FW-190 Nerfed Based on One Player’s Words – Where’s the Quality Control?

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

It is unacceptable that the FW-190 A-series was nerfed solely based on a single player’s vague report with no logs, no benchmarks, and no historical data — just personal opinion and a few screenshots.

This report (link here) was somehow accepted and marked as “fixed” by bug report staff, leading to a significant reduction in WEP climb time due to overheating.

Where was the verification? Where was developer scrutiny? This is a clear failure of responsibility from the moderators and QA team. Major FM changes must never be made on anecdotal claims.

🔁 We demand the FW-190’s performance be restored to its original state prior to this unjustified change.

If Gaijin claims to respect realism and proper testing, this case should be investigated and reverted.

image
image1284×981 207 KB

11 Likes
2

Bug Reporting Manager #1 strikes again

8 Likes
3

and this report by the same guys Community Bug Reporting System

3 Likes
4

Well the bug report is in Russian, so that means it’s valid. Like the Yak-9K and it’s “balance round”.

8 Likes
5

Oh! make sense!

1 Like
6

You realize that this was changed because there was an actual bug, right? The person reporting it literally says, “Something tells me that it shouldn’t be like this.” (Что-то мне подсказывает, что так быть не должно.) Gaijin didn’t change anything because of this person saying he didn’t like it, they changed it because he told them about a bug.

4 Likes
7

Moderators only pass reports, decision to make changes comes from developers if you have proofs that FW190 can infinitley stay on WEP make a report.

1 Like
8

They do. Also see the ho103 buff. There is little to no historical evidence but only game screenshots and guesses.

If this change can be passed and implemented, hundreds more can also be done, including the ones asking for the performance to be restored to historical values.

Other issues posted by nick can also tell us what he was doing.

2 Likes
9

You don’t get it, the devs changed it because it was a bug, not because this single player told them to fix it. Show me which source claims the Fw 190 A-1 can use WEP infinitely, like what was reported by the initial bug report? You have no historical evidence (that you vehemently demand others show) for the claims you are making.

10

That goes both ways. Show me the evidence that it couldnt maintain WEP indefinitely.

Besides, the problem is that nothing else is modelled as having that kind of limitation. Nearly every plane can maintain mil power indefinitely with no issues, when irl you would only be doing like 70% or less most of the time.

The nerf to the 190A means that it can no longer maintain even mil power without overheating, a limitation basically nothing else has to deal with.

2 Likes
11

From my pov you have zero evidence for your claim “solely based on”…

The problem is not only the reduced WEP time - the problem is mainly that gaijin killed the thermodynamics of the engine. That means that the engine has a standard “white” oil temperature at 83°C at the start - and even if you reduce WEP whilst climbing and keep the engine in the “white” zone the engine slowly starts to overheat - and if you use WEP you run after 15 minutes with a flshing “red” engine at the same 83°C temperature.

This is nonsense - almost all prop aircraft suffer from artificial engine wear and overheating during longer matches. The issue for the 190 A/F models is that they killed this engine.

This is nonsense part II - the devs are known for hidden nerfs of nations and/or aircraft that excels in killing the subpar planes the USSR produced during WW 2. Germany is just their favorite nerf nation (see MG 151/20 mine shell nerf) - and at the same time the upgraded the worst performing 20 mm cannon (the 20 mm ShVak) into a one tap killer.

In addition - there is no need to provide a report about faulty engine thermodynamics simply because gaijin doesn’t care about facts; they pretend to be accurate if it fits to their agenda.

To be fair: Everybody able to use google and a translator can check the flight manual of 190 A/F models. It is mentioned that WEP should not used for longer than 3 minutes - followed by a cooling off period.

The issue is that these regulations were implemented to increase the service life of the engines. WT simulates that you start every match with a brand new aircraft which has to last (in Air RB) max 25 minutes.

If you have ever read the flight manuals of P-51s you will find out that the infinite WEP settings for them (if you use MEC) are impossible as it would require to fly just with one hand as you need the other to keep the cooler open.

Don’t get me wrong: I support your general pov on this issue.

I dislike this nerf too and stopped playing the 190 F-8 due to this engine nerf - but the whole handling of engines and engine temperatures shows that gaijin has zero clue what they are doing.

The engine nerf has to be seen in context with the FM nerfs in the last years.

1 Like
12

See the problem is that saying something like this would get your report rejected almost 100% of the time, like how i pointed out how pvkv IV has almost twice the barrel length as the pvkv III yet has the same velocity on the AP rounds, they immediately said we dont care unless you have a source, even if things clearly “dont make sense”. So someone saying “oh the fw190 should overheat” without providing sources and then getting his report immediately accepted is suspicious af, like its the bug reporting manager talking to himself on an alt account

1 Like
13

The devs changed it because they wanted the change. This whole historical accuracy stuff is utter nonsense - with Manual Engine Controls (MEC) you can fly most props with full WEP for 25 minutes.

This is 100% correct 👍

14

Yeah that’s the real issue.

The limitation comes from the engine overheating but currently its like the engine is burning up oil.
So even with cooling Intervalls, at one point you can’t WEP anymore without your oil temperature turning red and damaging your engine.

1 Like
15

Well that’s feels a bit contradicting in context of FW 190 engine performance.

16

You got it the wrong way round. U can not ask to prove its innocence.
The bug report as stated many many times, requires historical evidence, papers which come from authoritative sources, which was not provided in the report, and indeed it was about performance. Maybe it should be shown what a bug report requires. It is the inconsistency of bug reports accepted and nab’d.
ZTZ99Ⅱ/Ⅲ&ZTZ99A series vehicle chassis modeling error. // Gaijin.net // Issues
Fw 190 A-8 and F-8 have incorrect oil cooler / oil tank armour // Gaijin.net // Issues
Examples of what it should be like.

6 Likes
17

Actually not - because i wrote also:

The emphasis was on service life.

With some research you find combat reports of LW pilots fighting the D-Day landings and their entire missions were flown with WEP / MW-50 power.

Try to fly any 109 within the game for a few minutes with full WEP and you kill your engine.

18

Kettle. Also just loosing one of your cooling systems means death as well, for no apparent reason even though it looks like -50 degrees outside.

1 Like
19

That’s the whole problem of the bug report system.

On one hand a report might get implemented if passed to the devs regardless the policy, on the other there are mods which can accept or reject reports based on their personal opinion.

Then there’s this complete non sense of a policy that insist that every historical change needs a valid source.

It doesn’t matter when something is complete unlogical and you even provide evidence that supports this.
If it’s not written black on white, a lot of time reports don’t get accepted.

You also have to do all the work for them.

Like take 6pdr HE shells for an example.

It’s got 590g of HE filler, which makes no sense yet Gaijin implemented it that way.

Either they made a mistake or they didn’t have a clue and either had a very poor source or simply made it up.

Now you can’t simply say: „Hey what you did makes no sense, fix this.“

No. You need to provide evidence yourself that it’s wrong.
You can’t even make a report saying „this is wrong, change it to something more logical, like …“.
Doesn’t matter, if it’s more accurate that way, Gaijin will rather keep complete incorrect values than make it less wrong.
Since, how can you as a player even suggest to change something that isn’t 100% accurate?
While Gaijin can implement things however they like and then be like: Well, if its not like that then proof it!.
But then they don’t even except your proof unless it’s some specific value written anywhere.

Another problem with that approach is that even manuals can contain data errors, or straight up contain wrong information.

But your own logic gets overruled 90% of the time because they rather implement something wrong, as long as it’s written in some document.

Like how every M47 manual only mentioned that the power elevation mechanism can only depress the gun -5°, while not stating the actual gun depression limit. So for years the gun depression was kept at -5° instead of -10°.

I have a ShVAK cannon manual and despite only listing FI and API as available ammunition, the manual contains outdated data, showing stats for ammunition that were used prior to 1941.

2 Likes
20

But what’s the bug, that he disagrees with how it overheats? With zero real-life documentation provided, just feeling it should be different? Because hey if that’s the new standard for bug reports I got quite a few to make.