190A5 vs 190A8

[thorsim]

you need to check yourself a bit, i am saying what i said, if you think i am somewhat inferior in the 190s i would direct you to the score boards ...

none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.  

that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
  

And the 190 in Aces High has impeccable handling traits. It is an easy to control plane. (It is easy to take off and land too-this is *the* most vital handling issue to most real pilots). The only thing it does not do well handling-wise is out-turn better turning aircraft.

It's easy to snaproll the P-51 in Aces High. Most people do not snaproll the P-51 in Aces High because it *is* rather difficult to do a snaproll at 450mph IAS.  

F4Us? 190s were not designed as carrier aircraft. But of course the 190 also does not have the tendency to ground-loop that the F4U had in real life...and in Aces High.

There are lots of us here who have had no trouble making the 190s hold their own as dogfighters against the typical P-51 pilots. You seem to be the odd man out.

[BnZs]

Thor, you invariably hang out in a crowd, cherry-pick, and don't get into actual fights if you can possibly avoid it. You know it, and I know it. Anyone can get a high k/d doing this in any plane, the only requirement being the lack of a boredom gene. The one time you consented to test how "good" you actually are in 190s, you got waxed 100% of the time in A-5s by a non-190 pilot just returning to the game from shoulder injury, against whom I had won 4 of 5 the previous day. Want to prove me wrong? Post just *ONE* film of you doing any kind of 1v1 ACM in an 190 against *anything*, mmmmkaay?

And I'm saying the 190s conform pretty much to what Eric Brown et al had to say about them. A dream to fly except for relative turning ability.

you need to check yourself a bit, i am saying what i said, if you think i am somewhat inferior in the 190s i would direct you to the score boards ...

none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.  

that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
  

[thorsim]

thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe.  would you ever suggest that the german impressions of the p-51s should define it's performance and character in the games or even eric browns for that matter ...

quit avoiding my statement, address what i have said because how well or poorly i do in the game, or duels, or how i approach the game is irrelevant, and point of fact is that nobody at all has followed through with my counter challenge so stop with the pointless BS, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

which is that is seems very evident that every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.  
 

Thor, you invariably hang out in a crowd, cherry-pick, and don't get into actual fights if you can possibly avoid it. You know it, and I know it. Anyone can get a high k/d doing this in any plane, the only requirement being the lack of a boredom gene. The one time you consented to test how "good" you actually are in 190s, you got waxed 100% of the time in A-5s by a non-190 pilot just returning to the game from shoulder injury, against whom I had won 4 of 5 the previous day. Want to prove me wrong? Post just *ONE* film of you doing any kind of 1v1 ACM in an 190 against *anything*, mmmmkaay?

And I'm saying the 190s conform pretty much to what Eric Brown et al had to say about them. A dream to fly except for relative turning ability.

[BnZs]

thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe.  would you ever suggest that the german impressions of the p-51s should define it's performance and character in the games or even eric browns for that matter ...

Like with many of your vague posts, you have failed to clearly define a single problem you have with the AH 190...you simply ramble on about how "bad" it is without defining a single performance parameter to compare to reality.

The 190 magically changes its stall traits in the hands of an allied tester?

The truth is, flight traits in a sim cannot be defined by pilot reps...they have to be defined by the physical traits of the airplanes in question to have any meaning at all.

quit avoiding my statement, address what i have said because how well or poorly i do in the game, or duels, or how i approach the game is irrelevant, and point of fact is that nobody at all has followed through with my counter challenge so stop with the pointless BS, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I mentioned some of us can fight P-51s in 190s with success consistently, which I think is relevant to the discussion of how "advantaged" the two flight models are. You mentioned your "score" as evidence for your understanding of 190s, so I had to disabuse you of that notion...yet again.

which is that is seems very evident that every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.  
 

Actually, the stall traits of the 190s in AH have nothing to do with what Eric Brown or anybody *said* about them. It has to do with the stall traits of the 190 airfoil, engine torque, and other factors Hitech models in from the best data available. This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.

EDIT: But the AH A-5 IS abit too slow...I have charts to that effect. What do you have to back up what YOU are saying?

[thorsim]

Like with many of your vague posts, you have failed to clearly define a single problem you have with the AH 190...you simply ramble on about how "bad" it is without defining a single performance parameter to compare to reality.

The 190 magically changes its stall traits in the hands of an allied tester?

still cant find a 190 pilot that agrees with the tourist impressions, just like i said you couldn't.

The truth is, flight traits in a sim cannot be defined by pilot reps...they have to be defined by the physical traits of the airplanes in question to have any meaning at all.

that would be nice, i assure you it is not what is happening here, as your snap roll ability of the p51 should make abundantly clear to you ...

I mentioned some of us can fight P-51s in 190s with success consistently, which I think is relevant to the discussion of how "advantaged" the two flight models are. You mentioned your "score" as evidence for your understanding of 190s, so I had to disabuse you of that notion...yet again.

so you are saying that impressions are relevant when you can manipulate them to support your opinions but are invalid when you can't? hehe these are the AH boards so i guess that's ok ...

Actually, the stall traits of the 190s in AH have nothing to do with what Eric Brown or anybody *said* about them. It has to do with the stall traits of the 190 airfoil, engine torque, and other factors Hitech models in from the best data available. This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.

umm i don't suppose we could see that data could we? of course not 

This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.

pretty insecure about IL-2 aren't you ...

"ohhh my gosh a different approach burrrnn them, ridicule, kill it before we discover the truth"

you need to get past this other game bashing, after all they just may be better.

EDIT: But the AH A-5 IS abit too slow...I have charts to that effect. What do you have to back up what YOU are saying?

 

never seen a chart on flight character, i have seen operational suspensions and fleet retrofits for handling problems though, just not in the 190s ...

[Soulyss]

none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.  

that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
  

So are we talking about facts? or opinions?  What do you do if pilot/expert opinions contradict each other?  In Col. Anderson's book he states that the 51 was more nimble and could turn a little tighter than the 109 or the 190, yet someone posted an interview around here awhile back with a modern pilot who said the 109G could out turn the 51.  

[Krusty]

I don't want to fan the flames but I do have to make a comment. The IL2 flight modeling is mostly ridiculous. Oleg uses his power to change it at a whim, and in the first place coded so much rubbish and inaccurate numbers, performances, and physics, that it's a laugh.

Even many die-hard IL2 fans are modding the game to introduce "real" 190 variants that meet historical specs and even the historic throttle settings! (Something Oleg didn't bother to check).

it is NOT a good game to compare to historical numbers. That's not even counting how most of the planes feel the same when flying ("generic" flight model).


BnZs: The test that he is saying our 190 is based on (and I'm not sure it wsa based on this, but I know of the test itself) was a plane with badly out-of-position aileron trim tabs. This, among other things, caused a heavier workload on the pilot, worse handling - especially in sustained turns - and reduced the turning performance by a significant amount compared to ALL other german/british/soviet testings of the same plane. The test was flawed, there is no doubt about that. That WOULD mean that using a better test as basis for AH's 190a5 would improve the turning performance and the sustained turn rate as well.

Thorsim: he does have a point in that you seem to be moving into the "this pilot said that" territory. Much of this is very subjective. There is ample evidence with testing and actual combat results to suggest the 190 was more manuverable, but perhaps not best to rely on "so-and-so outturned a p51 here" because of all the variables implied.

[BnZs]

 pretty insecure about IL-2 aren't you ...

"ohhh my gosh a different approach burrrnn them, ridicule, kill it before we discover the truth"

you need to get past this other game bashing, after all they just may be better.
 

190s and 109s handle worse in Il2 than they do in AHII.

[thorsim]

that is a good question, opinions vary so what do you do.  what you don't do is not take any one opinion or one report and use that to define the handling of a plane if you want to be accurate.  remember when a pilot is unable to do something well in a plane he only has a few hours in, he will often become better with time in type especially in recognizing and preventing/managing stalls and closing turns.  
when you take his initial impressions and then code them then that becomes an absolute limit.  
that is why country of origin tests and opinions tend to be given more weight in these discussions elsewhere. however even more telling is when current flying airframes are compared without agenda as you mention below.  i believe the 190n is currently out turning the p51s at the air shows these days for what it's worth, as are the 109s.

once again my point/s

the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.  

that does not seem correct and it seems to be clearly because

every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.

So are we talking about facts? or opinions?  What do you do if pilot/expert opinions contradict each other?  In Col. Anderson's book he states that the 51 was more nimble and could turn a little tighter than the 109 or the 190, yet someone posted an interview around here awhile back with a modern pilot who said the 109G could out turn the 51.  

[thorsim]

i did not compare the games i responded to an impression and dig at another game as if there was only one way to skin a cat.  it would be very nice to be able to actually get in the exact planes and do the kind of testing and comparisons we would like to have.  IMO IL-2 does some things better representing the realities of the airframes and even lowly AW classic had some things better than either WB or AH (which i find very similar FM wise)

i am just uncomfortable with the bashing this game is better than that etc, i think they all have their good and bad points and i enjoy them all in different ways.


 

190s and 109s handle worse in Il2 than they do in AHII.

I don't want to fan the flames but I do have to make a comment. The IL2 flight modeling is mostly ridiculous. Oleg uses his power to change it at a whim, and in the first place coded so much rubbish and inaccurate numbers, performances, and physics, that it's a laugh.

Even many die-hard IL2 fans are modding the game to introduce "real" 190 variants that meet historical specs and even the historic throttle settings! (Something Oleg didn't bother to check).

it is NOT a good game to compare to historical numbers. That's not even counting how most of the planes feel the same when flying ("generic" flight model).


BnZs: The test that he is saying our 190 is based on (and I'm not sure it wsa based on this, but I know of the test itself) was a plane with badly out-of-position aileron trim tabs. This, among other things, caused a heavier workload on the pilot, worse handling - especially in sustained turns - and reduced the turning performance by a significant amount compared to ALL other german/british/soviet testings of the same plane. The test was flawed, there is no doubt about that. That WOULD mean that using a better test as basis for AH's 190a5 would improve the turning performance and the sustained turn rate as well.

Thorsim: he does have a point in that you seem to be moving into the "this pilot said that" territory. Much of this is very subjective. There is ample evidence with testing and actual combat results to suggest the 190 was more manuverable, but perhaps not best to rely on "so-and-so outturned a p51 here" because of all the variables implied.

[BnZs]

Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.

[thorsim]

i don't suppose you noted which stalled easier or first did you, since that is what we are discussing,
it is also funny that you did not use the examples i put forward either.  

i'm wondering, did you need to look around for a while to find something you could try and use as a contradiction ...

???

or did you immediately run out and test a plane i never mentioned in this thread, for something i did not bring up as an issue.

i.e. i fail to see where i brought up recovery time at all in this thread, or the spit 16 for that matter.

Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.

[crazierthanu]

Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.

Thats because only one of them stall.  
But lets not turn this into another thread soaked with tears of sadness and frustration.  

[thorsim]

Thats because only of them stall.  
But lets not turn this into another thread soaked with tears of sadness and frustration.  

i'm thinking you meant to say that only one of them stall ...

[crazierthanu]

i'm thinking you meant to say that only one of them stall ...

Whats with people correcting me on the BBS lately?