What happened to LW?

[1K3]

Originally posted by storch
when I started "luftwhining" pyro and ht both said to "provide documentation".  well my squaddie crumpp has provided reams of documentation gleaned from irrefutable sources such as the nasm and wright patterson.  the next response was well the data was being "cherry picked" what ever that means because crumpp has sent all the data he collected and not specific data attempting to bolster his position.

After all the man-hours wasted just to gather info and only to say the *data* for 190 was *cherry picked*?  That's messed up.

what is this *data* suppose to be?  Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*) Where did this *data* comme from?  What source?

[storch]

Originally posted by 1K3
After all the man-hours wasted just to gather info and only to say the *data* for 190 was *cherry picked*?  That's messed up.

what is this *data* suppose to be?  Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*) Where did this *data* comme from?  What source?

sorry but it's there in front of you nasm=?  

[wrag]

OK we are not talking about changes to top speed.

What is being talked about is preceived differences.

Some of the planes SEEM to fly differently then before........

E bleed SEEMS to be greater...........

Nothing major mind you just something SEEMS slightly different.

What is being seen is ... one day you can do certain things in a certain plane against another certain plane, a patch is made, you download and apply the patch, and suddenly that certain plane does NOT SEEM to be able to quite do what it did before against that other certain plane.

I noticed what SEEMED to be a difference in E bleed on the 109s the very 1st flight.  Landing it seemed suddenly different?

Perhaps some numbers got changed inadvertantly?  No idea.  I don't know the coding being used.  Or how the numbers/coding is being applied.

I DO know that when coding things can change on you.  I did some coding for over 10 years.  I HAVE noticed programs can look pretty much the same as they did before you have typed in your changes or added lines, BUT after compiling something that worked fine before doesn't any more, or still works but is slightly different then before.  Also noticed that sometimes such things can accumulate.

AND i've noticed it isn't in the actual CODING but somewhere within the language and the compilier itself.  Perhaps memory addressing, perhaps calculations, or any number of things.  They do HAVE to patch programming languages, and their compiliers from time to time.  A decimal place may not be right where it should be?  You can look at printouts or the screens all day, seven days a week and still miss such a thing.

That and power supply and memory condition and ....... well the things that can affect code are MANY.  Sometimes a fresh compile after a reboot is better then one that came after 3 weeks of coding and compiling over and over.

SO everything can LOOK the same, but there is a difference that you can't quite put you're finger on.  BUT.................

Oh Well.............

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Zwerg
That's interesting, Crumpp. I see it the same way.
When AH2 started, the 190s had much better E-retention. You could make a high speed attack on a Spit (for example), pull hard and reverse immediately without danger to be catched by the Spit. Do do this 2 or 3 times in a row, until the speed had dropped. Then disengage and leave an even slower Spit behind.
Soon after, in an early Patch, the 190s were reduced to the actual level.

PS: It was not easier zu kill Spits, but much easier not to be killed.

Could it be it feels different because the Spit XVI/VIII you are now meeting is a totally different one to the 'old' V and IX?
They XVI and the VIII accelerate much, much better than either of the old ones.
I think someone did a test and they are not far behind a Lala up to their max speed.

I also wonder if the new 'code smoothing' is causing more than just the weird mini warps etc.

[Wilbus]

What people have to remember about the fights is that, top speed does not win a fight.

Acceleration and climb rate (specially zoom climb) aswell as E retation wins a fight. The only thing top speed does for you is the ability to run away.

As the current MA environment has got quite a few LA7's flying around top speed doesn't matter all that much anymore either as there will usually be atleast one LA7 in the area who is capable of catching you no matter if you fly a 109, 190, P51, Jug or any other plane from either side (part from the perks).

Why is the Spit 16 and Spit 8 (well all spits) so dangerous? Because of the same reason the Ki84 is (only the Ki84 takes alot more time to master and fly well). Climb rate, acceleration, zoom climb. They are the perfect close combat dogfighters.

Are they overmodelled? I doubt it. The spit was infamouse for being an easy plane to fly.

Are the LW birds undermodelled? I think so. I also think that acceleration and dive acceleration, E retation and such is somewhat fubar, aswell as low speed handeling.

Are the US Birds overmodelled? Why do I think they are? Not because of top speed, not because of climb but mostly because of their stall characteristics. Without flaps they feel awsome to fly, extrmely friendly, much more then described in combat reports. Once a notch (or more) of flaps can be popped they go from awsome to unbelievable.

Just my opinion of course.

IMO the entire AH Acceleration FM feels off IMO, I know I am not the only one who's had Zekes outdive me in real fast 1944 planes (Dora, 109 G10/K4, P51, P47 etc, you name it). And that is going from same starting speed.

Of course, just my opinion.

[Mime]

Originally posted by Wilbus


Are the US Birds overmodelled? Why do I think they are? Not because of top speed, not because of climb but mostly because of their stall characteristics. Without flaps they feel awsome to fly, extrmely friendly, much more then described in combat reports. Once a notch (or more) of flaps can be popped they go from awsome to unbelievable.

Just my opinion of course.

IMO the entire AH Acceleration FM feels off IMO, I know I am not the only one who's had Zekes outdive me in real fast 1944 planes (Dora, 109 G10/K4, P51, P47 etc, you name it). And that is going from same starting speed.

Of course, just my opinion.

I was flying a P47 offline with 75% fuel and max ammos.  I put this puppy into full flap anti gravity mode starting at 150 IAS, pulled up and it my nose went completely vertical with very little stalling or what I would assume would be extreme drag from full flaps (basically an airbrake if they are extended all the way).  The nose stayed up until about 50 or so ias.  Crazy.  No LW can do that.

[Squire]

Like its not easy to get kills in LAs, Ki-84s, P-51Ds, N1K2s, F4U-1s and 109s?

Too funny.

Obviously some with big chips on their shoulders are getting bruised, but thats nothing new.

Accusing HTC of *deliberately*? screwing with the FMs or guns is the desperate logic of the whiner.  

"My favorite plane sucks vs the Spitfire" Pwoo baby.

[Wilbus]

You've totally missunderstood this thread squire and I am guessing you haven't even read half of it.

[Crumpp]

what is this *data* suppose to be? Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*) Where did this *data* comme from? What source?

Pretty much all that and then some.  What do you want to know?

Data comes from:

Focke Wulf, Gmbh

BMW

VDM

Rechlin

Wright AeroEngine Company

Luftwaffe Technical and Operational publications

USN Technical Air Intelligence Section

Royal Aircraft Estabilishment

National Advisory Council on Aeronautics

To name a few......

It is found in museum archives, company archives, and private collections.  Prices range from very reasonable to extremely expensive depending on the material or the source.  That is not to mention the time, gas, and effort expended to collect it.

The NASM is pretty reasonable but I highly recommend taking a trip to the airchives when possible:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

You've totally missunderstood this thread squire and I am guessing you haven't even read half of it.

Correct.

He is just trolling.

It's his usual contribution to any discussion on Luftwaffe History as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Disagree.

[Crumpp]

When you have no facts or insights to bring and only comment to inflame, you are trolling.

Go check out the Spitfire modeling threads.  This kind of juvenile behavior did not occur.  You don't see post after post of:

Quit cherry picking the data.....

Any point brought out is backed up with facts.  Conclusions maybe different but nonetheless arguments are made based on solid information, not smoke and mirrors.  

The FW-190's need to be reworked.  They were modeled during a time when the quantity of data available today was simply not around.  Allied testing and obscure performance graphs with little to no background/aircraft set up information are the bases for the modeling.

How many knew a few years ago that 6 different engines were used between the FW190A, F, and G series?  I have never seen that in any book.  Almost all will claim the BMW801D was the same motor developing the same amount of horsepower from 1939 until 1945.  Silly notions if you think about it.  Certainly not backed up by any real factual information.

There are still mysteries to be solved as well.  We have a box of at least 8 different piston designs which we have pulled from 801D2 motors.  I have only a couple documented.

So have some maturity and quit doing it here simply because it is the opposition under discussion.


All the best,

Crumpp

[straffo]

Just make the ultimate post about each fw190.

Without using any !  and being the more concise possible.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Wilbus
Data wise OK yes as for speed and climb (pretty close atleast) but that is not what it is about really.

Dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climbs, stall characteristics...

And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.

You can not seperate the items because they are all directly related.

Zoom climbs would also include some loading so you would also have to find out if stustained turn rates are correct.

But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.

Stall characteristics are much more subjective then the other pieces of the flight envlope.

HiTech

[Crumpp]

Just make the ultimate post about each fw190.

Sorry but we are not busting our hump for the benefit of the Aces High BBS or HTC.  I was doing that on my own and offered to help Pyro since I played this game before my involvement in the Museum.

So, I should spend my time to write up the "ultimate" FW-190 post.  Impart all the information it has taken years to amass and a substantial outlay of cash upon the community so that Hitech will change a game??

A game that he attaches a stigma of dishonesty to anyone who is generous enough to DONATE original documentation.

Not happening.

If the community is willing to do something along the lines of the WWIIOnline players, then I will make the "ultimate" FW-190 post.

http://www.white1foundation.org/sponsors_wwiiol.htm

That way we can at least recoup some of our losses.

All the best,

Crumpp