PDA

View Full Version : The Bf 109G-2 is at 1,3ata



Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 06:12 AM
This gets coming up over and over again, that what boost we have for the G-2, the early 1,3ata version with 1310 HP or the late 1,42ata version from 1943 with 1475 HP at take-off...

So I plotted this graph for a comparison...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/il-2_G-2110pct_vs_RLdata_speed.png

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 06:12 AM
This gets coming up over and over again, that what boost we have for the G-2, the early 1,3ata version with 1310 HP or the late 1,42ata version from 1943 with 1475 HP at take-off...

So I plotted this graph for a comparison...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/il-2_G-2110pct_vs_RLdata_speed.png

Blutarski2004
07-28-2007, 06:39 AM
Very interesting, K. Beyond affirming the 1.3 ata performance values, the scattered results obtained from the sampled service G-2s should be a caution to any of us who think that performance of any a/c can be measused with exactitude.

AKA_TAGERT
07-28-2007, 07:36 AM
Keep in mind the last time he 'plotted a graph' he produced this POS.. i.e.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/ROC.jpg

Thus I wouldn't put too much faith in his 'plotting' abilities

Tipo_Man
07-28-2007, 07:39 AM
Hehe...

What about climbing performance?

Better power to weight ratio would have much greater impact on climbing, than on max speed.

And about that soviet tests. Some sources say that 1.3ata limitation on 109G2 was set up by a pin on the throttle lever. And during these tests that pin was simply removed. And maybe that's why this same BF-109G-2 WNr:14513 crashed due to engine failure on 15 mart 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-28-2007, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
And maybe that's why this same BF-109G-2 WNr:14513 crashed due to engine failure on 15 mart 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting!

Speaks Volumes.. to those willing to listen.

Tipo_Man
07-28-2007, 07:50 AM
Here are some soviet data on the topic...


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/TsAGI_La-5FN.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/TsAGI_La-5.jpg

And here are La-5FN vs BF-109G2 in IL-2 Compare.


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/La5FNvs109g2.jpg

Looks like both planes are greatly overmodelled in their climb performance. But still get generally accurate relative performance...

Copperhead310th
07-28-2007, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
This gets coming up over and over again, that what boost we have for the G-2, the early 1,3ata version with 1310 HP or the late 1,42ata version from 1943 with 1475 HP at take-off...

So I plotted this graph for a comparison...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/il-2_G-2110pct_vs_RLdata_speed.png </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yawn man WTF ever. who givaes a flying sack of horse Sh*t. We have p-47's with no paddle bladdeded props that climb like little old laddies on acid and you wanna split hairs overe this bullsh*t? come on gimme a friggn brak here already. serously.
learn to fly the SoB and maybe......just maybe you wont get you tail shot off online any more. that's what this is really all about isn't it kurfy? you got Owned online again in your precious lil 109 and now you won't Oleg to make you the uber ace you never could be on your own by modifying the 109G-2's perfomance to suit your misguided veiw of history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
This is all my OPINION. i'm entiltled to my opinions.

FluffyDucks2
07-28-2007, 08:33 AM
Share the love Copper.....lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Whats with all the negative vibes man.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

JG4_Helofly
07-28-2007, 08:35 AM
Strange... always the same people in the same topics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 08:55 AM
I am seriously begun to think that some logins here are merely bots, with a limited selection of pre-set answers to be posted, regardless of the subject. Hopefully they're still just an alpha or beta. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
And about that soviet tests. Some sources say that 1.3ata limitation on 109G2 was set up by a pin on the throttle lever. And during these tests that pin was simply removed. And maybe that's why this same BF-109G-2 WNr:14513 crashed due to engine failure on 15 mart 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the source of this?

MEGILE
07-28-2007, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:


yawn man WTF ever. who givaes a flying sack of horse Sh*t. We have p-47's with no paddle bladdeded props that climb like little old laddies on acid and you wanna split hairs overe this bullsh*t? come on gimme a friggn brak here already. serously.
learn to fly the SoB and maybe......just maybe you wont get you tail shot off online any more. that's what this is really all about isn't it kurfy? you got Owned online again in your precious lil 109 and now you won't Oleg to make you the uber ace you never could be on your own by modifying the 109G-2's perfomance to suit your misguided veiw of history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
This is all my OPINION. i'm entiltled to my opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

shoo fly don't boother me.

Tipo_Man
07-28-2007, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
And about that soviet tests. Some sources say that 1.3ata limitation on 109G2 was set up by a pin on the throttle lever. And during these tests that pin was simply removed. And maybe that's why this same BF-109G-2 WNr:14513 crashed due to engine failure on 15 mart 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the source of this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, several russian books.
Online you can check in Rodionov chronology
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/Chronology/1943.html

"15 марта 1943 у Прошина отказал мотор на Ме-109 Г-2 N 14513 с ДБ-605М N 26446 (751,13)"

Well they even name the serial number of the engine : N 26446
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 12:59 PM
Cool stuff. Didn't know that site, looks cool at the first glance of it, what does the text actually say, I don't know much (=0..) Russian, I can only get online translators say this :

'March 15, 1943 from motor Proshina refused to Me-109 G-2 N 14513 to 26446 DB-605M N (751.13)'

What's the number at the end of sentence BTW?

Can you list the titles of a few of these Russian books dealing with the subject? Perhaps there are further details of the various Soviet test methods in them...

Thanks for the info! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Not that it brings into question wheter the figures for WNr 14 513 are for anything else but 1.3ata... there's perfect agreement between the Soviet results and other test/figures which we have clearly documented to have been performed at 1.3ata.. climb curves are good bet to compare since they're extremely power-sensitive. In addition the 'Tsagi book' also list the G-2s at their 1.3ata referring powers (ie. 1310 PS at SL).

DustyBarrels77
07-28-2007, 01:13 PM
if its plots from tagert you will get the same results when you plot yourself in all nations aircraft, its its kurfurst mind as well visit the land of make believe for this one sided view only trying to change the game since day one.

Manu-6S
07-28-2007, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
if its plots from tagert you will get the same results when you plot yourself in all nations aircraft, its its kurfurst mind as well visit the land of make believe for this one sided view only trying to change the game since day one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

12 posts since late Nov 2006 and you seem to know exactly how Kurfy works... One day I should make a second account too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Cajun76
07-28-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
if its plots from tagert you will get the same results when you plot yourself in all nations aircraft, its its kurfurst mind as well visit the land of make believe for this one sided view only trying to change the game since day one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

12 posts since late Nov 2006 and you seem to know exactly how Kurfy works... One day I should make a second account too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12 posts vs 496, seems like he caught on 41 times as fast as you...

neural_dream
07-28-2007, 02:35 PM
You mean you understood what he said? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

luftluuver
07-28-2007, 04:13 PM
Why does it seem the +3% tolerance is offset more than the -3% tolerance from the mean?

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 04:25 PM
NIce tests, assuming they are correct, well done mate.

However I think the 109G6 needs sorting the most, not the 109G2. It also affects gameplay balance badly, the gap between the 109G6 and the SPit IX/ La5FN is just too wide at the moment.

Would be nice to have a more accurate G6 for late 1943 maps vs SPits, La's etc. AT the moment the G2 has to be overused in order to have a balanced fight, when really the 109G6 should be more competetive than it is. More maps should see the most produced Bf109 variant, it should be the most common 109 we see, but it is rarely used because of its undermodelled state.

Could you repeat this test but using the 109G6?

Badsight-
07-28-2007, 05:01 PM
JtD did a serious test of the G2 in FB v4.01

up to 4Km high , it replicates the Finnish G2 test

over 4Km , the v4.01 G2 didnt lose its climb rate over 4Km like the Finnish test G2 . IIRC JtD did the test in auto pitch

the complaints about the G2 came from its manuel pitch ability

Manu-6S
07-28-2007, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
12 posts vs 496, seems like he caught on 41 times as fast as you... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, but I don't care about defending Kurfy or not: I only don't like people who discredits other people in that way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-28-2007, 05:34 PM
Pooor Paranoid Nancy

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 06:02 PM
http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

FluffyDucks2
07-28-2007, 06:09 PM
You guys are like the living dead, doomed to repeat over and over again your same old BS, don't you ever get tired of it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You are like a group of 4 year olds who simply are incapable of accepting someone else has different ideas than you.

Tagert for such a seemingly sensible guy you really are like a big kid who is incapable of getting on with ANYBODY who has different views from them.

GROW UP PAL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And please be a bit more adult before you even go there with that "poor Nancy" adolescent BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-28-2007, 06:17 PM
Poor Pissed Nancy

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 06:17 PM
http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

JG4_Helofly
07-28-2007, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
NIce tests, assuming they are correct, well done mate.

However I think the 109G6 needs sorting the most, not the 109G2. It also affects gameplay balance badly, the gap between the 109G6 and the SPit IX/ La5FN is just too wide at the moment.

Would be nice to have a more accurate G6 for late 1943 maps vs SPits, La's etc. AT the moment the G2 has to be overused in order to have a balanced fight, when really the 109G6 should be more competetive than it is. More maps should see the most produced Bf109 variant, it should be the most common 109 we see, but it is rarely used because of its undermodelled state.

Could you repeat this test but using the 109G6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very much agree here. The most important 109 serie seem to be undermodeled because it didn't differ so much from the G2, but it has a huge performance drop in game.

And a note for all Kurfrst hater. What about prooving that his chart is wrong instead of showing how much you love him? This would make the topic much shorter and much more efficient, but hey... it's the Ubi forum, such a behaviour can't be expected in here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Copperhead310th
07-28-2007, 06:46 PM
well.....i woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. sorry.

but it seems to me all this energy could be put to better use else where. Say...oh....i dunno.....getting a paddle bladed prop for the p-47's.

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
well.....i woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. sorry.

but it seems to me all this energy could be put to better use else where. Say...oh....i dunno.....getting a paddle bladed prop for the p-47's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its funny, I find the late P47's to climb quite well. Well... I was shocked when I took one up for the first time and it seemd to climb well - the P47's sure werent known for their climbing ability.

I suck witht he razorbacks because of the poor gunsight view, but I love the later bubbletop jugs.

As long as I have time to get to altitude before the fight starts (around 3500m), then I can do pretty well in a Bubble Jug. I find nothing can catch me in a dive, and I can retain my height very well in energy manouvres because of its awesome zoom climb. PLus it never seems to break up no matter how fast you dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The guns just rock, especially versus the Japanese planes like the Ki84 or N1K2. FW190's are a bit tough, but they are tough whichever guns you use, it often takes the SPitfires whole ammo load (Hispano 120rpg) to down them.

JUst my thoughts on the Jugs.

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
NIce tests, assuming they are correct, well done mate.

However I think the 109G6 needs sorting the most, not the 109G2. It also affects gameplay balance badly, the gap between the 109G6 and the SPit IX/ La5FN is just too wide at the moment.

Would be nice to have a more accurate G6 for late 1943 maps vs SPits, La's etc. AT the moment the G2 has to be overused in order to have a balanced fight, when really the 109G6 should be more competetive than it is. More maps should see the most produced Bf109 variant, it should be the most common 109 we see, but it is rarely used because of its undermodelled state.

Could you repeat this test but using the 109G6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very much agree here. The most important 109 serie seem to be undermodeled because it didn't differ so much from the G2, but it has a huge performance drop in game.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely.

I think we know that the turn time is too long, which hinders its dogfighting abilities. I was wondering if its climb and top speed are out too.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
well.....i woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. sorry.

but it seems to me all this energy could be put to better use else where. Say...oh....i dunno.....getting a paddle bladed prop for the p-47's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry.
You just made my day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack
07-28-2007, 10:21 PM
I must say that I'd rather see a 1.42 ATA Bf 109 G-6 than argue about what the G-2 is.

cheers,
Ratsack

faustnik
07-29-2007, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I must say that I'd rather see a 1.42 ATA Bf 109 G-6 than argue about what the G-2 is.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


? G6 LATE?

Blondeknght
07-29-2007, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
NIce tests, assuming they are correct, well done mate.

However I think the 109G6 needs sorting the most, not the 109G2. It also affects gameplay balance badly, the gap between the 109G6 and the SPit IX/ La5FN is just too wide at the moment.

Would be nice to have a more accurate G6 for late 1943 maps vs SPits, La's etc. AT the moment the G2 has to be overused in order to have a balanced fight, when really the 109G6 should be more competetive than it is. More maps should see the most produced Bf109 variant, it should be the most common 109 we see, but it is rarely used because of its undermodelled state.

Could you repeat this test but using the 109G6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN!!!!!!!! WELL SAID. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Ratsack
07-29-2007, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I must say that I'd rather see a 1.42 ATA Bf 109 G-6 than argue about what the G-2 is.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


? G6 LATE? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop it! You're making sense.

Ratsack

Tipo_Man
07-29-2007, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Cool stuff. Didn't know that site, looks cool at the first glance of it, what does the text actually say, I don't know much (=0..) Russian, I can only get online translators say this :

'March 15, 1943 from motor Proshina refused to Me-109 G-2 N 14513 to 26446 DB-605M N (751.13)'

What's the number at the end of sentence BTW?

Can you list the titles of a few of these Russian books dealing with the subject? Perhaps there are further details of the various Soviet test methods in them...

Thanks for the info! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Not that it brings into question wheter the figures for WNr 14 513 are for anything else but 1.3ata... there's perfect agreement between the Soviet results and other test/figures which we have clearly documented to have been performed at 1.3ata.. climb curves are good bet to compare since they're extremely power-sensitive. In addition the 'Tsagi book' also list the G-2s at their 1.3ata referring powers (ie. 1310 PS at SL). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, I've seen this same statement in a magazine, will check it when I got home.
Russians tested several captured Bf-109s, hope you have info about these tests, I can check what I have later.
Fact is, that they recorded one best values of Bf-109 climb performance, 4,4min to 5000meters. The latter was kind of a standart of measuring climb rates for soviets. What I also remember is that Bf-109G2/R6 did that for 5,1min (not bad at all), having in mind that La-5FN did that for more than 5 minutres also...
Here are some tests of soviet planes I've collected, mostly from Rodionov's Chronology.

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm

Kurfurst__
07-29-2007, 04:18 AM
Please check out these climb curves plotted. Of all the other test we know for 100% they're 1.3ata, and the Soviet for 14 513 graphs fit in very well.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G-2_climbtests.png

Kurfurst__
07-29-2007, 04:36 AM
Xia,

This is the comparison of Il-2`s G-6s to the RL values.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G-6_inIL2_vs_RL.png

I don't see a big problem with speed, though it's anyone's guess wheter they have 1.3ata or 1.42ata. I do feel it would proper to have an 1.3ata G-6 (as of early 1943) and an 1.42 G-6Late, since introduction of the 1.42ata rating happened sometimes around or even before the Erla canopy. It would make a nice plane for late 43/early 44.

The problem with the G-6s is that they for some very odd reason, it turns so much worser than the G-2, which IMHO shouldn't result from the slight increase of weight and drag of the G-6 compared to the G-2.

Some food for thoughts, Il-2 compare's reported weight and turn values vs. RL values :

G-2 :

Weight : 2838 kg in-game, vs. 3037 kg in real life.
Turn time : 20.61 secs in-game, vs. 20.5 secs in real life (WNr 14 513 tests at 1000m).

G-6 early :

Weight : 3171 kg in-game, vs. 3100 kg in real life.
Turn time : 22.9 secs in-game, vs. ??? secs in real life.

I'd imagine a RL G-6 with the extra power of 1.42ata would have at least as good turn times as a G-2 at 1.3, or even better. Power is a major factor in sustained turn times.

Ratsack
07-29-2007, 05:30 AM
You could almost say that a quick and dirty fix would be to give the Bf 109 G-6_Late the same flight model as the G-2. It would probably be about right.

I don't for a second imagine that Oleg would come at that. Nor do I think the purists would approve.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
07-29-2007, 05:52 AM
The solution would probably be to add the missing weight to the G-2, and decrease the weight of the G-6 to get on historical footing (most other later 109s are a bit too heavy, the G-2 being the exception). That would decrease the too high ROC as well.

But then the G-2 won't be able to get it's historical turn times anymore due to the increased weight and increased Cl's needed, so Oleg would probably have to fix (lower) either the drag curve of the 109G-2/6 until it reaches the historical turn time at 1.3ata.. but then again we've also frakked up the turn radius, because it's largely weight-controlled.. Oleg would have to increase the 109G's coefficient of lift, until the turn radii figures are OK again.. At this point of course, all hell will break loose. By correcting the weights and all, and having a perfectly historical G-2 we actually nerfed it since for example the La-5 also wildly exceeded it's RL climb figures, and we've just trashed the relative balance... It's quite complicated probably. So I guess Oleg's team just laid back when they tweaked it until the level speed, turn time and turn radii (which are very good match to RL values in the game) were just OK, and accepted that climb is overmodelled for so many planes.

Not that I've ever aimed for any FM fix with this thread, just wanted to settle this arguement about what boost the early 109Gs are at. With so many planes modelled, it's just impossible to get one FM correct without correcting all the 99 others, in order to preserve both relative and absolute historical accuracy.

I am waiting patiently for BoB.. hopefully, with the limited plane set, it will be possible to fix any and all FM glitches before the team's energies are tied down with adding new planes.

DmdSeeker
07-29-2007, 06:11 AM
Is this the new Kurfurst?

If it is; I like it!

Ratsack
07-29-2007, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The solution would probably be to...


...At this point of course, all hell will break loose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I don't think a proper fix could be done anyway, even if the will and the incentive existed, and they don't.

That's why I suggested gluing the G-2 flight model onto the G-6_late. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this will happen either, and it wouldn't be quite right if it did. But it would be closer than what we've currently got with the G-6s.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG4_Helofly
07-29-2007, 07:28 AM
There realy seem to be a problem with climb and turn in this game like you just said. The G2 is too light so that it can reach it's correct turn time, but the climb is too good. On the other hand we have the 190 A series which have the opposite problem. The climb is correct but the turn time isn't.

Olegs physics engine seem to have some problems and is not precise enough to get it right when you put only RL datas for the plane in it. So he must put wrong numbers in his engine to reach RL performance. And that has an effect on other parameters.

Manu-6S
07-29-2007, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
There realy seem to be a problem with climb and turn in this game like you just said. The G2 is too light so that it can reach it's correct turn time, but the climb is too good. On the other hand we have the 190 A series which have the opposite problem. The climb is correct but the turn time isn't.

Olegs physics engine seem to have some problems and is not precise enough to get it right when you put only RL datas for the plane in it. So he must put wrong numbers in his engine to reach RL performance. And that has an effect on other parameters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I cant wait to see (and test) SoW's FM.

M_Gunz
07-29-2007, 02:42 PM
When the competition has an overall to real of perhaps 20-25% regardless of matching some chart
points, a sim with 40-50% real regardless of matching chart points is king. And then you get
the munchkins that never flew anything real let lone a warbird that don't know jack besides the
charts they like best and some real kerciting war stories gonna tell us when it's right....

I read from the guys that do know and they don't diss the product. They know it ain't perfect
but they credit what is right more highly than any other PC sim. It ain't just chart matching
to those that know far more than just charts and other PC sims. They also look forward to SOW.

Difference between what is POSSIBLE and what can be picked at and magnified to exclusion of all
that is right is incredible. But then anyone ditz enough to hang their national and/or self
pride on a PC game really needs to seek professional help. At least Stiglr was only pushing
for commercial reasons.

MrMojok
07-30-2007, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But then the G-2 won't be able to get it's historical turn times anymore due to the increased weight and increased Cl's needed, so Oleg would probably have to fix (lower) either the drag curve of the 109G-2/6 until it reaches the historical turn time at 1.3ata.. but then again we've also frakked up the turn radius, because it's largely weight-controlled.. Oleg would have to increase the 109G's coefficient of lift, until the turn radii figures are OK again.. At this point of course, all hell will break loose. By correcting the weights and all, and having a perfectly historical G-2 we actually nerfed it since for example the La-5 also wildly exceeded it's RL climb figures, and we've just trashed the relative balance... It's quite complicated probably. So I guess Oleg's team just laid back when they tweaked it until the level speed, turn time and turn radii (which are very good match to RL values in the game) were just OK, and accepted that climb is overmodelled for so many planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is exactly the case, with numerous planes. The results are not perfect but still are not too bad for a game that was originally intended to just simulate ground attack in a Sturovik, innit?

BoB will have an entirely new engine. Perhaps it will be easier to tweak to get things as accurate as possible.

M_Gunz
07-30-2007, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But then the G-2 won't be able to get it's historical turn times anymore due to the increased weight and increased Cl's needed, so Oleg would probably have to fix (lower) either the drag curve of the 109G-2/6 until it reaches the historical turn time at 1.3ata.. but then again we've also frakked up the turn radius, because it's largely weight-controlled.. Oleg would have to increase the 109G's coefficient of lift, until the turn radii figures are OK again.. At this point of course, all hell will break loose. By correcting the weights and all, and having a perfectly historical G-2 we actually nerfed it since for example the La-5 also wildly exceeded it's RL climb figures, and we've just trashed the relative balance... It's quite complicated probably. So I guess Oleg's team just laid back when they tweaked it until the level speed, turn time and turn radii (which are very good match to RL values in the game) were just OK, and accepted that climb is overmodelled for so many planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course none of those changes would also produce wildly out of range speed or climb or dive.

But you are concerned with relative balance of planes instead of balance of performance figures
that must be done.

Can you get the turn when using nose up trim or not? FORGET the "we shouldn't need to" part
for just a little while on that count -- it is a control issue not an FM issue. You get FM
tweaked so that at high speed you have what you want with 1-arm pilot then at low to middle
speed what you get would approach RC models.

BBB_Hyperion
07-30-2007, 04:52 AM
How about when someone modeled it just in the middle to best fit between 1.3 and 1.42 to come close the topspeed and climbrate figures mentioned , seems a hybrid fm plane like many others ?

G6 looks the same.

Of course just a guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
07-30-2007, 07:28 AM
Like the Spit that is named 41 that is really 42 but supposed to be likewise, hybrid?

I remember Oleg coming back about one of the FW's said to be so by pointing out that the
charts speed and climb were taken from was same basic model FW but different props. Made
the person posting error look like a fool there.
Not sayin it's all like that but when the charts are taken without regard to details at
that level then it's hard to tell where proof ends and error begins. How many myths does
the community have based on taking best data here and there as belonging together when
they don't? I can build a hotrod for the highway and get great speed and endurance then
change bits to make it a great rally car and collect more data then change more to make
it a 1/4 mile car but none of those versions will do it all even though all may say the
same car name. I could put someone in the passenger or driver seat and get them to write
about their experiences without saying what changed but since they were there does that
mean I could take it off the drag strip, set for drag race and run rally in 10 minutes?

There is too much untruth in the synthesis of planes data out here as has been revealed
for me to take at face value what I once did. Whose not perfect do I take? I know that
I am not able to make judgment calls better than the dev team and I know they can't make
the sim perfect.

Vike
07-30-2007, 04:44 PM
Great thread,thanks for those infos! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif