PDA

View Full Version : Something VERY interesting!



XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:52 PM
Despite the attacking tone (excuse him), this "Cube" guy definately has a point!!!! The ILcompare program shows quite a BIG overmodelling on many Russian aircraft:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181

Please Oleg, could you give an official answer to this? Will the VVS planes be reworked in the next patch?

With great respect

T_Rom

PS. Forgotten Battles is the ultimate BEST sim ever! Please make it a bit better. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:52 PM
Despite the attacking tone (excuse him), this "Cube" guy definately has a point!!!! The ILcompare program shows quite a BIG overmodelling on many Russian aircraft:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181

Please Oleg, could you give an official answer to this? Will the VVS planes be reworked in the next patch?

With great respect

T_Rom

PS. Forgotten Battles is the ultimate BEST sim ever! Please make it a bit better. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:14 PM
Yes, both climb and turn of russian planes are exagerated.
E4 and F4 had excellent turning performance 18sec per 360 deg turn, as the best russian turners Yak1b and Yak9 (I-153 is even better, but not really comparable, La7 had 18.5-19.5 sec turn time depending on the turn direction, Yak3 19sec). Yet this is not the picture described by Il2 Compare.
Until La5F in '43 VVS had practically nothing to match even the climb rates of E4, a 1940 plane. This does not happen in FB.
And still all the planes turn to tight, turn radius is tighter with almost 1/3 on all planes. This gives an unrealistic incentive for turnfights.
There's still a lot to work for polishing the FM.

PS Now, before somebody jumps at my neck, I should say that Bf-109 climb errors in manual pitch should be corrected also. There should be no difference between manual pitch and autopitch performance. Just get the autopitch working as it should be.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/25/0305:28PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:58 PM
Interesting. Good post by Red Harvest. I've been saying the La-5 standard is more like a La5F for awhile. Also very true about the overheat. Hell, it even says it on FB cd in the advanced manual that the La's overheated quickly. That sure isn't the case in FB.

Seems the VVS planes get a boost in climb and turn. The LW planes are close except the off climb rates of 109's.

What I suspect will happen now is that the 109 will be improved (as it seems is being discussed) and the VVS planes and the 190 will be left alone in 1.2. Then we would have the 190 be the dog again like in FB 1.0 with the others being overmodelled. Hopefully the VVS overheat and climb rates will be looked at as well as turn times, but at this point it is getting pretty hopeless. Such a drastic change at this point likely won't happen. Hopefully more tests like this will put the overmodelled roll-rate of the 190 in perspective.

I know this sounds like a whine but I will still enjoy FB immensely. I just hope they get everything closer to being correct and obvious bugs like the exaggerated climb rate of the La's and DM of Lagg & FW-190 get looked at as well as the autopitch vs. manual difference in 109. I'm happy with FB now to some extent, and once they fix the DM of the Lagg and 190 I think the DM's and weapon effectiveness will be pretty good. I just hope they give it one more shot concerning climb rates, overheat, and turn rates. And yes I hope they fix the roll-rate of the 190 (and Mig I believe also) as well. I would glady have that modelled more accurately if the other, more important issues, are addressed as well.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 09/25/0311:31PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:43 AM
Well I think that Kyrule has it on the money when he says that he will still enjoy FB immensly as we all will.When I say things such as FM not right I just wanna also add that its the best FM around so we will live with it.I think Oleg should come out and give us all a big relief by saying next sim will be very accurate and we will keep our performance variables out in the open for everyone to see.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:04 AM
Yeah - its really interesting. I agree that Cube should've laid of the conspiracy motif and stuck to the charts. But it is interesting, and I am looking forward to hearing some qualified verification/rebuttals on this one.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:08 AM
For un unqualified verification, it's been what many people have been saying it already, but too damn lazy to make it good and understandable for people who can't read stuff without pictures /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hats off to Cube. You make us lazy bums look bad! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:43 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- For un unqualified verification, it's been what
- many people have been saying it already, but too
- damn lazy to make it good and understandable for
- people who can't read stuff without pictures /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -

Yup - substance to claims - quite a cool thing

- Hats off to Cube. You make us lazy bums look bad!
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif -

Some - not all, just some /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

Message Edited on 09/26/0301:44AM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:48 AM
"Yup - substance to claims - quite a cool thing"

Isn't it interesting that an addition of pictures makes something a 'substance', while explaining it with just words do not? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

(Well, to some people, that is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )


-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 09/26/0310:49AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 03:16 AM
Not really ?

If you SAY the xx climbs yy/s then it's just you saying it.

If you post a scan of a Tsagi test from a book and post that then it is all of a sudden more than just you saying it. It is someone else saying it too - someone who even got a book published and therefore must enjoy some credibility somewhere.

Granted a scan could be faked, or a scan could be presented out of context and thus be misleading. Also the book could be flat out wrong - therefore the scan is not PROOF - it just helps substantiate the claim.

I think it's perfectly natural.

In another thread a guy said: Lagg climbs 9m/s. Given the merit of some of his other claims I refused to take that info for good, but then he went on and posted a scan. Wow - mebbe he IS right.

Another guy said: That is Lagg series 7/8 NOT series four. He posted a link to a chart of tests that shows that the different lagg series was rather uneven in various performance parameters (and that the lagg 7 AND 8 were among the worst).

Substantiating claims is a good idea - I've heard they are very obsessed with it in scientific circles /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EDIT: Oh - you dont have to scan btw. You can say 'In his allencompassing odyssey into military aviation "A Warbirds droppings" Eugen Klaimalotovich posts a graph CLEARLY showing the Fuggs17s climbrate to be 17 cm/s and not the ingame modelled 48 m/s'

That way I as a reader KNOWS that if this is not true - some other guy with a lot of books is going to protest /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

Message Edited on 09/26/0302:21AM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 04:30 AM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:


That way I as a reader KNOWS that if this is not
- true - some other guy with a lot of books is going
- to protest


LMAO!

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:55 AM
Good presentation, must have taken ages but degraded by the last few lines.

Would have been really more powerful if not given developers reason to ignore it.

Mark

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 05:50 PM
Think bringing the VVS birds into line eg: excessive turn, climb, DM etc is probably the most important issue to be sorted for the next patch at the moment even more important than 109,s etc being a bit undermodeled for me anyway. Although it would be nice if these issues could be sorted in next patch i arn't getting my hopes up, how long have these atributes been overmodeled on VVS AC? Too long i just cant see anything changing now.....

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 06:56 AM
johno__UK wrote:
- Think bringing the VVS birds into line eg: excessive
- turn, climb, DM etc is probably the most important
- issue to be sorted for the next patch at the moment
- even more important than 109,s etc being a bit
- undermodeled for me anyway. Although it would be
- nice if these issues could be sorted in next patch i
- arn't getting my hopes up, how long have these
- atributes been overmodeled on VVS AC? Too long i
- just cant see anything changing now.....
-


Exactly what I have been saying. And I just wanted to bump this for the sake of foolish hope.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.