PDA

View Full Version : High-Altitude Flight Model post-Patch?



XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:25 PM
According to the V1.1b Patch ReadMe file the high-altitude flight modeling has been improved, but I can't help but feeling that there's been no change. In a QMB test at 10.000 meters with a FW190 D-9 LATE vs. a P-47 or P-51 I have trouble just maintaining altitude, let alone mameuvering the Dora. I'm no qualified pilot, of course, but the flight model "feels" the same as it did before the patch. I've also tried climbing from Sea Level to 10.000 meters in a Dora and have a hard time maintaining a climb above around 6.000 meters' altitude.

Can anyone confirm this hunch or let us know what tests you've done to compare pre- and post-patch versions?

Thanks!

"He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:25 PM
According to the V1.1b Patch ReadMe file the high-altitude flight modeling has been improved, but I can't help but feeling that there's been no change. In a QMB test at 10.000 meters with a FW190 D-9 LATE vs. a P-47 or P-51 I have trouble just maintaining altitude, let alone mameuvering the Dora. I'm no qualified pilot, of course, but the flight model "feels" the same as it did before the patch. I've also tried climbing from Sea Level to 10.000 meters in a Dora and have a hard time maintaining a climb above around 6.000 meters' altitude.

Can anyone confirm this hunch or let us know what tests you've done to compare pre- and post-patch versions?

Thanks!

"He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:39 PM
Try an Me 262. It is now incapable of climbing above 7500 m.

I'm not making this up, try it.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:31 PM
I agree rocketdog, 262 is feeble up there. I thought it was the modelling of the 262 itself but however, maybe now we're
realizing it's the high altitude model for all planes??? They maybe are not simulating it correctly and the atmosphere is "thinning out" too quickly?? Who knows.......

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:34 PM
So 10000 meters about 30000 feet. Hmmmmm the air is thin as can be similar to being on ice with skates. I do not think you will be able to do aggressive maneuvering at those altitudes...maybe some nice head on attacks on heavy bombers. I will try it tonight and do some historical research on the matter also.



Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:18 PM
The ME 262 A-1a should have a service ceiling of around 11.500 meters and a GM-1 equipped Dora was capable of 12.000 with a TAS of 400 kph. I'm not saying these aircraft shouldn't be hampered in their maneuverability at altitudes of 30.000 feet or more but they should at least be able to maintain level flight without yanking on the stick. And with the TA 152 H-1 on its way, I'd like to think that the high-altitude flight models are accurately simulated. Weren't most B-17 bomb runs over Germany conducted at these altitudes? If a B-17 can hold its own at 30.000 feet then a Dora should be able to as well, and I'd be surprised if the ME 262 couldn't even attain those heights.

"He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:28 PM
The Dora will lose power rapidly above 7000 meters. She sported better high alt performance then the Anton's but she couldn't hack it as a true high alt fighter. The Jumo 213A wasn't cut out for it. I'm not sure wether some of the late Dora's were equipped with the Jumo 213E but it could have. The Jumo 213E could deliver over 1400hp at 10,000 meters. It gave the D-12 a topspeed of 760km/h at 12,000 meters!

Back to the game, I'm sorry to say that I can't see any bettering in terms of high alt FM's. Although the russian crates can't follow a Dora at height anymore!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/robban75/Dora-9-3.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 09:13 PM
Lufbery_Boy wrote:
- The ME 262 A-1a should have a service ceiling of
- around 11.500 meters and a GM-1 equipped Dora was
- capable of 12.000 with a TAS of 400 kph.

And some WW2 planes did go higher. A couple of
Spitfire VCs in North Africa were modified to be
able to reach up to 50,000 feet to be able to
combat Ju86P recon aircraft!

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 09:23 PM
Never forget that at first Il-2 was conceived as a simulator only for the Sturmovik, so only for low level flying.

Even with these limits, FB does the job pretty well.

And Oleg Maddox has already said the the next sim will have a totaly correct high-altitude FM.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:23 PM
A couple of things...

1) ALL planes are gonna pretty much wobble and strain to stay level up at 10km. Maneuvering becomes difficult, and turn radii get *really* wide way up there for a prop plane.

2) In IL-2, it seemed like you could do a whole lot more up there, and worse still, the old axiom that "VVS planes above about 4-5km really suffered in performance" was just not true. Not only did 109s not seem to gain an edge "way up there", it seemed the VVS planes got better by comparison. This is why it became the almost universal opinion that the high level FM for IL-2 was pretty much wrong.

3) Right now, it's still not totally imperative that the high alt model be fixed...as long as it's accurate up to about 8KM, that should cover just about anything on the Eastern front. As we move into the West, with high alt heavy bombers and more planes like the -47 and the -51 (which excel up in the rarified air), then it will become more necessary to have it right.

One thing I don't understand is why, if you set up the proper physics constants, like altitude and gravity, and shape the engine outputs and prop bite for altitude, why it wouldn't be just as accurate high as low? Naiive question, I'm sure, but it would be interesting to know why it is like it is.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:09 AM
I think Oleg's "virtual atmoshere" thins out a little too exponentially. 8,000 meters seems like 60,000 feet should!! So I'd have to agree with most of you guys.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:55 AM
A meter is 3.25 feet, soooooo 10,000 meters is 32,500 feet. Look at the service ceiling of your aircraft. Just because it can fly at 30,000 feet doesnt mean it will perform well. The thin air provides very little lift for the wings and airflow for the ailerons & rudder. A jet is much different at high altitude than a piston engined aircraft. Do some homework and read about the aircraft in question. The P-47 was a good high altitude performer as was the P-51. Most WW2 aircraft battles didnt take place at 30,000 feet or even 20,000, especially on the Eastern Front which is what IL-2 is all about.


Lufbery_Boy wrote:
- According to the V1.1b Patch ReadMe file the
- high-altitude flight modeling has been improved, but
- I can't help but feeling that there's been no
- change. In a QMB test at 10.000 meters with a FW190
- D-9 LATE vs. a P-47 or P-51 I have trouble just
- maintaining altitude, let alone mameuvering the
- Dora. I'm no qualified pilot, of course, but the
- flight model "feels" the same as it did before the
- patch. I've also tried climbing from Sea Level to
- 10.000 meters in a Dora and have a hard time
- maintaining a climb above around 6.000 meters'
- altitude.
-
- Can anyone confirm this hunch or let us know what
- tests you've done to compare pre- and post-patch
- versions?
-
- Thanks!
-
- "He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father
- of the American Navy
-
-

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:00 AM
most planes are flyable now in the 6000 to 8000 meter range and can keep their speed and climb and turn without stalling at that altitude range. so yes the high alt flight models have been changed drastically at those altitudes. i dont know about over 8000 though. but for sure you can now dogfight safely at 6 to 8 where before you were always in danger of stalling even in K4s.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:54 AM
Given a realistic high-altitude model, the Ta-152H would unleash some serious ownage.

Given it's wingspan and prop design, Oleg has indicated it's basically the only piston-engine fighter that wouldn't be wallowing around drunk up there and would still be able to actually carry out normal dogfight maneuvers.

I doubt this 3D engine will ever be optimized for such altitudes.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:01 AM
So many flight model code experts thoerys.. So few flight model code experts posting a code fix! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:43 AM
What is the realisme in bringing a prop-driven plane up to 10.000 meters?

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:14 AM
p 51D had a service seiling of 12.000(about) i remember. so it wa son eastern front and did ok
P 47 12.000(i think so)
p 40 9000
BF's 10.000 (about)

SO these are a few crusial planes and don't say it was based for il2's because bf where a verry great part of the eastern front(Who would u be fighting else!)

So I hope REALISTIC FM for high altitude are implimented soon because P 47 would rock,that TA thing to p40 ,... kinda better
BF's would be great
It would be great to attack Heinkels with a group of p51 and 47's wich are protected by Dora's. but for now this isn't possible at "realistic" service seilings!

<img src="http://www.planeshift.it/download/ps_banner1s.gif"<

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:17 AM
MackTheGovnah22 wrote:

- Do some homework and read about the aircraft in
- question. The P-47 was a good high altitude
- performer as was the P-51. Most WW2 aircraft battles
- didnt take place at 30,000 feet or even 20,000,
- especially on the Eastern Front which is what IL-2
- is all about.

I don't think many people here need to do much homework.

Engagements over the Western Front often took place at the altitude flown by the formations of B-17 and B-24 bombers used by the USAAF. From memory, these flew at ~ 23,000 - 26,000 feet (~ 7,000 - 8,000 m). Aircraft like the P-47, P-51 and Me 262 were very effective at these heights and could achieve very high speeds. Unfortunately, FB's flight model becomes very eccentric above ~ 5,000 m. The Me 262, for instance, cannot reach realistic speeds and can climb no higher than about 7,500 m. In FB 1.1b it is actually incapable of climbing high enough to intercept B-17s. It sounds like the Dora may have a similar problem.

Since we already have the P-47 and Me 262 and are getting the Ta 152, Me 163, Hs 162, P-51 and B-17 it is to be hoped that the high-altitude FM gets a revision.

Nobody expects aircraft to have tight turning circles and high climb rates at heights above 5,000 m, but we can expect them to be able to get there in the first place.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:55 AM
when you know that a D9 go at 639km/h at 10000m and and that a bf109K4 go at 12000m in 10mn 12s you can see that high altitude Fm not really change

in quick mission builder it s impossible at 10000m to do something you must try to stay at 10000m and you go at maxi 270km without lossing altitude and winning altitude too.

if we have B17 as Ai it will be very hard for german plane to intercept and cover B17 box like they do.

the Ta152H go at 760km/h at 12500m lol.

i have some question Ta152 have Mw50 or Gm1 boost? ive two different speed with each boost.

i ve read too that 109K4 have Gm1 boost and G10 Mw50 it is real ?

<A HREF=http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/</A>pilotes/profils/enigmus.jpg">


NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 12:37 PM
From the small amout of reading ive done it seems that the FW were a mid range altitude fighter altho I think the high altitude in fb is a lil thin the cervice cealing for the dora was 11.000m

thats the maxxxx ut it preforms well around 5,6,7000m

seven is pushing it imo least in this sim

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:26 PM
Late-model FW 190 D-9's were equipped with a 115 liter GM-1 tank which reduced their effective combat ranges by 200 km but allowed a respectable 700 km/h speed at 10.000 meter altitudes, making them faster than the FW 190 D-12 variants. The Dora could utilize its GM-1 capability for around 15 - 17 minutes at an average consumption of 100 g/s.

The Ta 152 H-1 was equipped with both MW 50 and GM-1 tanks, allowing for improved combat performance at all altitude ranges. The 130 liter MW 50 tank could provide around 45 minutes of injection and increased the top speed of the aircraft by at least 50 km/h in "Notleistung" settings. This combination of MW 50 and GM-1 with the Jumo 213E engine shot the Ta 152 H-1 to an altitude of 8000 meters in only 8 minutes and she could continue on up to an astounding 15.800 meters' altitude! The Dora also attained 8.000 meters' altitude in 8 minutes, but could not go beyond 11.400 meters.

Although we all agree that high-altitude flight modeling is probably irrelevant to the historical accuracy of a flight sim which takes place on the Eastern front, the fact that these later Luftwaffe variants, not to mention the P-47, P-51, Spit MK XIV and other upcoming add-ons, were fully capable of flying at altitudes upwards of 10.000 meters should provide some incentive to Oleg's team to take another look at their flight modeling at these altitudes.

Has the ME 262 bug (incapable of flying above 7.500 meters) already been reported? If not, this should most definitely be added to the official list of bugs. A simple quote of that aircraft's service ceiling should do if technical proof is needed!

"He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy