Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hristo on July 15, 2001, 06:04:00 PM
-
Just repeating old question based by NACA tables data posted in AH forums.
So, all planes roll too fast while 190 rolls too slow, am I right ?
-
May no longer be true, somebody else will confirm or deny it but some of the aircrafts roll rates were tweaked in a recent version.
I believe the Typhoon and the 109 were adjusted ? so others may have got the same attention.
-
if all planes get down be 20 % like 190 it will be even more beter < so no more complain about warp roll >
-
I would like to see the roll rate of the Fw190 fixed as well. I believe that the AH 190s roll too slowly, the NACA tests showed that.
I do question the validity of the NACA tests across the board however. That was a 50lb stick force test. How many lbs of stick force are modeled in AH?
214thCavalier
Nobody at HTC ever said anything that I ever saw about modifying the Bf109's roll rate. It has always been poor.
The only announced change that I saw was on the Typhoon.
-
Pyro, if you are reading this, this is a major issue, please fix roll rates, or at least do them proportionally to real figures. :)
-
neuter spit roll and n1k2 roll rates! :D
-
190s flop about like dying fish as it is and you goof-jobs want more roll added to these freeky things?
Excuse me while I vomit! LOL
Y
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
190s flop about like dying fish as it is and you goof-jobs want more roll added to these freeky things?
Excuse me while I vomit! LOL
Y
Amen!!
-
And Spits turn just too darn tight when I try to kill them... Reduce their turn.
P51 (Yeager) run away and dive too fast when I try to kill them... Reduce their speed.
No objections?
Amen. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
190s flop about like dying fish as it is and you goof-jobs want more roll added to these freeky things?
Excuse me while I vomit! LOL
Y
What kind of an argument is that, please ? I have heard of playability tweaks, but neutering a plane just so a person doesn't vomit would be a health tweak, huh ?
Most planes roll too fast in AH, but 190 rolls too slow. This is unfair to all 190 pilots.
190 is missing its roll rate.
Should we keep it just so Yeager doesn't vomit even more ? Talk about a whiner !
I may vomit because P51 is still fast ? Plaese, Pyro, reduce P51 speed :).
-
Here is some roll and G-load data I posted in another thread.In a modern evauluation done in 1989 by a group of military test pilots known as the "Society of expermental Test pilots" did a report to determine the best of the American WW2 fighters.
Borrowing A/C from different collectors the ballasted the A/C for various weights and checked engines for rated HP and then conducted several test.
One of which was roll rate and another was pound per G of stick force.
Roll time 360 degrees and rate 200KIAS 10,000ft.
P-47D-40
Right 4.9sec(74deg per sec)
Left 5.9sec (61deg)
FG-1D (F4U-1D)
Right 4.5sec 81deg
left 4.9sec 73deg
F6F-5
Right 4.6sec 78deg
Left 5.9 61 deg
P-51D
Right 4.8 75 deg
Left 5.1 71 deg
Pounds per G of stick force
FG-1D 5lbs per G
P-47D-40 7.5lbs per G
F6F-5 12.5lbs per G
P-51D 20lbs per G
Hope this adds some insight
-
Srry Hristo,
What I should have said is that the 190 already has a fantastic roll rate in the game and really does challenge even the best connects to display these rolls reliably on anyones screens (with the notable exception of the 190 driver).
Giving the best rolling machine in the arena even more roll capability might very well be self defeating for the 190 enthusiasts themselves surpassing that wall of datastream that already appears maxed out on most peoples FEs.
Yeager
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Yeager ]
-
Yeager, it's really quite simple for you to fix... try buying a video card that was produced in the last 3 years. :rolleyes: Even my old K6-2 350Mhz with a 16MB Vodoo Banshee can handle following rolls.
Can we clean up the puke in here now? ;)
-
Yeager is referring to what I call the "LimpWristed Shuffle", aka "warp rolling".
It's the internet that can't keep up with the data transfer, not his PC.
-SW
-
So I undestrand what you saying. 190 lost its RL rolrate to prevent stick stirring.
But why then giving other planes FASTER roll rate than they had in RL ?
-
the FW is an heavy ww2 fighter..not an
extra300. don't forget it.
-
Not sure if it's just bad data or if it was intentionally done that way Hristo.
If it's bad data, they can fix it.
If they intentionally gave it a slower roll rate, then they won't fix it.
So basically, I have no idea... it's HTC that does the FMs.
-SW
-
"190 lost its RL rolrate to prevent stick stirring."
Bull.
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.
Westy
-
Westy that is one of the explanations I heard regarding the 190s "???low???" lol :D rollrate in AH. 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.
That last statement isnt meant to be viscious but you all have to admit there has been a lot of such clever explaining away of LW plane perfomance concerns like the inexplicably short 109 oil-leak run time of a few versions ago, 190 single ping engine death and now 190 rollrate. The LW concerns about 109 oil leaks and 190 engine deaths have proven 100% true as HTC has agreed with them and taken or will take direct action to fix them. I see the 190 rollrate issue is going in the same direction, despite all the ardent anti-LW plane protest.
-
Yes Grunherz, there is a conspiracy to keep all of the German planes from being competitive.
Did you also know that during WWII there was also a conspiracy in the Antarctic lead by the Penguins planning to over run the Eskimos and rule the world?
-SW
-
Hello friend's:
Not in which it affects in a combat that roll rate of 190 is of 100% of the reality or 90%, an explanation, please.
What, it is that the absence of Slats in the 109 if affects in a combat.
It is going to be fixed the Slat to the 109?
a greeting
Supongo
-
I don't think stickstirring is the reason it's slower, but if it's corrected I personally would rather see everything else slowed equally rather than see it sped, because the "flop" effect due to net status, etc, is bad enough already.
-
Garrido, slats affect slow speed handling and the onset of stall.
They are, if you like, a type of flap mounted on the front or leading edge of the wing.
On the 109 they were spring operated. Normal airflow would hold them in (closed), but as the airflow pattern changed at the begining of a stall condition, the springs would push them out.
While they were an undeniable aid to a 109's low speed handling, they also had a tendancy to both "snatch" (open very suddenly with a bang and a shake) and to deploy unevenly, that's to say that one wing would work before the other.
I've actually no idea if they're modelled in AH or not.
-
I hear you Grunherz. The 109 oil loss I personally though was modelled correctly due to the type (iverted eng) it had. Which was my error. In NO way was this an anti LW stance. I was going to fly the 190A-5 this last tour but the sudden engine death syndrome it has turned me off from that.
I personally wish ALL aircraft in AH were 100% accurately modelled. And the funny part is if they were we'd still get folks who thought the Macchi 202 was off, or the IL2 or the Zeke or the Typhoon. At what point does a developer listen? Time Life book references just won't get them to bend an ear. I'm using that as just an example for my point. I'm not saying you or anyone has used any Time Life books as reference bible for WWII aircraft performance. But some idiots do.
If the roll rate is not what it should be then hopefully it wil be fixed. But I've also seen folks like Vermillion ask for fixes on the Yak and not get a response. F4UOD ask for changes on the F4U and he's not been successful. Several folks for changes in the FM and damage model to the P-38. Nothing yet.
However, IMO there are several folks who want fixes to the just LW planes, who also allude to an anti LW undercurrent running at HTC and they seem to be pretty myopic to me.
Westy
p.s. I believe HiTech answered a longtime ago that the effects of the slats are modelled in the fm for the 109 but that the graphical and audible representation are not.
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Conspiracy SW? I donno. But there were hails of protest and ridicule when I and a few other 109 pilots brought up the 109s arbitrlary and extremly short and oil-leak run time. Many of you tried all sorts of clever sounding excuses to justsify this innacuracy, but guess what?, HTC decided we were right and now its fixed. So there is no conspiracy you twit, but certainly a lot of conservatism, fear and ignorance among certain folks here regarding any request or concern dealing with LW planes? Anyway I dont care what you think, belive it or not SW you are completly irrelevant to AH and what actually gets done or changed here.
-
Westy I hear the P38 engine model will get fixed too!! I mentioned it along with the 190 engine model in my post. As for its overall vulnerability Im not too familiar as I mostly die from engines in P38 but I have seen their tails fall of very easily so I think there is something there too.
-
No toejam Grunherz, you should be the grand inquisiter for the National Enquirer.
I am not even protesting against this, but your basic logical thinking is so far off base I simply must comment on it.
"Everyone's against the LW" "Anytime the LW want something fixed everyone's against it"
Boo freaking hoo Grunherz, open your eyes you have them shut so tight you don't know what's going on around you.
The F6F-5 has an abrupt, and incorrectly modelled stall, that isn't fixed.
P38 loses it's engine quicker than a potato loses her cherry. That isn't fixed.
Single hit to a P51, and it's coolant is leaking. That isn't fixed.
There's a crap load of other things that's incorrect and aren't fixed. It isn't just your precious German planes.
So stop making it out like that and maybe more people will be on YOUR side than discounting anything you say.
-SW
-
I didnt say everyone. So stop putting words in my mouth you arrogant self-important SW.
What I did say and I stick to is this gang of anti-LW people who jump all over and ridicule anything anyone ever says that deals with LW concerns and issues in AH.
Maybe read Pongo's post in the other thread, then read some of the responses to what he wrote?
Anyway SW just keep the good stuff coming, friend, you just prove my point with every keystroke. I look forward to your next batch of supporting evidence, so dont let me down; make it quick and extra extra nasty and foul-spirited!
Go ahead I know you cant resist, but of course if Im wrong about this........
-
You have no point, if you do it's not represented at all.
Secondly, there is no "anti-LW" crowd like you insist there is or have convinced yourself.
You believe yourself, you enjoy thinking you are the victim of of a group of people that are here to bring you down and ensure that the GERMAN aircraft are neutered.
You are living in your own fabricated world, where you've fabricated a group of people that you believe are out to keep people who's fantasy is to be an Erich Hartmann, or a Hans-Joachim Marseille from reaching their goals of being the best of the best.
You've convinced yourself that, and you believe that.
If I'm wrong, go ahead and prove it. Tell me these "anti-LW" people exist, give me their names, show me their statements.
-SW
-
Read the LW thread, even when I nicely asked people to keep civil, a bunch of you jumped over making fun everythig said attackging people, using the usual luftwheiner comments. Take the names and attitudes from there yourself!
Anyway SW most people on the BBS and in AH community know you are just out to play mind games with people and get a kick out of being a smart-ass jerk. In this our goals and intentions are incompatible and we'll only end up running in circles, as your wish is not to reslove conflict and find common ground, rather it is to further conflict. Its very simple to play this game and introduce new coflicts and obstacles. But im sure this is all plainly clear to you as you know what you are doing.
Anyhow I suppose you will find it very satisfying to ridicule this comment and attack again.
Go ahead SW.............
I look forward to your next BBS vacation.
-
"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
-
LoL, no, you go look for yourself.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ]
-
Just a few things to add in here.
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
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 :)
-
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.
-
!!
<pulls the weenies off the grill>
"..these are done."
-
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. ;)
-
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 ?
-
what altitude Hristo? It will roll faster at higher altitudes. The NACA charts are corrected to 10000 ft.
-
(http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1753441&a=13509124&p=51862356&Sequence=0&res=high)
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:
(http://hristo.freewebspace.com/a8roll.jpg)
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Here's the Naca data http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/index.cgi?page42.gif (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 ]
-
Seems 190 is 20% off at 350 mph.
Interestingly enough, two more planes are off at 350 IAS:
Spit IX - AH: 81 deg/sec, NACA: 59 deg/sec (27% off)
P47D-11 - AH:98 deg/sec, NACA: 74 (P-47C-1-RE) (24% off)
P-51 does 92vs96, could be error in test, only 4%
-
it is very quesionable that a real fighter version of the 190 had such hard aillerons. I mean, every pilot was fascinated by the very light aillerons of the 190 even in a fast flight, and according to the naca document you need 50lb stickforce already at 250mph - this is imo a contradiction.
Also german pilots reported that you can do a 180° roll in less than a second.
niklas
-
check out these puppies ;)
(http://angelfire.com/nt/regoch/42.gif)
I tested few AH planes and compared it to NACA table.
190 rolls too slow by some 5-10 deg/sec until its peak. At 350 it is 20 deg/sec too fast.
Spit is too fast by 20 deg/sec most of the time. Only at 200 mph it is 5 deg/sec too slow.
P51B is off by modest 10 deg/sec all the time.
P47D-11 (if that is the same version) is off by 25-30 deg/sec
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
In case the pic doesn't show, you can download it here (http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/42.gif):
-
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/rollrates.jpg)
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Jekyll ]
-
HTC fixed Typhoons rollrate already and I'm sure they fix others too if numbers are off from "Real numbers".
-
Hristo, I make the Spit rolling far too slowly at all speeds.
You are comparing it to the clipped wing Spit aren't you? It was after all far more common than the F IX we have now.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
Hristo, I make the Spit rolling far too slowly at all speeds.
You are comparing it to the clipped wing Spit aren't you? It was after all far more common than the F IX we have now.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
LOL, the lengths some people go.
109 is too slow, it should be as fast as that other Messerschmitt :). Yeah, 262 was the number !
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Hristo, he's saying you can't compare a clipped wing Spitfire's roll rate with a regular wing Spitfire IX F.
The results will be totally different.
-SW
-
No, he is saying that I should stay away from Spit IXF because they don't have clipped wing Spit in AH yet.
I was comparing normal wing Spit to our Spit IX, and you can see the results.
-
Hristo, you were whinging that the Spit rolls too fast, when in reality the AH Spit is the worst possible model. It is 20mph too slow below 20k, climbs about 1000ft/min too poorly, and rolls far too slowly. It should be compared to a real 1943 Spitfire, not a never-produced fantasy model we have in AH.
The Spit is also a lot slower than the Meteor, but bringing jets into an argument about mainstream prop planes is stupid.
There were only 350 Spit F IXs with Merlin 61s produced. None had the E armament, and as far as I can tell none remained in service with that underpowered engine past early 43. So no, you can't compare the AH figure to the Naca chart because the AH Spitfire didn't exist.
Hristo, you started a thread to whine about the percieved injustices to the 190, and have found your assumption wrong. Why not complain that the RAF has no post 1942 fighter? Frightened you might not get so many easy kills?
Actually Hristo, 109 is too fast, the 109G10 is about 25mph faster than all the figures I have seen for it, but again you don't whine about that.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
Am I the only one who noticed this? In the 3 charts above which each show the AH 190 roll rate. None of these AH 190 roll rates match any of the other AH 190 roll rates.
Fix the AH 190 roll rate so that it matches the AH 190 roll rate!!!!
Hooligan
-
All I did was to compare Spit roll rate in AH to the real thing. And test showed great discrepancy. Why so sensitive about it ?
190 seems to be spot on, except at high speeds. Other planes are too good. It should be corrected, don't you think so ?
As for the rest of your comments, they are at wrong address. I did not make the AH planeset.
I can't help but to notice RAF had the most dangerous plane in AH, the Tempest. Still, Germans were flying 262s at the time, so we need a 262 to balance the Tempest menace ;).
P.S.
Cheap shot, Nashwan. I wasn't whining, but you are now.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
I take cheap shots on here, you take them in the game ;)
As regards the 190 rollrate, it is too slow at low speed, too high at high speed. The fantasy AH Spit is too low at low speed, too high at high speed, and far to low at any speed for a more typical Spitfire IX.
I take it you will be campaigning to bring the Spit IX LF to AH next, now that your fears over the 190 rollrate have been eased? After all, the RAF is still the only country without an unperked 1943 plane. Or perhaps campaigning for the Dora to be perked, because it is a contemporary of the Tempest.
Or do you only fly a 1942 plane, like the 109G2? It surely can't be much of a test for someone of your skills to fly a Dora against a Spit F IX, can it?
-
"Westy, im sorry to drag you into this but could you please maybe explain what I meant"
The same happens to me, but with some different folks ;)
Basically it boils down to ALL folks here have to stop looking for a hidden agenda in what someone is pursuing to get changed or added in AH even if the poster (not saying you Grunherz nor SeaWulf) has a history of it.
I wish all the knee jerk reactions could be put away on a closet shelf but being the internet that will more than likely never happen. I'm guilty of if myself quite often and I don't set out to do it. Some folks don;t even try though and that is a shame.
It would be nice if we could ALL start discussing the merit of any issue for the issue itself, regardless of what any other aircraft has or what it can or cannot do. Nor whether any other aircraft/vehicle has a bug or error in modelling.
Pyro has more or less put this one to rest, for the time being.
I personally trust HTC to make things the best that they can and I also have absolute faith they are objective and that they do not allow favoritism to effect thier work. That's not professional and these folks are top notch professionals (imo of course).
Case closed!
Judge Woppner
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Nashwan,
Leave off. This is a thread about the Fw190's roll rate. There are other times and places to discuss the concerns you express.
Hristo and Jekyll,
Why are you charts showing such different results for the Fw190 in AH? Hristo's shows a small discrepency, except at high speed, and Jekyll's shows a large discrepency.
Hristo's:
(http://angelfire.com/nt/regoch/42.gif)
Jekyll's:
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/rollrates.jpg)
Which is correct and why are they different?
-
My mistake Hristo, did not realise what was being implied by Nashwan.
-SW
-
All I know about Jekyll's chart is that it was made few versions ago. When I saw the discrepancy, I redid the tests and came up with same results again.
It was my mistake not to take the tests in the first place, this whole thread would have different headline ;). Sorry.
Anyway, and in short: 190 is right on, except at very low speeds (too slow in AH) and high speeds (too fast in AH).
Other planes show even greater inaccuracies, with P47 and Spitfire leading the pack. They all roll too fast.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Hristo,
Next question, how do we know that the other's roll too fast?
All we know is that they roll too fast if AH limits the stick force to 50lbs. The same is true of the Fw190 at high speed. Maybe 50lbs doesn't deflect the aerilons as much as the amount of force modeled in AH.
If AH is modeling 75lbs of stick force then the aerilons would achieve higher deflection and thus the roll rate would be higher, up to the limits of the airframe. The Fw190's lightness on the stick might mean that 50lbs is able to achieve full aerilon deflection at some speeds, but then it declines faster than 75lbs of stick force.
See what I am getting at?
-
Yes, I see what you mean, as long as you model same pilot for all planes though.
-
I agree.
The only way we will ever know if it is being modeled the same for every plane is if HTC tells us how they are modeling it and with what criteria.
I, quite frankly, don't know anywhere enough about it to do anything more than posit, hopefully intelligent, questions.