FW 190 dora Nerfed?

Since the latest patch it feels like the dora has lost 10 or 15% power ,I notice this on take off and just after.

Since the latest patch it feels like the dora has lost 10 or 15% power ,I notice this on take off and just after.

Really?

That's terrific news for me, thanks! :D

Since the latest patch it feels like the dora has lost 10 or 15% power ,I notice this on take off and just after.

Are you judging this by acceleration and speed? There was a change to ASI, which previously showed higher speeds, so now it may look like Dora is slower and bleeds more speed in maneuvers.

Placebo effect? No one escapes from it.

I am quite sure they DID change the Fw190 AI model, though. And not "nerfing", they went the other direction with it.

I think they decided the last Fw190 AI model was too docile, so they appear to have "fixed" the broken AI flight/ tactics model by reverting to the previous, even more broken model. It's now back to accelerating straight up like a TIE fighter; 5000 foot zoom climbs from a 200 mph start.

As to how that affects the human AFM, I'm not sure- though it seems to me they've gone out of their way to give the FW every bell and whistle it ever had (including now giving it the fairly-uncommon separate gun triggers; a solution to a "bug" that doesn't exist), while the Mustang still suffers the same ridiculous bugs/ poor modelling it always has (such as losing the governor immediately to a single hit from dead astern).

ED, fix the glaring flaws with the Mustang BEFORE you go giving the Dora yet more unnecessary optional features, please.

I am quite sure they DID change the Fw190 AI model, though. And not "nerfing", they went the other direction with it.

 

I think they decided the last Fw190 AI model was too docile, so they appear to have "fixed" the broken AI flight/ tactics model by reverting to the previous, even more broken model. It's now back to accelerating straight up like a TIE fighter; 5000 foot zoom climbs from a 200 mph start.

 

As to how that affects the human AFM, I'm not sure- though it seems to me they've gone out of their way to give the FW every bell and whistle it ever had (including now giving it the fairly-uncommon separate gun triggers; a solution to a "bug" that doesn't exist), while the Mustang still suffers the same ridiculous bugs/ poor modelling it always has (such as losing the governor immediately to a single hit from dead astern).

 

ED, fix the glaring flaws with the Mustang BEFORE you go giving the Dora yet more unnecessary optional features, please.

That`s why the Dora is the last one i bought - eighter they fix the stang or I can find another sim or game to put my money on and some have fun with (for now my wallet is closed) .:D

Since the latest patch it feels like the dora has lost 10 or 15% power ,I notice this on take off and just after.

Honestly I had the same impression, it takes me somewhat longer to get in the air.

Some think the Dora is nerfed, and others think it's too good. Sounds just about right?

As long as the changes are made for better realism, I have nothing to complain about.

^That's the correct response, yes. There should never, ever be gameplay balancing in DCS.

As long as the changes are made for better realism, I have nothing to complain about.

Some think the Dora is nerfed, and others think it's too good. Sounds just about right?

Yeah that sounds like a pretty good assessment to me! There are no flying D9's and this is a simulation by people who follow the data - that's the best we can hope for - I think we can be confident it's pretty close.

^That's the correct response, yes. There should never, ever be gameplay balancing in DCS.

I agree.

For a moment there I thought I was on the MWO forums... :)

^That's the correct response, yes. There should never, ever be gameplay balancing in DCS.

That would be great, but it's too late; if it were about an accurately simulated match-up, the Mustang should have the 72/75" boost 44-1 fuel available; particularly since the specific sub-model that is in the game was only used in the Pacific theater in the late, late war and only *ever* used 44-1 (or higher!) grade fuel.

And, for that matter, the Dora really shouldn't have the EZ42, as relatively few ever had it.

But they're there, and it's for the sake of "balance", and ED staff (or mods, at least) have already said as much.

That would be great, but it's too late; if it were about an accurately simulated match-up, the Mustang should have the 72/75" boost 44-1 fuel available; particularly since the specific sub-model that is in the game was only used in the Pacific theater in the late, late war and only *ever* used 44-1 (or higher!) grade fuel.

 

And, for that matter, the Dora really shouldn't have the EZ42, as relatively few ever had it.

