190 performance vs the way its being flown

[SeaWulfe]

Yes Mandoble, I agree the plane will bleed energy like an elephant with wings... The trick is to be able to "hold" it in controlled flight despite it's poor low speed performance... I was stallfighting a Yak last night on the deck, he was behind me for a good 3 or 4 reversals in the scissors before I finally said to myself "F*ck this" and pulled back on the stick into a vertical climb, then did a hammerhead and came down with a fleeting snapshot on him... blew his wing off and he went straight in. The whole time I was riding 200MPH, and almost spun into the ground several times from almost instant snap spins.

Would 10% quick roll rate have helped here? I don't believe it would of, 10% more elevator authority at that speed would of helped... but that isn't what's broken.

My point is, that while the roll rate maybe 10% off, it's still a very fast roll rate as is, faster than most planes at any speed. So that 10% isn't hurting your that much.

Now, if we were to get the other planes to more acceptable levels (ala what happened to the Typhoon), then I think the 10% missing from the 190 would be nullified. That 10% would mean the difference between dogfighting and warp fighting.
-SW

[Yeager]

LW vermin must die!

Y

[Dowding]

 

As far as I know, the sources you mention confirm the hispano as an excelent gun, but having reliability problems and with ugly effects due vibrations while firing.

What has reliability got to do with ANYTHING? If this was factored in, then the LW wouldn't be in the sky. Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc would all be much worse than they are now due to the badly machined parts, the low quality fuel, the impure oil and grease. Not to mention the lack of quality control on either the production line or with the final product.

If you factor in reliability into the game, the LW would come off much, much worse believe me.

[MANDOBLE]

SeaWulfe, I agree with you, tunning down the roll rate will help the minimize warp fighting. But I insist, this is not a 10%, you should consider the roll rate lost by 190 and the roll rate gained by the rest of planes. For example, in the case of Zeke, the relative roll rate lost by 190 is about 20% or more.

About your combat with the yak, we are comparing planes, not pilot skills. And I suppose you agree with me that having the yak pilot same skill level as you, the 190A5 had no chances at this altitude (now imagine an A8...).

Anyway, I can relate to you dozens of combats where the roll rate was not a key factor, and also dozens where it was. It depends a lot on the enemy way of fighting.

[SeaWulfe]

Right, I said in "relative" terms that the roll rate should be fixed. Get the other aircraft closer to their roll rates (if they are indeed too high) and the 10% error on the 190 won't seem as bad.
-SW

[MANDOBLE]

Dowding, AFAIK those reliability problems were related to the design itself, not due lack of good materials, etc, etc. The design was revised and the problematic "part" was substituted at some point in the war (dont remember the year, neither the quantity of "fixed" guns) deriving in a new subversion of the gun.

"Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc ..."
They are not specifically mine, in fact, all the planes in AH, as a customer, are mine, as mine as yours.

IMO, marking a frontier between LW players and allied players is the worst thing you can do to judge anybody opinion.

[hazed-]

Vermillion after your reply to my post read what mandoble said in his answer plz.
I know they behave correctly on paper and in AH but something isnt right if its so much harder to get a hit and damage.
I was trying to give an honest appraisel verm as im about to leave AH.
Im getting annoyed with this quoteing of partial paragraphs and trying to change the context of the statements.its a cheap trick.
Dowding has done it with mandoble by taking just the reliability part of his post and ignoring the whole point he was trying to make.He didnt ask for reliability to be factored into the hispanos.He was merely saying that some adjustment might be necessary to compensate for net problems that make an otherwise accurate model behave differently than it should.
I agree with him that sometimes planes go through your bullet stream and dont get hit.is this net problem ? i dont know but ive had it happen.Dowding you start on about the fuel,manufactureing quality etc ok! fair enough many munitions factories had sabotaged cannon rounds made by the slave labour its true, the oil was poor grade blah blah but this was not what he meant I dont think.
I think hes hinting at the fact that if we are to drop 'most' of the over the top details(reliability etc) surely in the interest of gameplay you should adapt the guns in the game to 'appear' to behave right and adapt them to suit the net medium.
the LW had slower ROF and worse trajectories but when they hit they werent any less damaging.(go on show me the stuff all over again about high velocity shells peircing fuel tanks better) We know it but similarly i KNOW what ive read about 30mm shells and the 20mm 'armour destroying' shell.We havent got all the types of shell so why should we be forced to use the basic modelling of the gun which clearly,due to net stuff mentioned earlier etc, makes them underperforming in what is essentially a game for our enjoyment.
I thought the concession for bombers range was a fair one.why not up the ROF on mg151 to help with net lag etc?

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[hazed-]

thought id add:


'The 20mm mine shell didn't show up quite so well. A comparative test with
the Hispano concluded that there wouldn't be much difference. What the
Hispano lost in explosive effect (only half the HE), it gained in kinetic energy, and it stood a better chance of punching through aircraft structures to reach fuel tanks,
or to inflict structural damage. Once again, it was with wing hits that the
mine shell was most dangerous.

Cheers,

Tony Williams'

there you have it.similar effect but different ways of acheiving it

------------------
Hazed
9./JG54

[SeaWulfe]

Don't leave Hazed... the UBB is just a place filled with too many opinions and that inevitably leads to heated arguments.

Besides, where are you REALLY gonna go? It doesn't get any better, you'll run into the same kind of people everywhere.
-SW

[Vermillion]

Hazed you are correct in regards to Tony Williams statement if you are comparing one (1) single MG151 Mine shell, with one (1) single Hispano HE shell.  No arguements at all.

But the point I am trying to continusously make is that AH represents mixed ammunition belts, of which Mine shells were historically only a 1 in 3, or 1 in 5, portion.

As to in game damage, I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about.

Admittedly it is much harder to hit with MG151 cannons, than it is to hit with Hispano's or .50s.

Again, I don't argue that point. But I think we can all agree that this in game performance matches the historical documents, such as muzzle velocity and rate of fire to just name a few.

But when I fly the Fw190's if I can get a good solid hit with cannons, the enemy dies very easily. Note however I don't use the MG's and Cannons at the same time, so I'm sure my hits are cannon only. Its the same with the Russian 20mm cannons. Very hard to get hits with in comparison to Hispano's or .50s, but when I do hit someone they die very satisfactory.

Which aspect do you guys feel is wrong? Damage capacity or Weapons Ballistics?

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Nexus]

so... I'm still confused after all this 5% slower, NACA this and that,

Which plane in RL of all WWII planes really had the better roll rate?

It sounds like individual planes have been tweeked and this has created an imbalance.

Perhaps roll rate on ALL planes should be made 5% slower to decrease the warps.

Nexus

[MANDOBLE]

Nexus, go there and open the Excel sheet posted by Jekyll in one of the last messages.
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001511.html

[Dowding]

 

"Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc ..."
They are not specifically mine, in fact, all the planes in AH, as a customer, are mine, as mine as yours.

It's hard to explain, but I was using a common turn of phrase - it isn't meant to be taken literally. I wasn't declaring 'ownership', although it would look that way to someone who's first language isn't English. I'm not saying your standard of English is anything short of excellent, BTW.  

But if you are going to talk about reliability as a game feature, then you must examine it in every way it arises (to be fair). This is very hard to do, and I'm not sure it would be worthwhile.

P.S. I don't fly any birds that have hispanos.

 

1Im getting annoyed with this quoteing of partial paragraphs and trying to change the context of the statements.its a cheap trick.
Dowding has done it with mandoble by taking just the reliability part of his post and ignoring the whole point he was trying to make.

2He didnt ask for reliability to be factored into the hispanos.He was merely saying that some adjustment might be necessary to compensate for net problems that make an otherwise accurate model behave differently than it should.

Point 1: I wasn't quoting out of context - I was pointing out the irrelevance of reliability as a game feature. Wherever it may arise.

Point 2: I don't see how reliability ties in with net lag at all - read Mandoble's post again Hazed - he makes a point about the characteristics of the Hispano and the 151/20 and THEN moves onto a different point about net lag.

[MANDOBLE]

Which aspect do you guys feel is wrong? Damage capacity or Weapons Ballistics?


Verm, It seems you answer yourself, you need a SOLID, and very SOLID burst to do any damage. And I, like you, use only guns when firing with any 190.

Dowding, yep, my english is absolutelly awful and I'm very proud of it  
Anyway, I understand very well what you mean with "your", basillacy referring to "only LW planes" fans.

And no, I was not proposing to implement weapon reliability now in AH, I was only enumerating the main factors described by the information sources Verm was referring to.



[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 06-04-2001).]

[Nexus]

Thanks Mandoble,

Although, many planes are missing from this chart. i.e. 109, F4U, tempest to name a few.

My question was in regards to source data to for real life results.

This chart was created by someone playing AH, which means this is not an original source chart - but someone's guestiment of AH roll rates.

I'm sure this chart is reasonably accurate for AH.

Though, I can think of a several flight parameters which could influence roll rate, that if not held constant with each test, could result in skewed results.

5 rolls left and 5 rolls right is hardly sufficient to conclude accurate results.

If this is not a top secret issue - perhaps Pyro and HiTech could just post a chart of how they modeled these planes.

They should know - they coded it, and apparantly can tweek each parameter at will for each plane.

Nexus