB A-4 will stack up to the soon avaiable Mk IX!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm dreading it. I expect the Spit will wipe the floor with the 190 A-5 and A-5 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

EPP-Gibbs
02-19-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
************************
THis is starting to piss me off! THe only thing wrong with the 190 in FB is that it doesnt have a complex DM. For these online furballs the 190 sucks, but in a real war, considering logistics, ground attack roles, defence roles and intercept roles, the 190 was the king. Just because it doesnt shoot down everything in your sight in a furball doesnt mean it's undermodeled. Oh, I've been flying the FW since it was first released in IL2 and im an all time FW-190 lover. I would just hate to see my FW get raped by point-*****s who want to make it an easy ride.
***************************


have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking at the cockpit diagram in the browns report..the forward and oblique views look as if the'd be every bit the same as we have in the game.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 08:02 PM
Jeeze man thats a cockpit diagram with a reference used to show the instrumentation, not to show the visibility out of the cockpit from the point of view of the pilot, Read the text (esp. the second link) that was provided. It is unequivocal.

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Jeeze man thats a cockpit diagram with a reference used to show the instrumentation, not to show the visibility out of the cockpit from the point of view of the pilot, Read the text (esp. the second link) that was provided. It is unequivocal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To join the equine flagellation brigade..

Where's the revi glass pointing if we move the pilots POV out of his lap ? :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
02-19-2004, 08:20 PM
I suggest take a look here (Hopefully this link still works was posted on ORR a while ago)

http://trombke.bei.t-online.de/Fw190A-8_Cockpit_2.zip

A Cockpit Video of the FW190A8. When you still think there is no difference between this and a 2D representation i cant help maybe a museum visit can help or check your local airfield.

Regards,
Hyperion

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 08:23 PM
Look I guess you are happy with not being able to see anything out the front of the FW190 in te game. That is fine. Just don't call it historically accurate.

Now you bring up a report that states that many characteristics of the 190 including that there is excellent all round visibility and another link that states that the forward view is excellent while in flight. Included in that report was a diagram (not a picture) of the internal instrumentation layout , which you are now saying is definitive proof that you can't see anything out of the front of the cockpit?

I'm not revi or cockpit bar arguer. I am simply stating that the forward view is severely obstructed in the game and that is not the way it is presented by those who have flown it. My best guess is that the POV of the pilot is waaay too low in the FB model, and that the plane flew more nose down than it does in the game. I don't see how that diagram proves the visibility is severely obstructed in the forward view, but if you read the text it definitely says it is not. In fact it says it is better than the spitfire!


Poor horse. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Look I guess you are happy with not being able to see anything out the front of the FW190 in te game. That is fine. Just don't call it historically accurate.

Now you bring up a report that states that many characteristics of the 190 including that there is excellent all round visibility and another link that states that the forward view is excellent while in flight. Included in that report was a diagram (not a picture) of the internal instrumentation layout , which you are now saying is definitive proof that you can't see anything out of the front of the cockpit?

I'm not revi or cockpit bar arguer. I am simply stating that the forward view is severely obstructed in the game and that is not the way it is presented by those who have flown it. My best guess is that the POV of the pilot is waaay too low in the FB model, and that the plane flew more nose down than it does in the game. I don't see how that diagram proves the visibility is severely obstructed in the forward view, but if you read the text it definitely says it is not. In fact it says it is better than the spitfire!


Poor horse. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't have an opinion on it at all - seen too many 3298758903 page arguments about it. What we have is what we have.

I think Cirx's photos did a much better job of showing a different perspective from the 190s cockpit than the video linked above though. My thoughts on watching it is that Oleg has things 99% right. Here's some grabs, let me know if they work, new webspace:

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview1.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview2.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview3.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview4.jpg

I think moving the angle of the existing FB view would do exactly what it does in that video - give the pilot an absolutely, completely, and utterly supreme view ...

... of his own MGs and engine. Oleg said as much when this was first brought up. Tell me what you think.

Certainly not a video I would distribute to argue for change in the existing POV, much better to use Cirx's work for that.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 09:13 PM
YOu need go no farther than to try the Me262 in the game and see what a difference there between normal and gunssight view. That's IMO what is needed along with a slightly nose down attitude in the 190s.

Franzen
02-19-2004, 10:52 PM
Lastnight I played online. I flew the G2 against Yaks and La's. I wasn't hit once and I could out turn and do anything better than the other guys could. I'm no ace and have had no training but obviously more experience then my opponents. At 50% fuel I would even run out of fuel faster than ammo. My point? The plane doesn't make the kill, the pilot does. I'm not saying I'm good, cause I know I'm not. But lastnight, for the first time, I was better.
When we do get the Spit, the aces will still be mopping the floor with their choice of planes.

Fritz Franzen

Pips_Piller
02-20-2004, 08:15 AM
First off, I am not a pilot. I have just been building model airplanes since about 1957. I have played the game, and it sure brings out the Walter Mitty in me, I love it.
That said. From what I have read, it seems the flight charactoristics of the FW190A series seems to be fairly accurately represented. I seem to continuosly flick into a high speed stall when doing a right turn, which was a common problem to them.
I agree that it seems twitchy, but that may be a true part of the plane. I do know that I seem to do better in a Me/Bf 109.
The 109 was known to have good fligh handling up to 300 mph, and above that the flight controls got heavy. About 400 mph they locked up.
However, my concern is the flight sim of the 190D series. The Sim describes the bad part of the 190D9 as "lack of manueverablity". I find that this does not seem to agree with what is written about the FW190D9.
"But found it better than the BMW 801-powered FW 190 in most respects, apart from roll rate."

p1ngu666
02-20-2004, 08:46 AM
why does the 190d have worse roll? just wondering

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Bogun
02-20-2004, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
I suggest take a look here (Hopefully this link still works was posted on ORR a while ago)

http://trombke.bei.t-online.de/Fw190A-8_Cockpit_2.zip

A Cockpit Video of the FW190A8. When you still think there is no difference between this and a 2D representation i cant help maybe a museum visit can help or check your local airfield.

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hyperion,
I beleive the sight is mounted way to low to be usable on the 190 in this movie. There were photo presented on this forum showing 190 sights mounted much higher...

Regards,

http://bogun.freeservers.com/609_bogun.jpg
"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)

ZG77_Nagual
02-20-2004, 10:12 AM
As long as you keep the combat speed up the 190a5 turns with anything - you shoud disengage and go vertical well before it turns into a stallfight.

The next best handling 190, in my opinion, is the dora - which is very fast, has great climb,dive and zoom and a pretty good turn. The a5,4 are the most overall agile - but the dora is right there with them. In '43 the a5 really rules you just have to watch your e - though you can afford to play with turns a little more if it's 1v1. I think the 190s are extremely capable fighters in this simm - I prefer them to pretty much everything.

Skalgrim
02-20-2004, 10:34 AM
some plane like p39 are problem for 190,

with typical dogfight speed 350km/h had p39 only 65 degree rollrate,

but game 160 degree, that 2,5 time better as real,

that can you see naca rollrate test.

when rollrate will fix p39 ,this plane much less danger for 190.

when overmodell rollrate, from some plane become not fix,

it fb not sim, only fantasy game, but fantasy game that make fun.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri February 20 2004 at 09:49 AM.]

Jirozaemon
02-20-2004, 12:50 PM
Hi everybody !!!

I guess the whole thread is based on the following link:

http://www.flugwerk.com/

These guys are building a (new) FW 190 A8, there are lots of photos and you can order your own (sic!) FW 190-kit for approx. 650.000 $. Nice, isn`t it ?

Greetings

Jiro

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Fri February 20 2004 at 11:58 AM.]

BBB_Hyperion
02-20-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:

Hyperion,
I beleive the sight is mounted way to low to be usable on the 190 in this movie. There were photo presented on this forum showing 190 sights mounted much higher..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sight is mounted too low but what mainly can be seen is the BAR issue and a good impression how the view forward is. Also when flight attitude is nose down and the so called sitting on the FW compared to sitting in the BF does surely make a difference in the view.

But that there is a difference between this view and IL2FB is noticeable. The Pictures Posted here in the Blue Frame from a rebuild d9 has a smaller Armored Glass than the Original Size this reduces Refraction effect.

The good Pictures from Cirx didnt have a Revi.

Regards,
Hyperion

Chuck_Older
02-20-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
As long as you keep the combat speed up the 190a5 turns with anything - you shoud disengage and go vertical well before it turns into a stallfight.

The next best handling 190, in my opinion, is the dora - which is very fast, has great climb,dive and zoom and a pretty good turn. The a5,4 are the most overall agile - but the dora is right there with them. In '43 the a5 really rules you just have to watch your e - though you can afford to play with turns a little more if it's 1v1. I think the 190s are extremely capable fighters in this simm - I prefer them to pretty much everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that turning is but a part of ACM- and not the most important part, at that.

But I STILL can't fly the -190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash