Author Topic: Will 190 rollrate be fixed in new revision ? (Read 1455 times)

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #30 on:** July 18, 2001, 02:01:00 PM »

"Take the names and attitudes from there yourself!"

I asked YOU for the names and YOU for the statements. YOU produce them, YOU are the one INSISTING there is an "anti-LW" crowd.

I want YOU to show me, I don't want to second guess who you are ASSUMING is "anti-LW".
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #31 on:** July 18, 2001, 02:38:00 PM »

LoL, no, you go look for yourself.

Pongo · « **Reply #32 on:** July 18, 2001, 02:57:00 PM »

Bout all the evidence that is needed SW.
Your baiting. Nice civil kinda technical discussion. But SW wants it to be about conspiracy. You cant resist or recognise this behavior apperently.

Roll rates above a certain amount cause warpage over the net. The real roll rate of the FW would do that apperantly.
Doenst explain why other planes have(reportedly) higher roll rates then they should. But certainly all planes should have their roll rates governed the same % as the FW has to so that it fits in our enviroment.
The FW is still the fastest roller at many speed bands anyway but that extra advantage in roll that would be gained by applying the same % degredation to the others would be nice.

disclaimer
the above post was made in the absence of any knowledge of rollrates or how they are calculated. it was mearly made in the assumtion that there is some validity to the data presented.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #33 on:** July 18, 2001, 03:07:00 PM »

Pongo, open your eyes. I replied to this thread, no problem until Grunherz dredged up this jewel:

"But I cant honestly say if it came direct from HTC or from one of the anti-LW plane club who maybe made it up as another fancy justifacion for the 190s 10-20%? lowered roll rate at certain common speeds."

Hmmm wonder why I insinuated that Grunherz believes there is a conspiracy? Oh I know, he blatantly stated that.

As for the "go look for yourself". I did, and I see nothing. I only see a select group of "LW" players alienating themselves further and further away from everyone else.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #34 on:** July 18, 2001, 03:37:00 PM »

SW honestly person to person here no fighting, just look how differently Westy took that message than you.

I clearly stated that it wasnt meant to be vicious or combative when I wrote that sentence. I was just comenting that this lag reason for 190 reduced roll rate might have been come up by those who have fought against 109 oil-leak changes and even those who have openly ridiculed the FW190 engine death concerns.

Do you see what I was/am trying to express in that sentence SW?

BTW

Westy, im sorry to drag you into this but could you please maybe explain what I meant to SW, as you certainly show a maturity and sensibility that SW either lacks or more likely refuses to express in this discussion with me.

Seriously this is not an attempt at ridicule SW, by asking Westy to help out, Im just exploring another option to get this conflict resolved.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #35 on:** July 18, 2001, 03:44:00 PM »

And I've been trying to say, repeatedly, that if you simply cut out the "they're out to get me" and simply said, "the 190's roll rate is screwed up. I'm not sure why, I would like to know why. We have proof to show it's screwed up and would really like HTC to answer."

I see the 190's roll rate is off, I want it fixed. I just don't like the conspiracy stuff, or that you have to throw it in there. You really don't.

Your point will get there 100% better and more accurate if you cut out the side line stuff. Just get to the point, don't worry about other weenies running around trying to undermine your efforts.

The reason for the roll rate being off, there is no absolute reason. Only HTC has the data. I can tell you this much, the roll rate hasn't been screwed with since 1.03 when the 190A5 was first introduced. The problem is, as is, the 190 series suffers from the warp roll with it's current roll rate. Making it dead on can only make the "warp roll" worse.

I can civily discuss things, I just don't like it when people can't leave out the cheap shots or the X-Files conspiracy crap.
-SW

Hristo · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2001, 04:50:00 PM »

OK, to everybody who got lost in flamewar.

The thread was about 190 rollrate.

Apparently, it rolls worse than it did in real life. Even with reduced rollrate, it causes warprolls (I don't know that, I let someone else to prove it).

Anyway, if its rollrate was reduced just so it doesn't do warprolls all the time, the next question comes to mind ?

Why haven't all other planes get their rollrate reduced by the same percent the 190 has ? In fact, not only their rollrate is not reduced, it is even higher than in real life.

P.S.
Imagine you are behind enemy plane with reduced rollrate. Every milisecond he is in your sights hurts him. Do we want to reduce rate of fire as well ?

[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

Naudet · « **Reply #37 on:** July 18, 2001, 05:16:00 PM »

Just a few things to add in here.

Quote

AH FW's have the fastest roll rate of any FW in an online game/sim be it AW or WB's. But if it is off in AH it should be corrected

wrong, the FA 2.5 FW 190 rolls faster

Quote

Roll rates above a certain amount cause warpage over the net. The real roll rate of the FW would do that apperantly.

that has something to do with the connection protocols AH and WB use, in FA as i mentioned in a previous post, this is not the case, there u dont have any warp roll effects, VR-1 (the FA programmers team) has developed some constant data stream protocol that avoids such warp effects.

Atm i dont have a AH account, but i jumped back into FA, there i dont have warp probs, but i badly miss the AH FM

Pyro · « **Reply #38 on:** July 18, 2001, 07:34:00 PM »

The last time this was brought up, I asked the poster what roll rate he was getting in the FW in AH. Not what somebody else said it was. I never received an answer. I pose the same question now.

As far as phantom changes, it just doesn't work that way. It took me an extra version before I finally got to the Typhoon roll rate, and some of the changes I'm making in the next version were acknowledged as needing work a long time ago. It's takes time to verify, find, and fix problems and time is not something I have in great supply. The reason for that is not because I spend my time working on phantom changes.

Hangtime · « **Reply #39 on:** July 18, 2001, 09:13:00 PM »

!!

<pulls the weenies off the grill>

"..these are done."

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** July 19, 2001, 12:00:00 AM »

Better ice down another six and put some more tubes on the grill.

We could be here a while waiting for Pyro to get his requested data.

Hristo · « **Reply #41 on:** July 19, 2001, 01:27:00 AM »

190A-8,

tested with different armamant options, different fuel. Fuel loadout has almost no effect. Wing armament increases roll inertia, but once the roll stabilizes it is the same again. Plane rolls to the left a tad faster than to the right.

Anyway, I took the average of 1080 degree rolls to both sides, with different armamanet at 250 mph IAS.

142 deg/sec

Now where is the NACA chart ?

wells · « **Reply #42 on:** July 19, 2001, 01:30:00 AM »

what altitude Hristo? It will roll faster at higher altitudes. The NACA charts are corrected to 10000 ft.

Hristo · « **Reply #43 on:** July 19, 2001, 02:56:00 AM »

test done at 10 000 ft, 190A-8, 100% fuel, full armament. The time wwas measured through 1080 degrees to both left and right, with average from 8 values for each speed.

Bah, photopoint won't show the pic. here's another:

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

Nashwan · « **Reply #44 on:** July 19, 2001, 04:13:00 AM »

Here's the Naca data http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/index.cgi?page42.gif
Looks like the AH 190 is about 5deg a second too slow at 200mph, bang on at the peak, and 25deg a sec too fast at 350mph. It doesn't seem to decline fast enough after the peak is reached.
They should definately fix the 190 roll rate now

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]