 

But they're there, and it's for the sake of "balance", and ED staff (or mods, at least) have already said as much.

When we have 150 octane fuel for the Mustang, the others are going to ask for C3 fuel for the Luftwaffe. Also, the K-14 is a much better gunsight than the EZ42, so don't sweat it.

"Also, the K-14 is a much better gunsight than the EZ42, so don't sweat it."

Curious about this assertion, do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

"Also, the K-14 is a much better gunsight than the EZ42, so don't sweat it."

Tests by american pilots proved, that the EZ42 was better than the K-14.

"Also, the K-14 is a much better gunsight than the EZ42, so don't sweat it."

Tests by american pilots proved, that the EZ42 was better than the K-14.

So you say. But don't see any evidence, just hearsay so far. Gotta link? US intellengence report number, that kind of thing.

From here:http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Gyro_gunsight#cite_note-5

German pilot didn't agree,

"The EZ 42 was compared with the Allied G.G.S. captured from in a P-47 Thunderbolt in September 1944 in Germany. Both sights were tested in the same Fw 190, and by the same pilot. The conclusion was critical of the moving graticule of the G.G.S., which could be obscured by the target. Compared to the EZ 42, the Allied sight's prediction angle was found on average to be 20% less accurate, and vary by 1% per degree. Tracking accuracy with the G.G.S. measured as the mean error of the best 50% of pictures was 20% worse than with the EZ 42.[7]

(note 7 refers to reference below)

Hahn, Fritz. Deutsche Geheimwaffen 1939-1945. Flugzeugbewaffungen. Heidenheim: Erich Hoffmann Verlag, 1963.

I'm speaking from experience in DCS, not historical information.

The K-14 offers a combined boresight and gyro setting. The EZ 42 does not. Good gunnery requires a boresight reference point.

Some pointed out that the F-86 also lacks a boresight reticle, but modern fighters always include a boresight reference point in the HUD.

If something is changed in the patch it must be written in the list.

If you do not see something about FM you are not to be worried. If we find something new for the original data we can tweak the model or if we find a bug (that is not impossible) you will be notified.

But please keep in mind that basic trajectory parameters (turn, acceleration, max speed, etc) are the last candidates to be changed.

Thank you for the conformation ,as said before must have been placebo effect

from the air speed dial being changed.

The larger sight glass on the K14 also makes it a better sight just by merit of having a wide enough field of regard that you actually CAN pull proper lead on targets that are pulling combat g-loads (compared to what seems to me to be a tiny, tiny sight glass of the EZ42, and resultant tiny angles of lead available before the reticle is off the sight). That alone makes it a superior sight in my eyes.

As I said originally, I'm genuinely interested in which was the better gyro sight historically and which, I hope, will be/is reflected in DCS.

So "I'm speaking from experience in DCS, not historical information" means nothing in effect, but add, "Good gunnery requires a boresight reference point".

Unless you have a reference to back this up, this again is assumption and more hot air on your part, but hey let's get the rumour out there that the German sight is/was crap. Presumably because it ain't made in the good 'ole U S of A, wasn't used by our boys and wasn't fitted to the P51. (But if had of been it would have been the best sight ever, lol.)

"That alone makes it a superior sight in my eyes", possibly, but still don't make it true though, does it. Some historical evidence please, gentlemen.

As I said originally, I'm genuinely interested in which was the better gyro sight historically and which, I hope, will be/is reflected in DCS.

So "I'm speaking from experience in DCS, not historical information" means nothing in effect, but add, "Good gunnery requires a boresight reference point".

Unless you have a reference to back this up, this again is assumption and more hot air on your part, but hey let's get the rumour out there that the German sight is/was crap. Presumably because it ain't made in the good 'ole U S of A, wasn't used by our boys and wasn't fitted to the P51. (But if had of been it would have been the best sight ever, lol.)

"That alone makes it a superior sight in my eyes", possibly, but still don't make it true though, does it. Some historical evidence please, gentlemen.

:music_whistling:

Take it easy. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, and usually I'm the last person who is accused of jingoism. Can we be friends?:thumbup: