Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saurdaukar on April 14, 2009, 09:46:58 AM
-
Thanks.
-
A Muppet making such a silly post......... Now that is interesting.
Why you ask? Give it a few more replies........
But in a nutshell, for those of us who don't fly that particular FW, what on earth is wrong with it?
-
It's about 10mph too slow at sea level?
-
Fix what Mazz? Please assume that all readers are ignorant when forming your wish...
(waiting for aw & banshee...LOL)
-
This posting tactic is known as "proof by omission."
-
I been flying it so if there is something wrong with it please tell me now before I ask it to move in....... :noid
-
Fix? As in "Fix" the cat? :P
-
What? I would have figured all of you people had already read my aside about the 190A5's performance in Die Hard's "More Ponies" thread. Since this is apparently not the case...
I do not desire a Fw unrealistically modeled to be a "t'n'b" aircraft or what have you.
A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-9, all would be desirable. BUT, how about simply having an A-5 that performs to specification?
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
The SLOWEST level deck speed quoted for an A5 from the reports compiled at wwiiaircraftperformance.org is 348mph, the others give 351-352. Our 190A5 tops out at 340mph on the deck, 4mph slower than a SpitXVI *without* a center-line rack. Also, I did a quick comparison at DokGonzo's, and our 190A5 is basically out-accelerated by the P-51D at low alt.
EDIT: Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
The OP is not silly. The 190As are far from "uber-planes" anyway, why is the A-5 further handicapped by being 10-12mph too slow on the deck? I know it looks like we have enough 190 variants already, but all of them except the D9 are basically targets in LW and arguably even MW in terms of performance. The only explanation I think of for our slow A-5 is that it might be a "hybrid" with the A-4 in terms of performance, our A-8 seems to be a heavily armored buff-hunter with limited potential as any sort of fighter. There is no A-6 to add an earlier variant that had quad MG 151s, there is no A-9 to represent the pinnacle of performance achieved by radial-engined 190s. As I say, it makes no sense to me to treat an aircraft that is never going to be an "uber-fighter" anyway as the red-headed stepchild in terms of modeling.
-
Depends, did you say please? Are you qualified to say the 109A-5 has a failure, i mean, malfunction in it? Sir, can you explain why you're being rude? Is your throat drying up? Are you a male or female? Can you please restrain your hands from someones throat, including mine?
Warning: Taking these questions has a risk of, heartache and heart failure, headache, blood pressure may rise, stupid 'o' meter will scale above a 15, and you may consider killing the innocent FYB.
If these questions cause death, i mean, risks, please contact your reaper, i mean, doctor and talk to him about your death, i mean, pain.
No further questions.
-FYB
-
Our 190 "A-5" performance seems to fall in line with that the 190 A-3. Indeed, it does appear the 190 A-5 is a victim of "hybridization".
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3-level.jpg)
-
All hybridization must die! Make the Fw190A-5 perform like an Fw190A-5 and add the Fw190A-3 as a separate, earlier Fw190.
-
Skuzzy will have an aneurism over the new A-3 skin submissions.
-
Down with hybridization!
-
Now that I understand, I agree. Please fix the A-5.
-
This posting tactic is known as "proof by omission."
:aok
-
I know it looks like we have enough 190 variants already, but all of them except the D9 are basically targets in LW and arguably even MW in terms of performance.
I respectuflly disagree, Iv spent 4 years worth of time in only 190s and 109s, the 190s are VERY capable once you work out the quirks in them. A8 and F8 are the two most difficult to dogfight in, and i see where your comming from, the things cant turn for chit, but thier roll rate, guns, and ruggeddness can make for a tough match against any Spitfire :D
-
Down with hybridization!
Right now thats my major concern, how many planes in aces high can be hybridization.
:furious
-
I was told in a email from Hitech that the 109G10 was a hybrid and that's the reason we don't have it anymore. But there was a 109 G10 so I don't know why they would remove it. And I rather keep the 190 A5 the way it is then lose it........
-
More speed can be a disadvantage.
-
I respectuflly disagree, Iv spent 4 years worth of time in only 190s and 109s, the 190s are VERY capable once you work out the quirks in them. A8 and F8 are the two most difficult to dogfight in, and i see where your comming from, the things cant turn for chit, but thier roll rate, guns, and ruggeddness can make for a tough match against any Spitfire :D
My personal k/d for today in a 190 A-5 is 5/0. I flew the thing exclusively for several tours and averaged a k/d of around 3. This says nothing about the planes effectiveness, and everything about how an experienced player can make hay in darn near any plane.
guns
The 190 A-5 with four cannons is somewhat more lethal than 2xHispanos+2x.50s....for 10 seconds until it runs out of rocks in the MG/FFs, at which point it becomes decidedly *less* lethal.
According to DokGonzo's, a Typhoon or other 4xHispano bird is slightly more lethal than a 190 A-8 with four cannons and the 13MM machine guns.
The 190 A-5 and the A-8 in AHII have no acceleration advantage over the P-51D, and are out-accelerated by the 109G6. Compare with this:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-accel.jpg)
It will never be a great turn-fighter, but the fact that we have an under-performing A-5 and an overweight A-8 just adds insult to injury.
-
the A5 with 2 x 20mm is a different beast to the 4 gun version. Has anyone confirmed which loadout was used for any of the tests both real and virtual?
-
BnZ i am in no way saying that statistically matched up the 190s are uber, the A5 gets PWND by many planes in AH. And your right in the fact that pilot skills have everything to do with the fight.
Several underclassed planes can own late war uber rides if flown correctly.
-
the A5 with 2 x 20mm is a different beast to the 4 gun version. Has anyone confirmed which loadout was used for any of the tests both real and virtual?
The weight increase with the 4 guns vs. the 2 guns is only about 2%, even with 25% fuel.
I haven't scientifically tested its effect on roll rate, but I don't *feel* like there is much difference. Retains adequate roll rate either way, to say the least. ;)
-
BnZ i am in no way saying that statistically matched up the 190s are uber, the A5 gets PWND by many planes in AH. And your right in the fact that pilot skills have everything to do with the fight.
Several underclassed planes can own late war uber rides if flown correctly.
No problem bro.
Obviously, if you click on 190 in the hangar, you aren't going for an uber-plane. However, this was a "plane of fame" that was considered fairly competitive in the ETO, my favorite "Bad Guy" plane if you will. Why should a plane that isn't uber to begin with be somewhat nerfed? I don't like having only an Anton with early war performance and an Anton that is a great heavy buff-hunter to choose between. The Dora monster just doesn't have the same beauty as a radial type. I'd like to see a more competitive Anton so the grand old bird could live up to its deserved reputation as a Luftwaffe classic.
-
The P-51 and 190 are supposed to out-accelerate the Tempest? :rofl
-
The P-51 and 190 are supposed to out-accelerate the Tempest? :rofl
On a power/mass basis it is plausible Anax. The P-51's very low drag is a factor.
-
Oh, I'm not saying it's implausible, but it's the exact opposite of AH.
-
I agree, find and fix the reason the 190A5 is missing speed, especially at S/L.
Now about the the higher boost A5, I disagree, for reasons I stated in DieHard's thread about adding more Ponies.
-
Did the math.
Fw-190A5, 4 cannons, 100% 1,700HP/8,780 lbs=.193 hp/lbs
P-51D 75% 1,720HP/9,746 lbs=.176 hp/lbs
P-51D 50% 1,720HP/9,368 lbs=.183 hp/lbs
TempestV 100% 2,180Hp/11,400 lbs=.191 hp/lbs
-
Compare the 152 as well...
-
Somehow I have a feeling that the Tempest is making substantially more then 2200 HP quoted here.
-
Somehow I have a feeling that the Tempest is making substantially more then 2200 HP quoted here.
Perhaps its a Tempest/F-15 hybrid.
-
Since the A-5 is too slow on the deck and its acceleration seems a bit off, I speculate that the drag being a little too high might be a reasonable explanation.
-
Thanks Mazz. :)
Didn't want to make this myself, fear of "criticism" :uhoh
Slower S/L A5 which performs like a A-3 in the engine department and a overweight A8. How long have we been requesting these to be fixed? Too long i remember. :rolleyes:
-
Thanks Mazz. :)
Didn't want to make this myself, fear of "criticism" :uhoh
Slower S/L A5 which performs like a A-3 in the engine department and a overweight A8. How long have we been requesting these to be fixed? Too long i remember. :rolleyes:
Long enough.
For what its worth... I would also LOVE to see a 190A9. I would fly the hell out of that thing.
Like many other virtual, would-be, super, Sierra Hotel fighter pilots, I have little love for the long nosed, radiator type FW's.
Think Ill make a new thread for that come to think of it...
-
+1. Mind that the ENY of the A5 is 30 only.
-
+1. Mind that the ENY of the A5 is 30 only.
25. A8 is 31
;)
-
So reduce the ENY.
The important thing here is that ENY is reflective of ACTUAL performance. If performance is currently less than actual, then increase the ENY by the appropriate amount once its fixed.
ENY, in and of itself, is not an argument against correcting the low altitude speed deficiency modeled in the game.
(If I understand you properly, that is. If not, I havent had any coffee this morning so... sorry) ;)
-
Now that I understand, I agree. Please fix the A-5.
+1
-
The weight increase with the 4 guns vs. the 2 guns is only about 2%, even with 25% fuel.
I haven't scientifically tested its effect on roll rate, but I don't *feel* like there is much difference. Retains adequate roll rate either way, to say the least. ;)
Yes indeed sir, yet roll rate is not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how weight restricts ACMs. We have dueled before and are well matched for fun even fights. I promise you though, if one of us flies the two gun 190A5 and the other the four gun, the two gun will dominate every fight. The difference in roll rate may be minimal but the difference in lift, thrust(only slight, i admit) and wingtip stability under high G loading at low speeds is substantial.
-
Yes indeed sir, yet roll rate is not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how weight restricts ACMs. We have dueled before and are well matched for fun even fights. I promise you though, if one of us flies the two gun 190A5 and the other the four gun, the two gun will dominate every fight. The difference in roll rate may be minimal but the difference in lift, thrust(only slight, i admit) and wingtip stability under high G loading at low speeds is substantial.
Well first off, I think you'll win every fight that you actually try to win, either way.
Second, I can see how in a duel, where there is careful matching for plane type, fuel load, and E state at the outset, each man flying his plane to the utmost, even such a minor difference could be telling. However, I think for MA purposes, against random multiple plane types in a multi-bandit environment, the increase in killing power is worth the slight increase in weight. Sort of a rapier vs. poll ax dilemma.
-
I agree with that sentiment completely in regard to most planes for the MA. P47 for instance, I will almost always be taking eight guns and full load with 100% fuel to give me some times to use all that ammo. Only a mad man would take a c202 with the lighter weapons loadout....well, only a mad man flies that anyhow.
With the 190A5 in particular, but also with regard to wing pods on the 109s, I just cannot bring myself to put the extra weight on there and it does make 'a difference' in the same way having a full car load of people can:- It's subtle, only noticeable/dangerous when pushing the edge you are used to with an empty car.
Also, twin 20mm is enough to get more kills than my general life expectancy vs spitfires and la7s and gives me much more chance in those match ups when fighting from a disadvantage. Seeing as i generaly lack the patience to ensure I maintain the advantage this is a wiser option for me personaly.
As to my original question, the figures that are being thrown around here show scant evidence of what loadout, ammo weight, fuel weight, pilot weight, air pressure, weather, wind..... i could go on. I'm not doubting any claims just asking for a little more than some ballpark flight test figures in mile per hour.
-
no one here was around for the initial release of the 190a5? :D
let us just say that when it went vertical it was like getting on a saturn V rocket launch to the moon.