Jump to content

Damage from my guns on FW190


Ratfink
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please take a look at the attached track - it's from a small practice mission I made to go 1 v 2 against AI FW190 and ME109.

 

Despite hitting the FW190 several times, I don't seem to able to cause it significant damage. If you look at the 190 in F2 view, I riddle it all over, but it keeps flying and even has the cheek to turn on nav lights, and land.

 

Yet when they hit me, my wings get blown off after a quick burst!!

 

(please disregard the way the track ends!! my engine seized and my emergency landing did not go well!)

fw190 wont die.trk

Fractal Define R4 Case | Core i7-9700K @ 4.9GHz| 64GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi | Gigabyte RTX3080 Gaming OC 12GB | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD (OS) | 1TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (DCS) | 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (Steam library) | 1TB WD Caviar Black HDD | Corsair 750W Gold PSU | Corsair H60 Hydro Series CPU Cooler | TrackIR 5 | Oculus Rift S | TM HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Win 10 Home 64-bit | Asus PG348Q 34" 3440x1440 Monitor | Bose Companion 3 2.1 Sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take a look at the attached track - it's from a small practice mission I made to go 1 v 2 against AI FW190 and ME109.

 

Despite hitting the FW190 several times, I don't seem to able to cause it significant damage. If you look at the 190 in F2 view, I riddle it all over, but it keeps flying and even has the cheek to turn on nav lights, and land.

 

Yet when they hit me, my wings get blown off after a quick burst!!

 

(please disregard the way the track ends!! my engine seized and my emergency landing did not go well!)

 

Yup they need tweaking no doubt

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO , ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, HP Reverb G2, Win 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your track dont play on my machine. it sez no module Me-109 by .... ??

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that prob needs to be tweaked some but you also have to take into account that your shooting 12.7mm Machinguns and both those aircraft are spitting out 20mm cannon shells so they're gonna do more damage to you when they land then you're doing to them.

 

Something to think about at least.

Intel Core i9-10850K

ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming motherboard

Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3080 Master

32 GB Corsair Vengeance LED 3000MHz DDR4

Thrustmaster Warthog/ HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a mod found in the downloads section.

 

So I get this mod and it works? I don't want to fap my world install.

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that prob needs to be tweaked some but you also have to take into account that your shooting 12.7mm Machinguns and both those aircraft are spitting out 20mm cannon shells so they're gonna do more damage to you when they land then you're doing to them.

 

Something to think about at least.

 

And the fact the 190 in real life was known for taking damage and continued flying.

487th Squadron

Section Leader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fact the 190 in real life was known for taking damage and continued flying.

 

Mostly, the radial engine variety though.

 

 

I am looking forward to the day, where the realistic AI damage model is implemented and smoke and fluid loss have an impact. And a tweak on ours were you can't lose manifold pressure and your prop governor from a single bullet originating from dead astern. That will be very cool.


Edited by Merlin-27

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

[Dogs of War] WWII COMBAT SERVER | P-51D - FW190-D9 - Me109-K4

Visit Our Website & Forum to Get More Info & Team Speak Access

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Yes I downloaded the 109 when it first came out, just to have something else to shoot at of the same era!

 

I appreciate the 50 cal is less than the 20mm, but I've got 6 of them!

Fractal Define R4 Case | Core i7-9700K @ 4.9GHz| 64GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi | Gigabyte RTX3080 Gaming OC 12GB | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD (OS) | 1TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (DCS) | 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (Steam library) | 1TB WD Caviar Black HDD | Corsair 750W Gold PSU | Corsair H60 Hydro Series CPU Cooler | TrackIR 5 | Oculus Rift S | TM HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Win 10 Home 64-bit | Asus PG348Q 34" 3440x1440 Monitor | Bose Companion 3 2.1 Sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Yes I downloaded the 109 when it first came out, just to have something else to shoot at of the same era!

 

I appreciate the 50 cal is less than the 20mm, but I've got 6 of them!

 

I recall hearing about a British wartime study which concluded that a single 20mm Hispano was the equivalent of roughly three .50 caliber Brownings. So the FW-190D appears to have more firepower than the P-51D, being about on par with the P-47.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed was that if you can get a nice trajectory shot on the outside 3rd of the FW190's wing then you can saw it off and he bails. Getting lined up for that shot is another challenge all in itself. Ever since I bought this module I've been hooked. Sorry A10c and BS2, I will return to you someday I promise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fact the 190 in real life was known for taking damage and continued flying.

 

...it was also known for the spontaneous loss of wings when hit; the cannon ammo had a nasty tendency of detonating when hit, and it's right near the center of mass, where an attacker is likely to hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it was also known for the spontaneous loss of wings when hit; the cannon ammo had a nasty tendency of detonating when hit, and it's right near the center of mass, where an attacker is likely to hit.

 

Did not know that :doh:, thanks for letting it out and letting me know.

487th Squadron

Section Leader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FW190 pilots were known to fire a lot of ammo off early in a DF.. they had plenty of it and the reasons for doing this are mentioned already.

 

Some pilots would fire off half their ammo before going into a DF with allied fighters - makes aircraft lighter and get's rid of the 'bomb' in the wings.

 

Also what's with the AI FW190 happily doing rolls 'on a sunday holiday camp', instead of doing some fighting ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FW190 pilots were known to fire a lot of ammo off early in a DF.. they had plenty of it and the reasons for doing this are mentioned already.

Some pilots would fire off half their ammo before going into a DF with allied fighters - makes aircraft lighter and get's rid of the 'bomb' in the wings.

 

The only source for this that I've ever encountered was an IL-2 forum user who claimed that his grandfather was an FW 190 pilot, but this was suspect because of some of the other things that he said--and it wouldn't be the first time an IL-2 player deliberately lied to try to get Maddox to change that player's favorite aircraft. (Remember when Kurfurst/Isegrim forged that one Me 109 document, in an attempt to have his 109 souped up in the game?) Do you have a reliable source for this anecdote of FW 190 pilots commonly blowing off their ammo to prevent box explosions and/or lighten the ship?


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIR there are a few Russian combat, and aircraft comparison reports that indicate the blowing off of ammo. This was sometime ago so exactly where these are.. I'm not sure.

 

In any event.. it makes common sense when attacking or defending against other fighters for the FW190 to 'offload', as it was a heavier aircraft, so I personally could accept this, if the reports are vague about this. One is unlikely to find this type of thing in 'officialdom' anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it makes common sense when attacking or defending against other fighters for the FW190 to 'offload', as it was a heavier aircraft

 

The FW 190D was roughly the same weight as, or lighter than, the P-51D, P-47D, F4U, F6F, etc. Lighter than the P-38*. Heavier than the Spitfire, sure, but other than that, most of its opponents would have been similar in weight or heavier than it.

 

* I'd like to point out that the P-38 was more maneuverable for its weight than most of its contemporaries, due to a number of factors, not the least of which were the Fowler flaps. I mention this because the P-38's great size and mass give it a poor reputation with many who do not know much about the fighter. This is especially prevalent amongst the IL-2 game community, which you seem to draw upon as a resource (to my unease--very few in the IL-2 game community do even half-way decent research).


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is especially prevalent amongst the IL-2 game community, which you seem to draw upon as a resource (to my unease--very few in the IL-2 game community do even half-way decent research)

 

Not entirely... IL2 is not the only resource and there are plenty good websites on the FW (and other aircraft). Now whether this constitutes any form of research that is debatable.. whether test data or combat reports from any institution are reliable.. that is another thing all together, considering all the variables and controversies.

 

Sorry...heavier in wing loading, so bringing the weight down helps put it on par with the allied fighters. One reason why the outboard cannons were done away with.

 

The P38 is the 'first strike fighter' of WW2 before the P51 and FW190. It's not maneuverable in the old DF sense, but tactical use of its strengths make it a very capable contender....

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P38 is the 'first strike fighter' of WW2 before the P51 and FW190. It's not maneuverable in the old DF sense

 

Its climbing & turning abilities were better than many contemporary single-engine fighters, due in part to its excellent lift characteristics and the Fowler flaps. While its rolling abilities weren't as impressive, to say that the P-38 wasn't as maneuverable as the P-51 would be ignorant; the P-38 generally* had superior sustained turning abilities to the P-51, as well as to the P-47, FW 190, and others. Under some conditions, the P-38 was a better turner than even the Me 109--and the P-38 was approximately twice the weight of the 109. (Also had around twice the horsepower, however--and did I mention the Fowler flaps?)

 

This sort of attitude--"The P-38 was big and heavy, so it couldn't have been maneuverable"--is not exclusive to the IL-2 game & its community, but the latter appears to be especially zealous about it compared to the rest of the "aviation lite" folks. Those who study the P-38 to any degree beyond gen-av materials and rumor understand the fallacy.

 

* I say "generally" because conditions can change things dramatically--fuel load, altitude, and maximum horsepower rating can change by large percentages and alter the relationships greatly. When I compare, however, I am assuming contemporary models (i.e. not comparing a P-38F with an Me 109K or a P-51B with a P-38L), normal combat fuel states, comparable boost levels, clean configuration, and am acknowledging the sometimes drastic differences that altitude can make. For example, the P-38 and P-51 were each faster than the other at certain altitudes, with comparable max HP ratings.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely... IL2 is not the only resource

 

The IL-2 game & its community shouldn't be a resource at all. The game is bogus, and almost all of the people who play it are unwilling to understand that. There are thousands of errors in the game, enormous chunks of basic aircraft operation entirely missing, etc. etc. While I would not be so foolish as to say that DCS is 100% accurate, it is none the less a true simulation rather than a game--which cannot be truthfully said of old IL-2.

 

It is ignorant to set pre-conditions for ignorance... same goes for setting conditions for combat so that one aircraft is better.. and then to say this is the general case

 

"Normal conditions" mean just that. If X is true for the great majority of the time, then it is fair to say that X is the general case. Or do you really expect me to preface my every aircraft comparison with something along the lines of, "When aircraft are piloted by pilots of comparable experience, and the aircraft are in the clean configuration, and are at similar energy states, and comparable max HP ratings, and normal combat fuel loads", and so on and so forth?

 

When comparing things, one is not supposed to rig the comparison, so I don't feel that I should have to specify in great detail that the comparison not be rigged; and I expect anyone else comparing things to refrain from rigging the comparison, too. But this discussion is becoming absurd, when I have to explain that comparisons should not be rigged, and I suddenly (very belatedly) realize that I am wasting my breath, because you have the mindset of an IL-2 player and not a serious aviation enthusiast.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...