PDA

View Full Version : Wastel's Climbtests do not reflect optimum rate in Auto



XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:32 AM
Salute All

Thought I would do some additional tests in Auto Pitch to see what results I could achieve.

I picked the K4 since that is one near and dear to all German flyer's hearts.

I used the same parameters as Wastel did in his tests with one exception. I didn't limit myself to a climbspeed of 270 kph

Ie.

1) 100% Throttle

2) RAD setting 4

3) Auto Pitch

4) Starting speed 300 kph

5) Altitude, wave top on the small finnish map, online server, no wind.

6) Full full load, Default loadout.


I found that optimum climbspeed was achieved by maintaining 210 kph on the speedbar, not using the no cockpit speed reading to maintain a climbspeed. In otherwords, I found basing my climbspeed on IAS optimized the climbrate.

I did use the no cockpit view for calculating altitude.

And of course I recorded my test.

The following are my results plus Wastel's listed results at 270 kph.

----------------------My times-------------Wastel's

1000 meters------------:52 secs-------------1:18

2000 meters------------1:58-----------------2:28

3000 meters------------3:03-----------------3:36

4000 meters------------4:13-----------------4:44

5000 meters------------5:15-----------------5:55

6000 meters------------6:23-----------------7:05

7000 meters------------7:33-----------------8:16

8000 meters------------8:55-----------------9:33

9000 meters------------10:33---------------11:17

10000 meters-----------12:44---------------13:30


I only did the test once, and am pretty sure I could have obtained slightly better results with more careful attention to keeping the speed optimized. A couple times I let the speed drop below 200 kph which really puts a hit on climbrate.

At no time did the engine overheat.

Now you may ask why I did the tests?

Very simple. I wanted to prove a point. Ie. that rigidly ahering to historical formulas for testing real life aircraft is not going to give you optimum results in a flight simulator where nothing is real except a bunch of electrons flying around in couple plastic boxes.

I don't know how Wastel could miss this.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0307:32AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:32 AM
Salute All

Thought I would do some additional tests in Auto Pitch to see what results I could achieve.

I picked the K4 since that is one near and dear to all German flyer's hearts.

I used the same parameters as Wastel did in his tests with one exception. I didn't limit myself to a climbspeed of 270 kph

Ie.

1) 100% Throttle

2) RAD setting 4

3) Auto Pitch

4) Starting speed 300 kph

5) Altitude, wave top on the small finnish map, online server, no wind.

6) Full full load, Default loadout.


I found that optimum climbspeed was achieved by maintaining 210 kph on the speedbar, not using the no cockpit speed reading to maintain a climbspeed. In otherwords, I found basing my climbspeed on IAS optimized the climbrate.

I did use the no cockpit view for calculating altitude.

And of course I recorded my test.

The following are my results plus Wastel's listed results at 270 kph.

----------------------My times-------------Wastel's

1000 meters------------:52 secs-------------1:18

2000 meters------------1:58-----------------2:28

3000 meters------------3:03-----------------3:36

4000 meters------------4:13-----------------4:44

5000 meters------------5:15-----------------5:55

6000 meters------------6:23-----------------7:05

7000 meters------------7:33-----------------8:16

8000 meters------------8:55-----------------9:33

9000 meters------------10:33---------------11:17

10000 meters-----------12:44---------------13:30


I only did the test once, and am pretty sure I could have obtained slightly better results with more careful attention to keeping the speed optimized. A couple times I let the speed drop below 200 kph which really puts a hit on climbrate.

At no time did the engine overheat.

Now you may ask why I did the tests?

Very simple. I wanted to prove a point. Ie. that rigidly ahering to historical formulas for testing real life aircraft is not going to give you optimum results in a flight simulator where nothing is real except a bunch of electrons flying around in couple plastic boxes.

I don't know how Wastel could miss this.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0307:32AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:39 AM
Anyone who wants to look at my record, PM me and I will send it.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:48 AM
Good work Buzzsaw. The coming non-acceptance means less.

Was 210 indicated really the best climb? That's like 130mph.

No sim is perfect. No sim can be perfect.

Waiting on the G models most complained about, naturally.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:51 AM
Intriguing! Can't wait for the response /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This is like the everyday soapopera, but in contrast: A useful soapopera - I actually learn stuff /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers mates, and remember: Be civil with eachother, no namecalling please...

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:01 AM
best climb speed for 109 was 270 to 280 IAS

climbing at higher angle (like you did) will not work in real live because the drag will be to hight,and the lift will be go down.

every plane has its best climb speed. this the s the best mix between speed,drag and lift.

flying with these setting will get you up fastest.

pls try it with an cessna..i did it.

if you are to slow.the plane is not really climbing anymore.it just suckst and will get soft around the controlls-> near to stall.

btw, you can do same with the vvs planes.
-> the DELTA X in climb will be the same

whats coming next?
flying with 10% fuel?

pls..i told it to you again and again

1. know something about basic aerodynamiks
2. know somethin about the 109
3. know something about 109s engines

..then come back and diskuss.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:05 AM
Here is a suggestion, find out what Vy (best speed for climb, based on time) was for the real airplane, and use that. This "starting at" airspeed thing is bogus. No airplane that I ever knew of was tested in this manner. The best airspeed to climb at is the posted Vy of the real plane, not some arbitrary speed obtained by flying some radiator setting and some airspeed over the ground before yanking back on the yoke. If, at Vy, the aircraft in the game is way off, then maybe you have some meat to chew on.

Every plane I know was tested from a dead stop on a concrete runway with no wind at max gross weight. Starting your climb airborn with airspeed and gear already up, your taking out all the time it takes the plane to get up to speed and airborne, and this was how the original planes were tested, from what I know flying the real ones.

Of course if you go faster before yanking back on the yoke the time to climb will be less. That means nothing. So do these numbers you guys are coming up with based on whacked out plane settings.

There are alot of factors that contribute to a planes in-flight performance, so make sure that you test as they did in real life before posting more "da plane...it dont fly rite" threads.

Just my two cents, and I may owe someone change.



Message Edited on 09/23/0302:11AM by waterinthefuel

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:12 AM
Seems to me that the climbrate is not off that much, it is rather the "best climb speed" that is seriously off.

It affects the dogfights too since you have to fly much slower to get best climb and then enemy can low-yo-yo with ease.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:13 AM
Salute Wastel

And you are still insisting that only climbs at 270 kph when testing FB 109's are valid? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Are you really that inflexible?

For one thing, 270kph is not a figure relevant to all models of the 109.

Not all historical 109's climbed best at 270 kph. The lighter wingloaded models climbed better at a lower speed, the higher wingloaded variants better at a higher speed.

It's pretty obvious that the FORGOTTEN BATTLES 109K4 has a lower stall speed, than historical, but less thrust.

This is why it climbs better at a steeper angle of attack, but lower IAS than the historical aircraft.

For you to suggest that the only valid test of a SIMULATED aircraft is one where that aircraft's climbrate is cripped by arbitrarily climbing at a less than optimum speed and angle of attack is frankly ridiculous.

I suppose we are expected to believe that players on servers will promise never to climb at lower speeds than 270 IAS...

Right... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Go back and test your aircraft again and this time try to determine the optimum climb speed....


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0307:14AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:16 AM
waterinthefuel wrote:.
-
- Just my two cents, and I may owe someone change.
-

Keep the change WIF! Good post /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:21 AM
Well regardless, something is wrong. You basically proved that Wastel is right in saying the climbs are off, because the best climb shouldnt come at 210kph in a K4. Why dont you try some tests with some VVS planes and see how fast you can get them to climb? Try the Yak 1b or the La7 just for fun. I am not saying the LW planes are that far off, I think its that the VVS planes are the ones that are far off. But making the 109s climb at the speeds they are supposed to climb should be priority, I wanna see someone trying to climb at 210kph in a dogfight and see how long they last.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:23 AM
Salute Water in the Fuel

The 300 kph starting speed was a test procedure indicated to me by Ian Boys, who is a member of the playtesting group.

Tests for all FB's aircraft are done using that as a starting point.

Now, I don't disagree with you that 300 kph is an arbitrary figure, but it is one selected by Oleg, and is used in his calculations.

So I am going to continue using it.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:28 AM
Salute lbhskier37

Actually, being able to climb at a very steep angle is actually an advantage for a boom and zoom aircraft.

That is one of the handicaps of the P-47, in that it only climbs best at higher speeds and a very small angle of attack.

When you do a diving attack in a P-47, and then zoom, you get very little advantage from the aircraft's normal thrust and lift. Most of the altitude gain is a result of momentum.

The fact that the FORGOTTEN BATTLES K4 climbs so well at a steep angle of attack is quite possibly why it manages to outzoom planes like the P-47, even when starting in an inferior energy state.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0307:30AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:29 AM
Buzzsaw what model did you test? Was it at full fuel load?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:31 AM
Salute Huckbein

A K4, and of course it was at full fuel load. And in auto pitch and at 100% speed and with RAD setting 4.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:32 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Well regardless, something is wrong. You basically
- proved that Wastel is right in saying the climbs are
- off, because the best climb shouldnt come at 210kph
- in a K4. Why dont you try some tests with some VVS
- planes and see how fast you can get them to climb?
- Try the Yak 1b or the La7 just for fun. I am not
- saying the LW planes are that far off, I think its
- that the VVS planes are the ones that are far off.
- But making the 109s climb at the speeds they are
- supposed to climb should be priority, I wanna see
- someone trying to climb at 210kph in a dogfight and
- see how long they last.


This is my suggestion too. 109 is not the only plane when we talk about game balance. See how balanced the climb is for Russian side planes now. You can use object viewer figures, even though they might be arguable too. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And what comes to testing 109, the only speed we can climb test is the speed used in the RL climb tests. That is the only way we can have a meaningful comparison with historical reference. I can claim that the 109 actually climbed 35m/s sustained at 210km/h but they just insisted testing at 280-300km/h! And they got the result they got with that speed, but would have got better by going slower. But that is absolutely meaningless. Just like this test you made.

109 doesn't match the performance achieved in RL, it is simple as that. Wastel did his test with the original parameters and those are only thing that matters because we have the frame of reference.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:39 AM
best climbspeed for the 109G to K was 270 to 280 IAS.
from 7000m on , 5km/h less evey 1000m.

this is an original value, and IS the best climb speed for th 109G to K

on emil and franz of course it is slow (have them both..at home..will post later)

again,
EVERY!! plane in FB climbs too good at an slow speed.
this is an FM or whatever failur.

i started at 5m alt with the best climbspeed of 280ias
and hold them till the decrease at 7000m.

maybe you don't get it.
i want to compare 109s to realistic historical datas i have.
-not with olegs in game test flights
-not with ian bos what ever test trials
-and not with your tweaked whatever 109s settings.
so you can compare, what is, and what should be.

wastel

last post..fed up with this things here.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:39 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO you make the better climb at 210 IAS that shows FBs FM has some serious problem.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:42 AM
Nice try RAF74BuzzsawXO...you just find a bug on the climb speed of k4...now try if you want the same with other planes...
I hope that Oleg will fix all these bugs and will give to the okl pilots the ability to climb best the k4 with the historical best-climb rate of the plane and the posibility to use the throttle of my hotas not for propeller pitch but for gas,for obtain the best climb-rate with my 109,just like do the vvs pilots in auto(i don't like the manual propeler pitch,is dangerous for the angine and sooo unreal for the fly...)

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:43 AM
Buzzsaw do you know what ANGLE OF ATTACK actually means? Do you not mean angle of climb!

Starting at 300 also provides you with 90km/h worth of energy with which will allow you to zoom climb initially. Completely worthless in a test. You should start below the speed elect full power and climb and hold the speed you want to climb at, not use zoom climb initially.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:44 AM
wastel wrote:
- best climb speed for 109 was 270 to 280 IAS
-
G-2 original manual says 270 for sea level.It's the same for any alt?


<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:46 AM
Salute Jippo

You should know better as a Finn...

Go back and look at your Finnish Messerschmidt site:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

The pilot's manuals there clearly list that 270 kph was the optimum climbspeed for the G2 and G6.

Climbing at a lower speed and higher angle of attack would result in a reduced climbrate.

So your suggestion that the Germans could have obtained a better climbrate by climbing at a lower speed and high AOA is clearly wrong.

The fact all you flyers who love the 109 keep forgetting:

This is just a game and it is not perfect. If you want to obtain maximum performance from your aircraft you need to be open to what works.

There are many other aircraft which don't work exactly as they did in real life, I could go on for a long time listing the problems.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:52 AM
I cannot speak for wastel, but here's my results for initial climb.

Method of testing: start on Crimea map, summer, at 100m alt and go towards the sea. Drop the flaps and let the speed decrease to 250km/h and an altitude of 10-20m (above the sea) - I do this because I want the moment I start the climb RPM to be at max (especially in Bf-109, which is incredibly slow in gaining RPM when firewalled). Close radiators (short climb, 2000m), select 100% pitch for CS prop planes. Push the throttle to 110%, engage WEP if mounted (with the known procedure for Bf109), retract flaps carefully because you're just above the sea. The moment you reach 300km/h you should also reach max RPM. Start climbing by pointing the nose at 20-25degrees in funtion of powerloading. Settle for the known climb speed. Record the time until 1000m.

Here are some results:

model / seconds to 1000m / climb rate in FB m/s / climb rate in RL

E4 / 55 / 18 / 18
F4 / 57 / 17.5 / 22
G2 / 45 / 22 / 22
G6 / 53 / 19 / 22
G6/AS / 43 / 23 / 24
G10 / 49 / 20.5 / 24
G14 / 44 / 22.5 / 24
K4 / 41 / 24.5 / 24.5
----------
Yak1b / 51 / 19.5 / 16.5
Yak3 / 44 / 22.5 / 21-22
La7 / 38 / 26.5 / 24.5

From Bf-109 variants only E4, G2 and K4 deliver the performance expected. Test the other models so we can compare the results.

Also test some the russian planes. You can see from my results that Yak1b and La7 are overmodelled.



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

Message Edited on 09/23/0302:53AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:56 AM
Salute Wastel

You remind me of Adolf Hitler in the bunker in 1945 when he insisted that Divisions which had already been destroyed by the Red Army should attack and throw back the invaders...

Just kidding... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You keep insisting the 109 has to meet its climb specifications at 270 Kph. Which will mean that unless the stall speed of the aircraft is increased, that it will climb at better than historical at 210 kph.

Make sure you insist that Oleg make the stall speed higher for this aircraft when you ask for changes... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw




Message Edited on 09/23/0308:02AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:01 AM
And do not try to climb at a slower speed than 260-270 IAS at low alt, it's not advantageous. I obtained better results than your test.

There are errors in climb speeds. All Bf-109 climb now at the same speed: 260-270kmh. Correct climb speeds are: 250kmh Emil, 260-270kmh F4 and G2, 275kmh G6, 285kmh MW50 early, 300kmh K4.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:06 AM
Well of course it is wrong! And I'm just pointing out that this also takes the air out of the test you made!

You're just pointing out a deficiency in the physics modelling of the game, not proving that the 109 is correct. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And as Finn I have the copy of the testflight documents here (like all Finns do) which proves that 109 climbs very well at 300km/h with 100% power, automatic pitch, and full load. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif This is something what it cannot do in the game. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Add to this the grossly overmodelled climbing characteristics of some of the allied side planes, and the soup is ready. And this soup is not very tasty... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-jippo



Message Edited on 09/23/0308:09AM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:07 AM
Salute Huckbein

My test was done at 100% throttle, and RAD open, not 110% and WEP like yours.

This is what the Luftwaffe aficionados have been screaming about... Did you not notice? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You must do your tests at 100%, R4.

By the way, I got better times to 1000 meters in K4 at 110%, WEP, Auto pitch and no Rad in another test.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0308:11AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:10 AM
Salute Jippo

I am not defending the Climbrate of certain Allied aircraft.

Don't confuse that issue please.

The issue here is how well the 109's climb. And they are not as bad as has been suggested, although yes, they obtain maximum rate in ways which are not historical.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:13 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- By the way, I got better times to 1000 meters in K4
- at 110%, WEP, Auto pitch and no Rad in another test.

You mean better than 41 sec from sea level to 1000m, starting at 300kmh? Can you post the track?



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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:15 AM
F19_Orheim wrote:
-
- waterinthefuel wrote:.
--
-- Just my two cents, and I may owe someone change.
--
-
- Keep the change WIF! Good post


Thanks! LOL Someone brings up an interesting point, that Oleg uses 300kh as a starting point to set aircraft performance in the game. Could this be why every plane has something wrong with climb performance? It seems that everybody says the climb performance is off on each plane, but come to find out the guy who designs the game uses an arbitrary speed and radiator setting to set his flight models. This isn't how they did the real planes, so how in the world are you going to get real world performance not using real world testing methods? To me, it's a circle that will never end. Why not use real world testing techniques? In my opinion, it would certainly help in the creation of real world flight models.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:16 AM
Not so bad no.

But bad enough. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And I do not and don't want (will not) fiddle around with the manual pitch when I fly. I also do not find flying at 210km/h very sensible in combat. So what is left? I personally have to stick with crappily climbing 109's then, don't I?

My suggestion to test the VVS planes was just a suggestion. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif There might be work testing them, and you seem to have a lot of energy to test different planes. I'm just suggesting that it might be quite productive. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:17 AM
Thing is that if you climb on that slow speed, you are in trouble with Ratahttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But this is not sim, just game so it is better just to find those tweaks on forget the realismhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:31 AM
First he tries to say it's 100% correct and now he's up to showing it wrong what a merry go around.

I try to answer once more, the stupidity of this starts really eating me. First take IL2 Compare and look at the K ROC at SL, now what is the best speed for best ROC?

Second as for the tests performed by Mr. Saw here.

Starting speed 300 km/h, climb speed 210 km/h.

Mr. Saw here gains <U>initially ~30 s advantage with a zoom from 300 to 210 during first 1000m </U>and carries that through the climb/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Additional difference comes from the fact that AFAIK wastel used rad position 6. Can you confirm this wastel? Surprise with RAD 2 you would propably gain even more...truly surprising result /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Furhermore at high alt, above 7k or so you're supposed to climb slower, yes in the end 210 km/h. This was so in RL and is so in the game./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And dear Mr. Saw, don't talk shop if you don't understand it, you have been noted before. AoA may raise with reducing speed so does induced drag but SO DOES THRUST. In a climb there are two different performance figures speed for steepest angle and speed for best climb rate. These are typically not identical./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Calling somebody Adolf on his last stance is also not funny even if you say so, but then on the other hand you've been saying a lot and it has just as little ring of thruth./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Those who search for tips how to fly Bf, don't try this at home. At 210 km/h climb quite a few opponents eat you alive.
Use IL2 Compare (it isn't that wrong) and sometimes a little bit of brains won't harm. The latter is shown 100% in at least three discussions now.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:41 AM
Salute Ugly

You have been basing your complaints about the 109 climbrate on Wastels tests and now when I show that his results are less than optimum, you refuse to even acknowledge that fact.

Am I surprised?

I guess not. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:45 AM
Buzz, you don't seem to know much about physics, nor about interpreting your results. You zoom climbed from 300 to 210 km/h in the first 1000m, this gives you a much (!) better climb than a sustained (= constant speed) climb used in the tests. I already mentioned this at SimHQ but you did not care.
Now if you leave the invalid time from 0m to 1000m away and compare your climb time differences from 1000m to 2000m etc. with wastels, you'll see that you match them very close within a few seconds only - sometimes his values are even slightly better. So what was so far off again?
What comes next, starting at 500 km/h@SL and soom climb up vertical until 0 km/h, calling this sustained climb as well?

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:54 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- The fact that the FORGOTTEN BATTLES K4 climbs so
- well at a steep angle of attack is quite possibly
- why it manages to outzoom planes like the P-47, even
- when starting in an inferior energy state.
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw


And here dear ladies and gentlemen for everybody to see is the true motivation of these little investigations to benefit the community. Obviously, last time he did not crasp even a tiniest bit of the physical background why he might not be able to perform "SL-300km/h_I'll_out_zoom_everybody_in_the_mighty_jug_trick_ you_sucker_just_watch_and_see-now_here_we_go..." But hey, it must be Bf being too good.

Try higher, try faster, work on your skills and spend less time reinventing the world. Take lessions from Maj_Death. These were friendly advices take them, I do not feel like continueing with this farce.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:56 AM
Salute JaRa

You obviously don't believe in reading entire threads.

But if you did, as mentioned, you'd see the reason for starting at 300 kph.

And as far as my 'Zoom' from 300 kph: Wastel doesn't specify what his starting speed was. It could be 270 kph. It couldn't be less than 270kph since that is his designated continuous climbspeed. If 270 kph was his starting speed, and you are saying that an extra 30 kph is going to be the entire cause of a 46 second difference in climbtime to 10,000 meters, then your high opinion of your physics knowledge is sorely unjustified.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:57 AM
Cya Ugly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Message Edited on 09/23/0308:57AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:05 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute JaRa
-
- You obviously don't believe in reading entire
- threads.

I do not believe in anything, I just read it and see what it says. Doesn't seem to be too common on these forums if one looks at the initial answers to your post.

- But if you did, as mentioned, you'd see the reason
- for starting at 300 kph.

The energy loss from 300km/h to 210km/h (that's 90 km/h difference, not 30) corresponds to an altitude gain of 180m, if you ignore this, then you got the wrong altitude. Sustained climb tests were always done starting at the same speed the climb was performed at, otherwise they would be invalid by definition.
So you got a better time due to this zoom climb at low altitude and this time advantage of course offsets the other climb times as well, therefore you must look at the climb time differences in these intervals! It's pretty much the same wastel got. What you did was similar to saying "Aircraft A starts at 12.00 hrs and reaches 10000m at 13.00 hrs while aircraft B starts at 12:45 and reaches 10000m at 13:15 so aircraft A climbs faster because it reached 10000m 15 minutes earlier."

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:09 AM
Oh Buzzsaw didn't start the climb with 210km/h????

Well, that explains a lot..... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:19 AM
OMFG B R E A T H E ppl. I would also like to see the flaws in the FM fixed but this conversation isnt taking it anywhere. Buzz's total time is 45s faster than wastels so it isnt all about the extra 90km/h in the beginning. The speed at which the 109's climb fastest is different than RL. You are all coming to the same conclusion time and time again so there is'nt anything left to argue on the matter... except the "you is wronk"-part.

All of you are from the more sensible side of the community so don't start slipping into the other end with this.

-Pozzu

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:56 AM
Found in VOW forum:

Question @ YOUSS

....

I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot work with addon.

till now:

1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF (problem was in auto-pitch mode).


...


//Cheers mates, and be sure to behave in a civilized manner...




<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:03 PM
The speed advance for a little zoom at the start of climb gives an advantage already. The fact that, by chance, the radiator does too. Obviously more radiator = more drag = slower time regardless of climbing speed.

But what tops it all, IMO, is to state that it's advantageous in combat to climb at 210 kph instead of 270-280 kph. Who in his right mind would settle for a smaller climb speed? You state that it helps against the P47, but a nice zoom at such a steep angle by P47 and you're toast. There is no way I see a optimal climb speed of 210 kph as being an advantage.

Of course the fact that many red planes are grossly overmodeled should be an important part of the debate.

Good balance of the game (and playability IMO), would require that planes benefit of their historical advantages, so that a good pilot could use them fully whatever the plane is. Take the example of the Fw190D which I fly most of all. When in trouble versus a La 7, I need to dive away from him as it can't follow a german plane in a dive (too bad manoeuver kills don't count btw, I think I have more of those than real kills). So the point is the historical La 7 has a climb speed of over 20ms, but more or less equal to the Fw190D (maybe 1 more m/s but nothing spectacular). And well in game it seems to outclimb the Dora with ease. IRL, if I don't have the alt to dive away safely, I'd need to initiate a climb until I have enough altitude, and then dive. With the comparable climb speed, the La 7 wouldn't be able to catch me, or very slowly. In game, it catches up so fast it's impossible to do this tactic unless having a lot of alt already.

So saying a plane is "accurate" doesn't show the whole story. Esp when it's climb speed is not accurate and actually a burden. Personally, the faster I stay, the better.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:26 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Oh Buzzsaw didn't start the climb with 210km/h????
-
- Well, that explains a lot.....



Pointless comparison IMHO to discredit Wastel's data but using different rad settings, different climb speed, and to top it all an initial zoom climb. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Then to top it off he compares Wastel with Hitler!!! How offensive can he be? Wastel is producing his data in good faith if these people didn't spent their time and energies doing this we would probably not have ended up with such a good sim.


<center><img src= "http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.bulger/Emil_Bug.jpg">

AKA JG5_Emil

"I wish we all had the courage to confine our defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!" Herman Goering


Message Edited on 09/23/0304:31AM by DKP

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:30 PM
TurboPorsas wrote:

- Buzz's total time is 45s faster
- than wastels so it isnt all about the extra 90km/h
- in the beginning.

Look at the climb rates from Buzz' and wastel's test and you can see how "unimportant" the first 1k are:

alt___Buzz__wastel__difference (not rounded), m/s
0-1k__19,2__12,8____6,4
1-2___15,2__14,3____0,9
2-3___15,4__14,7____0,7
3-4___14,3__14,7___-0,4
4-5___16,1__14,1____2,0
5-6___14,7__14,3____0,4
6-7___14,3__14,1____0,2
7-8___12,2__13,0___-0,8
8-9___10,2__9,6_____0,6
9-10__7,6___7,5_____0,1

So now we got from discussing differences of 8 instead of 6 minutes to 6000m for the G6 to the point where we're arguing about differences in the order of 4% (with the exception of the boost from 14,3 to 16,1 m/s at 4-5k in Buzz's test)?

- The speed at which the 109's climb
- fastest is different than RL.

Maybe, however IL2Compare says something different. But I don't trust this program much anyway as sometimes the calculation errors (simplified algorithms used) of it are in the same order as the performance differences of two aircraft.
Climb rate at slow speed ("helicopter climb") was an issue in FB 1.0, it has improved in 1.1b and later, however I can't say if it is still much off, but I wouldn't blindly suggest that it would be a problem of the 109s only but rather of all a/c.

- You are all coming to
- the same conclusion time and time again so there
- is'nt anything left to argue on the matter... except
- the "you is wronk"-part.

It is so easy and stupid to simply point at those who really have no point, typical arguments like "the LW shot down so many VVS a/c in the beginning of the war so their planes must have been much much better => undermodeled, bias, (whatever...)" and pretend there would be no other opinions which are based on technical facts. They are as useless for technical research as the counter-"I just took a 109G6 and shot down 5 La7 on a DF server within 5 minutes so what's wrong with it" arguments you see over and over again. Oh yes, DF servers - take a P.11, some patience and you'll shoot down any number of planes you want. Proves a lot in those frag fest arenas where many ppl spend most of their time drawing circles in the grass.
The sad part in this flame forum is that most people are so blinded by their subejctive opinion that they fail to see even clear objective data. If you're bored with all these discussions, don't drag the constructives down with ever-repeating pointless arguments and accusations ("whiners" etc.). Go back to the Kindergarten if that's the level you prefer to discuss at.
A disappointing quote from Buzzsaw in the other climb time thread was where he accused the LW pilots that they are only looking for a better auto pitch system and still want even better performance on manual to gain an unfair advantage - this crap took away his credibility for me. I want it as close to reality as it can be in the sim and currently it is far away from that. And I'm not talking about 1% or code limitations here, some things were already better before and just became worse. I don't want any special boost tricks or other sh!t to rocket away when it was unhistorical, heck why am I playing a sim that claims to be the most realistic one ever when in the end we all have to stick to Crimson Skies tricks to exploit the game code? It is not acceptable to map prop pitch to throttle as he suggested every time I fly 109 instead of another aircraft, especially when 109s had a system that was already more complex and effective than a typical CS prop. And it is also uninteresting to do that, knowing you can climb faster than in reality with it. Even with that setup, prop pitch still has its issues. Very slow, much too sensitive to little input changes, too coarse (2% corresponding to 100 RPM steps miniumun), always remembering the last manual value when switching back to auto which forces you to either pitch down every time you switch, revving the engine too low and losing performance or running the risk of hitting a too high value, immediately overreving the engine. Annoying enough trying to keep RPM at a good value in a sustained climb, you can totally forget it in combat.
"Use manual and learn to fly" - wouldn't that be more like "Use that manual BS and learn to cheat"?
Throw away the current manual pitch model and put in a working auto pitch for those a/c which had it. And I'd even prefer the manual pitch of the 109E we had in FB 1.0 - there it was very much fun to control RPMs manually since pitch management actually worked there and was not that screwed pain in the a** it is now. I for sure didn't enjoy it because of the overmodeled climb rate of the 109E at that time. Manual pitch is what I enjoy about CEM, not just moving the throttle forward and backward without adjusting anything else, maybe just pushing a supercharger button here and then.

Message Edited on 09/23/0312:37PM by JG5_JaRa

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:32 PM
Again and let it rest:


Found in VOW forum:

Question @ YOUSS

....

I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot work with addon.

till now:

1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF (problem was in auto-pitch mode).


...

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:10 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Wastel
-
- You remind me of Adolf Hitler in the bunker in 1945
- when he insisted that Divisions which had already
- been destroyed by the Red Army should attack and
- throw back the invaders...
-

Buzz, that comment was not called for. Making a comparison of Adolf Hitler and my friend Wastel is not even humerous.

Do you refuse to believe that in order to have a "Simulation" you must first have to have something REAL to simulate. That's all that Wastel did. He took real test data and real test parameters and did a comparison between the real results and this so-called simulation..............

When I first started reading your first thread on this subject I thought, here is a luft hater trying to form his tests to prove his agenda. Then I thought, naw, give him some credit, perhaps he really is on a fact finding mission. Now I am convinced, along with making statements like the "Hitler" one, that you truly have no credible reason to disagree with the test results of wastel, and therefore are merely on some self-righteous kick, trying to make a name for yourself.

Perhaps, if you would have run the tests as Wastel stated, then maybe compared them to your own test with your self-established parameters, (Which you say are the parameters of Oleg's team) perhaps you would have provided a good comparison to show that the FM is a bit screwed -probably for all planes. (THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE MADE A NAME FOR YOURSELF) But instead, you conform the tests to suit your agenda. And, by adding in the comments towards Wastel, you HAVE finally made a name for yourself, and that name is? PATHETIC.

In conclusion, I will say this last thing to you. You owe Wastel an appology. Anything less from you will merely prove my point and solidify your new forum name.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:29 PM
I agree, this place will NOT benefit with namecallings, and the metaphore of yours was totally out of line <u>RAF74BuzzsawXO</u>.

You owe Wastel a BIG apology.

Let¤s face it, you just have different opionions, which happens all the time. No need to get rude.


Cheers mates, and remember... be civil towards eachother.



<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:14 PM
Thanks
F19_Orheim wrote:
- Again and let it rest:
-
-
- Found in VOW forum:
-
- Question @ YOUSS
-
- ....
-
- I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot
- work with addon.
-
- till now:
-
- 1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
- 2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF
- (problem was in auto-pitch mode).

Thanks Orheim. I saw Redwulf 1 posted that in another thread too. That's what I'm pinning some hope on. It's just unfortunate to have to read about it in the VOW forum rather than here, in ORR at the official Ubi site.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:24 PM
Well Chadburn, with all these personal attack threads in here, it is hard to find the important stuff.

Cheers mates, and remember....this is all for fun.




<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:06 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Wastel
-
- And you are still insisting that only climbs at 270
- kph when testing FB 109's are valid? -
- Are you really that inflexible?
-
- For one thing, 270kph is not a figure relevant to
- all models of the 109.


Don`t think so, he is just perfectly right. Best climb speed given in 109 manuals 270 or 280 kph IAS.


-
- Not all historical 109's climbed best at 270 kph.
- The lighter wingloaded models climbed better at a
- lower speed, the higher wingloaded variants better
- at a higher speed.


From where did you took this ?

-
- It's pretty obvious that the FORGOTTEN BATTLES 109K4
- has a lower stall speed, than historical, but less
- thrust.


What is the "historical" stall speed of K-4, Buzzshaw ?
How much is it in Il2FB ?



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 09/23/0304:10PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:29 PM
HQ1 wrote:
- RAF74BuzzsawXO you make the better climb at 210 IAS
- that shows FBs FM has some serious problem.

You got the point!! There's something way off in FB with the climb speeds. I also notice that in Lavochkins, especially the LaGG-3 '43 which climbs best just below 200kph IAS. Il-2 Compare says 250kph best climb speed, and climbing with those speeds I get the same results. But climbing with 200 IAS, I get better results, up to 26m/s for the first 1000m. That'S about 25% more just because steeper climb. Obviously, some planes still hang on their props (in 1.0 Hurricane II or 109E were also one of them).


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%; filter:glow[color=#33CCFF, strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:56 PM
I really find it strange that this person will do all these oddball tests and then claim they prove that the 109 is either correct or over-modeled.The test is a joke.210 kph?After a zoom?Again all you prove is the 109 is handicaped.
----------------------------------------------------------
-

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:36 PM
Willey wrote:
-
- HQ1 wrote:
-- RAF74BuzzsawXO you make the better climb at 210 IAS
-- that shows FBs FM has some serious problem.
-
- You got the point!! There's something way off in FB
- with the climb speeds. I also notice that in
- Lavochkins, especially the LaGG-3 '43 which climbs
- best just below 200kph IAS. Il-2 Compare says 250kph
- best climb speed, and climbing with those speeds I
- get the same results. But climbing with 200 IAS, I
- get better results, up to 26m/s for the first 1000m.
- That'S about 25% more just because steeper climb.
- Obviously, some planes still hang on their props (in
- 1.0 Hurricane II or 109E were also one of them).


this even make LWs B&Z more harder.because VVS planes can stand on their props make a leisure aim to the LW planes which dive to them .

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:13 PM
Wastel to compare with hitler .

How funny are you ? RAF74BuzzsawXO.

a new star of entertainment is born .
you don´t must agree with wastel, but this is very lame joke.

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

ZG77_Nagual
09-23-2003, 05:14 PM
The way I see it Wastel and Buzz are taking two different approaches. Buzz's is 'can the historical climb rate/time to climb be achieved' wastel's is 'can the historical climbrate/time to climb be achieved using historical variables'. It is a matter of degree. So lets everybody relax - and stay away from the 'H' word as this is a very serious thing to some people.

Some questions worth raising are:

How precisely accurate is it reasonable to expect FB to be?
After all - even in the original tests there were all kinds of variables - and production aircraft are apt to have varied quite a bit when it came right down to it. We've seen how axis aircraft were consistently under spec in most vvs tests (as were vvs aircraft in most axis tests).

Game Balance is the other big question. This means being able to employ historical advantages of the various aircraft.

It seems to me that with this degree of precision - and the intensive modeling in this simm (not simplistic table-based - which would make it much easier to achieve the criteria of these various tests and, paradoxically, greatly reduce overall realism-
In janes ww2 for example - you can just hack the tables - put in the values you want and match your climb tests to the second
) how exact can we reasonably expect it to be given hardware and time limits? Seems to me inevitably there must be some compromise at some points - and at these points the direction in which to compromise is game balance - in the historical sense.
.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:16 PM
HQ1,

You got that right. Let me tell you a little experience. The other day, I got shot down because I was being stupid. I was in a Forgotten Wars mission and attacked a small group of IL2's (Early models) in F-2's. - I made the mistake thinking only one of the planes was human, and I was trying to game the game I guess, bad mistake and I deserved to get shot down. -

But that's not my point. My point was that my wingman started b&z the IL2's. One was moving in scissor fashion and suddenl;y pointed his nose up and caught the F-2 in a zoom climb. He didnt immediately accelerate on him, but was able to steady his plane long enough to shoot the F-2 and disable his controls. The F-2 was B&Zing from about 1500-1800 meters while the IL2 was at about 500. I watched the entire fight and was shocked to say the least. I even commented to the pilot if "That think he was flying" ever stalls? Now I know the IL2 had excellent flight characteristics, but anything with a wingspan that large should not be able to stand on it's prop for that long of a time and shoot effortlessly. Let alone never stall or spin and just go back about his business as if nothing ever happened. Again, I watched the entire fight, and I can say that the F-2 should not have ever been hit except for a snapshot as the F-2 was climbing from a dive (Which is what B&Z is all about)

Now that I read some of these "Best Climb" speed tests, I know why this happened. It's going to have to make me rethink how the FM works.

I didnt capture this event in a track (I wish I would have for sure) It was so uneventful, the 109 was doing things properly, that I didnt see a need, until I saw that IL2 do what it did. No offense to the pilot of the IL2, he was merely oing what his game would let him do. But honestly, I didnt know the Russians had invented vector thrust so many years ago - sarcasm.

Another thing - and I am just thinking outloud - Buzzsaw might have actually gotten to the root of the entire problem here. I have often noticed that doing a hammerhead is not an easy maneuver. Perhaps it's because you can hang on the proop for so long according to this games FM. And doing one now without extremely superior E is suicide as your opponant can quickly gain on you while you are trying to reach the azmuth of your zoom. Maybe that's what people are viewing as a lack of climbspeed in the 109's. I dont know for sure. I will say again, from patch to patch, the 109 feels much different every time. Try and out spiral climb a rata now with a emil. it's almost impossible, and the degree of turn you used to be able to use has to be lessened drastically. Thus, the rata can simply turn inside of your spiral, hang on his two bladed prop and meet your six in the turn. Yet, historically, wasnt that a favorite maneuver for OKL pilots? Now all you can do is slowly climb away and never turn back because if you do, you lose all you E and are eating green lasers.

Message Edited on 09/23/0304:29PM by Fehler

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:25 PM
Buzz your reasoning would be sound and right if LW aircraft were meant to be flown on manual pitch prop. Thing is the modeling in FB is wrong in automatic pitch where it should be right.

You have shown the model does permit the use of this settings but the thing is the modeling itself of these systems is not portrayed accurately by 1C. If the systems by which they are meant to be used would be done this way it would work .

As you see the engine dies quickly under manual. Why?,simply the developers in their quest to achieve an accurate simulation put the automatic pitch prop systems so the pilot would get the same advantage their historic counterparts had. They do not, do NOT operate in the same manner as a P-47 or an La-7. That's why you do not see the limits in these aircraft because the designers engineered these aircraft to be used in this form.

It isn't Wastel's test that do not reflect the optimum rate as you say it's the simulation itself that does not the 109 and 190 as they are and as they were, were not meant to be flown under manual prop control as these could damage the engine or completely kill it. The planes are not the same as a Spitfire or a Hurricane at least as engine manegement is concerned.

If the auto modeling would be done correctly or the manual without the "realistic limits" then this would be used without complaint but as it is the way the aircraft was meant to be flown is wrong.

Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:10 PM
I think that Buzzsaw does us all a service in showing what it takes to climb the 109's near enough to the right times.

Now the real problems are more visible where before it was only an indication of what and not why or how.

Radiator settings... they were what they were in the historic tests because they needed to be open so far to prevent overheating, yes? If they could have gotten away with less open and less drag then they would have, no?

So to do the same in the sim is right and again it points out to a place where the sim diverges from real. And you have to ask yourself where the divergence is not too much because it is a fact that no sim can be without divergences!

I can agree that the 210kph best climb speed is an indication of something to fix but I can also point out that it is most probably the same basis that lets turns be easier than the original IL2:Sturmovik, which FM I have found best anyway. Did anyone try to see how low a speed they could climb best in FB 1.1b or were they too happy about other things? Climbs and turns both depends on AOA achievable before induced drag gets into a high amount back for less and less AOA increase. We get better turns than we should (but we want those, esp LW drivers) and we also get the climb to go with it?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:42 PM
Salute DKP

Clearly another person who hasn't actually looked at Wastel's spread sheet.

I used exactly the same rad settings. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now the complaint is that I didn't deliberately penalize myself by starting at 210kph, ie. slower than Wastel. What a joke. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

You guys will make any excuse to allow you to continue feeling victimized.

Have fun. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:44 PM
Salute Glasses

Go back and look at the post that starts this thread again.

I did this particular test in AUTO PITCH.

And still got a better result than Wastel.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:44 PM
Hey RAF74PatheticXO, you ever going to publically appologize to Wastel for your ignorant comments?

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:09 PM
Salute Fehler

I made it clear my comment regarding Hitler was a joke. That this becomes an issue is another example of how any excuse can be used to smear someone who presents facts which do not reinforce the conventional "My 109 is a victim" theory.

However, since it is such a touchy subject for those of you who idolize Goering's Luftwaffe, then I apologize.

Now perhaps the rest of you can apologize for the hundreds of insults which have been sent my way?

Somehow I doubt it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:17 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Fehler
-
- I made it clear my comment regarding Hitler was a
- joke. That this becomes an issue is another example
- of how any excuse can be used to smear someone who
- presents facts which do not reinforce the
- conventional "My 109 is a victim" theory.
-
- However, since it is such a touchy subject for those
- of you who idolize Goering's Luftwaffe, then I
- apologize.
-
- Now perhaps the rest of you can apologize for the
- hundreds of insults which have been sent my way?


Buzzsaw, you cannot apologize by throwing another insult.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:20 PM
Fascinating that people are so upset over a "hitler" reference.

Would any of you have been half as upset if a person was referred to as Stalin?

I seriously doubt it. That indicates a serious problem.

BTW - Buzzsaw, gaming the game doesn't make it accurate. Why are so hellbent on idolizing Oleg (to turn your idolizing the LW comment back on you)? And, on that same note, better to fly for the LW than for the VVS. Lesser of 2 evils (even though there is no "good" choice between the 2).

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:20 PM
Certainly it seems as though some relish the siege mentality of hardcore LW fandom. I just took the "hitler in the bunker" comment as a poke at that more than anything else, though it does, technically, invoke godwins law :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

ZG77_Nagual
09-23-2003, 07:33 PM
Way back in IL2 - and I did not record this - I found I got a monster fast gain in alt by leaving the flaps down after takeoff in the 190 and climbing at a very low speed - quickest way to gain alt.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:15 PM
Quite fascinating, really, of how blunt the process of thinking can get, when it comes to slandering others on purpose.

Buzzsaw, which part of "HISTORIC RESULTS ARE TO BE ACHIEVED BY HISTORICAL MEANS" do you not understand?

I can't believe through four separate threads and hundreds of posts you're still pulling that flimsy logic of "if you can still reach it by gaming-the-game, then it's satisfactory".

Watel's climbtests do not reflect optimum rate of climb?You bet it doesn't, because the FM has inherent problems. Not to mention the fact that being forced into a low climbspeed also works as a considerable disadvantage in combat.

...

Cut the crap with these word games.

There is something wrong, and people have taken steps to adequately prove their point. If something is wrong, it should be fixed, and that's why we're requesting it.

Basically what you're saying to us is we should just shut up and wait, since it ain't that much of a problem, because you can always game the game and exploit some other type of bug, to get what you want.

And as I repeatedly mention, and you continue to ignore and pretend you didn't hear it, what you people did when the P-47 rolls were porked, is hardly any type of example to us. Don't tell us to do what you yourself did not.



So, who's making the racket?

Many people complain about many things. But among the trash there are threads out of reason and logic.

Of this subject, wastel have pointed out and made his point in two threads, of how the G series are too heavy, and the G2 ~ G10 analysis. Two threads.

You start four~five threads of how you were able to reach certain results from a totally flawed method, and keep bouncing 'witty' comments on how we're like "Hitler in a bunker". A very long and big discussion on how we should not expect realism, and learn to deal with our losses.


Sweat Jesious pagan lord of flight sims, Buzz, do you not realize what you are saying?



-----------
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 09/24/0306:15AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:05 PM
Salute Kweassa

Respectfully again, because you generally seem like an open minded person:

Where did you see that I said the current issues should'nt be addressed by Oleg?

What I have been saying is that, by all means, let Oleg know that the modelling isn't correct, but in the meantime, don't bury your heads in the sand, if you want better performance, then adapt.

People keep accusing me of being biased. I'm not.

I'm just responding to some of the more strenuous Luftwaffe aficionados who insisted that attaining the historical climbrates was impossible.

Clearly it isn't although the means to do so is not historical.

I really get the feeling that those persons who complain the loudest want their cake and eat it too. Ie. get the historical climbrate in auto, at 270 kph, and then have the option to go completely ahistorical in their flying and get better performance.

Otherwise why didn't anyone mention the improvement in climbrate that was possible in Manual pitch?

Surely I, a player who rarely if ever flys a 109, can't be the only one to have noticed this? Am I that much of a genius? (I know what your answer will be to that question... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Also, why did no one notice that climbing at a reduced speed and higher angle of attack in Auto would give better results?

Once again, it is amazing that only I noticed this and brought it to the attention of the boards.

I think Oleg expects a general level of honestly from those who ask for changes.

Which means that all the details of the problems are openly revealed and discussed.

Before I made my posts, the diktat from the Luftwaffe community was that it was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve historic climbrates.

That was clearly untrue, and I simply pointed that out.

If you guys in the Luftwaffe group would simply acknowledge that fact, and redirect your requests for changes, you might actually achieve something.

As it is, I think you have something to thank me for, since I have brought this issue to the fore, and clearly pinpointed where the problems lie.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/23/0310:05PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:21 PM
saying it is possible to achieve maximum climb rates is like saying it is possible to achieve correct roll in a P47 because the roll we are getting is based on a graph using 30lb of stick input. It is a stupid and irrelevant arguement. You posting is starting to sound like something Huck would post.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:34 PM
lbhskier37, what did you mean by the injurious affirmation above? Can you give an example? Otherways you should apologize.



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

Message Edited on 09/23/0305:36PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:58 PM
All of you owe Buzzsaw a big debt of thanks.

Somehow it seems like it's left to complete LW non-experts to work out ways of getting the most out of these planes.

I don't know why this might be, but there seems to be this default reaction among the certain people on the UBI boards, where if something does not instantly work, all effort is suspended and hands are thrown up in the air ... very shortly before they're put back down to a keyboard to write a whining message on the UBI forums about it.

It appears that Buzzsaw has worked out the reason why the 109's performance is so poor.

It appears that almost everyone else has filled up several megs worth of SQL storage with whining so high pitched it's audible above the 10K rpm drives it's stored on.

Regardless of whether you think he has stated his case by flogging people 'til their skin peels off, I'm pretty sure that without his work the dominant theories as to the 109s poor performance would be:

i) soviet conspiracy
ii) weight of g6 being set too heavy, somehow causing other models to tip over
iii) ufos. the other kind - aliens - working with the russians, to contaminate our vital bodily fluids.

It would be nice if you could all just take your frustrations out on the dog, or whatever it is you normally use, and say "hey, thanks buzzsaw!".



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:01 AM
So he discovered that Bf-109 does not work as it should.
I posted this together with climb data in the first day the patch was launched.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:02 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lbhskier37, what did you mean by the injurious
- affirmation above? Can you give an example?
- Otherways you should apologize.


What's most disturbing is that it's quite likely you really do have no idea what he means.

Oh well.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:04 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- So he discovered that Bf-109 does not work as it
- should.
- I posted this together with climb data in the first
- day the patch was launched.

Hi Huckles,

Do you see my sig?

It's of "worker" and "parasite".

That's your answer, by the way.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:10 AM
And who's doing the work, Buzzsaw?
He tried a little trolling which did not work. He made some 5 pages threads in a short amount of time, he gets the credit for the most time efficient waste of forum space.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:25 AM
Clint the 109 does not work as it should so it should be fixed end of story.....

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:40 AM
I don't wish to appear (unnecessarily) pedantic, but wouldn't that be some of the G series and possibly the K that are porked? G2 and others are fine per Wastel's (benchmark) tests.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:45 AM
johno_UK wrote:
- Clint the 109 does not work as it should so it should be fixed end of story...


Nah it works perfectly, in a crippled kind of way/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:50 AM
bazzaah2 wrote:
- I don't wish to appear (unnecessarily) pedantic, but
- wouldn't that be some of the G series and possibly
- the K that are porked? G2 and others are fine per
- Wastel's (benchmark) tests.

You're right there, and I've spent several threads trying to tell people that if they don't want to fly the "porked" G10/14 there's always the G6/AS, and if the overheating thing on other models of the 109 is such a big deal they can always turn overheat off til it's resolved to their satisfaction [or not].

But that didn't go down too well either from what I could tell.

This issue will be forever known as "the 109s are porked in 1.11" issue, rather than "the G10/14 and maybe the K4 are porked if you use autopitch and the original test data climbing angle" issue.

Kinda like "game balance" :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:54 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- lbhskier37, what did you mean by the injurious
-- affirmation above? Can you give an example?
-- Otherways you should apologize.


- What's most disturbing is that it's quite likely you
- really do have no idea what he means.

- Oh well.


No, I haven't the slightest idea. He is suggesting that somehow I post incorrect or misleading data. Unless he proves that conclusively he owns me apologies.
I realize that bringing more data in discussing a particular matter, rather than scraching the surface of the subject with some preconcieved ideas, puts serious difficulties to most people confortable with their own prejudice. I'm not looking for popularity here.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:56 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I realize that bringing more data in discussing a
- particular matter, rather than scraching the surface
- of the subject with some preconcieved ideas, puts
- serious difficulties to most people confortable with
- their own prejudice.

Please don't type things like that when I'm drinking hot coffee.

- I'm not looking for popularity
- here.

Truly shocked to hear it.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:59 AM
Dear god! 10% data, 90% ego.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:06 AM
And really what they're talking about is a slightly different set of buttons to press. Whenever the realism gets too much on historically authentic setings, I go and make a cup of tea or check my emails. Works every time.


clint-ruin wrote:
- bazzaah2 wrote:
-- I don't wish to appear (unnecessarily) pedantic, but
-- wouldn't that be some of the G series and possibly
-- the K that are porked? G2 and others are fine per
-- Wastel's (benchmark) tests.
-
- You're right there, and I've spent several threads
- trying to tell people that if they don't want to fly
- the "porked" G10/14 there's always the G6/AS, and if
- the overheating thing on other models of the 109 is
- such a big deal they can always turn overheat off
- til it's resolved to their satisfaction [or not].
-
- But that didn't go down too well either from what I
- could tell.
-
- This issue will be forever known as "the 109s are
- porked in 1.11" issue, rather than "the G10/14 and
- maybe the K4 are porked if you use autopitch and the
- original test data climbing angle" issue.
-
- Kinda like "game balance" :>
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_p
- arasite.jpg" width=315 height=240 alt=""
- align="middle">
-
- Need help with NewView? Read <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj">this
- thread.</a>



http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

ZG77_Nagual
09-24-2003, 01:07 AM
Useful contributions by both wastel and buzzsaw - Wastel showed historical approach does not work - Buzzsaw highlighted the problem from another angle - moreover Oleg has acknowleged the problem and having recieved data regarding it.

From the standpoint of it's original intent (if I may presume to know that - and I may) This thread has now served it's purpose.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:17 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- All of you owe Buzzsaw a big debt of thanks.

- Somehow it seems like it's left to complete LW
- non-experts to work out ways of getting the most out
- of these planes.

then added

- Regardless of whether you think he has stated his
- case by flogging people 'til their skin peels off,
- I'm pretty sure that without his work the dominant
- theories as to the 109s poor performance would be:
-
- i) soviet conspiracy
- ii) weight of g6 being set too heavy, somehow
- causing other models to tip over
- iii) ufos. the other kind - aliens - working with
- the russians, to contaminate our vital bodily
- fluids.
-
- It would be nice if you could all just take your
- frustrations out on the dog, or whatever it is you
- normally use, and say "hey, thanks buzzsaw!".

It has been pointed out that the issue seems to be with the autoprop system by many people before Buzz did his tests.

Facetious posts may be fun to write, but they contribute little to the desire to correct perceived errors.

As for flying the G-2 as a replacement for the G-10 or G-14, this is difficult on servers with closed plane sets so it's really not a solution.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:22 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Useful contributions by both wastel and buzzsaw -
- Wastel showed historical approach does not work -
- Buzzsaw highlighted the problem from another angle -
- moreover Oleg has acknowleged the problem and having
- recieved data regarding it.
-
- From the standpoint of it's original intent (if I
- may presume to know that - and I may) This thread
- has now served it's purpose.
-
Amen to that, brother!

Now if we can just get back to the virtual skies and fight our battles there, we'll all be happier!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:28 AM
"Where did you see that I said the current issues should'nt be addressed by Oleg?

What I have been saying is that, by all means, let Oleg know that the modelling isn't correct, but in the meantime, don't bury your heads in the sand, if you want better performance, then adapt."

I don't know, Buzz. What could have given the people that idea?

Maybe it was when you posted a thread with the title of "Oleg is 100% Right"? Or something like "Wastel's Climbtests do not reflect optimum rate in Auto"?

Maybe we're wrong to assume the certain nuance or the context we sense from your very provocative thread titles, but if you really had no other intention than just stating facts, then you cannot possibly hold us responsible for being hostile or whiney as neither your attitude nor your logic through the many discussions, matches your 'good will'.

Oh by the way,

"let Oleg know that the modelling isn't correct, but in the meantime, don't bury your heads in the sand, if you want better performance, then adapt"

...we are adapting, and we are letting Oleg know. So why is it you have repeatedly tossed a discussion about things we are already doing? With a most challenging title, during the time when the discussions revolving the Bf109s have been very active?

Clearly, is it not with the context to make a statement on our attitude or behavior? I am very sorry for questioning your intentions or attitude, but not all people are so deficient that they cannot read between the lines. Couple that with your arguments on 'accuracy' with incorrect procedures, then it is hardly suprising the more vocal and hot-blooded people are starting to show signs of some serious steam in their veins.

"People keep accusing me of being biased. I'm not."

If that may be the truth, then you have a very very bad way of expressing things, because certainly, people are feeling that way.


"I'm just responding to some of the more strenuous Luftwaffe aficionados who insisted that attaining the historical climbrates was impossible."

I don't believe you're that stupid that you should fail to realize people were presuming a specific condition that it cannot be reached by historic means, which is supposed to provide with a very important historic, tactical advantage.

Without the procedure and result linked together, we might as well say:

"the P-47 is overmodelled, because it can do 1000km/h! Although I admit the test procedure was a bit unhistoric that it can only be attained with a dive. But the important thing is, 1000km/h, can be reached! Thus, the P-47 is 100% overmodelled!"

Sounds funny? Yes it is. It's a gross parody of your logic.

Because when people usually discuss 'speed', it precisely assumes that the plane is at a procedure of flying level, at certain historic settings. When that procedure is arbitrarily thrown out of the discussion to be replaced by a new one, or belittled as not being important, and the only important fact is the end results show something, and that alone will determine 'right' and 'wrong', then the whole argument is meaningless.


"Before I made my posts, the diktat from the Luftwaffe community was that it was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve historic climbrates."

Again, here you play the role of the innocent and naive.

The 'diktat' was that the historic climb rates were made impossible to reach in a tactically meaningful manner. 109 pilots would either have to 1) give up the considerable amount of advantage provided by the automatical management system which is essentially the same things as any Allied system, or 2) find another way of exploiting the abnormalties of the FM, like maintaining a considerably higher AoA then historically recommended, losing also another advantage in climb speed, which also is an important trait during a climb(in the fact faster climbing speed would also mean distancing from the enemy as well as getting higher altitude).

At any rate, the complaints are clear - the 109s are hampered in their tactical capacity. Reaching a certain rate of climb as a meaningful tool for combat is indeed, IMPOSSIBLE.

If whether or not a certain number can be reached, whatever consequences or strange methods would be needed to, was indeed the problem of importance, then you might as well also claim "the 109s climb faster than historical numbers!!", by leaving the engine to kill itself from overheating shortly after reaching the target altitude. Hey, after all, it did reach a higher number than history!(whether or not the pilot did that by working his engine to kingdom come).

Again, I do not think you were so foolish that you did not realize the tactical context when LW pilots complain "the 109s cannot reach its historical figures!". The problems of climb rates revolve around a much wider, tactical sense than just the numbers. The numbers are there just to measure how large the problem is. The numbers, are the means, not the ends.

I think you knew very well what it meant, but decided to have a little fun by denying serious complaints by 'proving they are wrong'.

Now, you can say I'm paranoid, and you really had no intention of such things. But you haven't seen me when I was reaaaaaallly paranoid. Your attitude in the posts, I'm sorry to say, leaks the stench of some ill-will.


On the other hand, if you were really just trying to add another fact, then I suggest you use a more conventional line of titling the threads. Also, adding a line like "..but I admit these line of tests are meaningless, since it obviously forces the pilot into a gamey tweaking mode, to achieve it.", would really help the people stay away from getting the wrong impression.

As it is, your posts are very easy to get all the most unpleasant impressions from.


"If you guys in the Luftwaffe group would simply acknowledge that fact, and redirect your requests for changes, you might actually achieve something."

Acknowledge what fact? Certain historical objectives are accomplished by porking the historical conditions? We already have a simular line working - "the 109 climb rates are unattainable with historic methods. It is too low. Please look into this".

"As it is, I think you have something to thank me for, since I have brought this issue to the fore, and clearly pinpointed where the problems lie."

Don't flatter yourself, friend.

People have been complaing about the deficiency of the automatic system for many weeks. Granted, you've added another line of anomalies observed within the game, which ADDS to the fact that the 109 climbs are porked. For that, we can thank you.

But you haven't added more than what was already known through other methods.


-----------
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 09/24/03?9:29AM by kweassa

Message Edited on 09/24/03 09:36AM by kweassa

Message Edited on 09/24/0309:40AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:48 AM
Dear god Kweassa, you said it all. Thank you.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:53 AM
Salute Kweassa

I did some tests.

They revealed some facts.

If you don't like those facts then all I can say is, I'm sorry.

Doesn't change the truth of those facts.

Fact #1

In Manual Pitch the 109's climb BETTER THAN they did historically.

Fact #2

Wastel's tests did not provide the best indication of how well the 109's can climb in Auto Pitch.

That's all there is.

And that will be all I have to say on this subject.


RAF74 Buzzsaw





Message Edited on 09/24/0303:58AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 05:54 AM
The 109 is WAY overmodeled! I was doing 700kh, and I climbed out at 270kh, and it took me 4 seconds to reach 1000 feet! Tone that sucker down!

Oh wait.....that's not right. Who tests their planes' climb rate while airborne?

I don't care how Oleg's boys do it. Use real world tests on these aircraft, or your pi$$ing in the propwash!

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 06:20 AM
Oh dear, Buzz, you tempt me to bang my head against the keyboard, and I'm sure the garble that would come out of that would mean just as much to you, but nonetheless:


RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Kweassa
-
- I did some tests.
-
- They revealed some facts.
-
- If you don't like those facts then all I can say is,
- I'm sorry.
-
- Doesn't change the truth of those facts.
-
- Fact #1
-
- In Manual Pitch the 109's climb BETTER THAN they did
- historically...

...using auto-pitch.


-
- Fact #2
-
- Wastel's tests did not provide the best indication
- of how well the 109's can climb in Auto Pitch...

...because they conformed to historical testing standards.

-
- That's all there is.
-
- And that will be all I have to say on this subject.
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw

I think with the slight revisions, that really is all that can be said without further testing or more info from Oleg.

Could the 109's modelling be improved? Yes.

Will the world end if it is not? No.

(And for perspective: Could the P-47s modelling have been improved? Yes, and it was. Would the world have ended if it had not been? No.)

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:02 AM
Truly, doing anything in aid of the community is a thankless task.

Er .. thankyou. Thankyou all.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:59 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

- In Manual Pitch the 109's climb BETTER THAN they did
- historically.

I saw your tests and the results. Thank you for flying and posting but I do not agree at all with your interpretations.

You seem to take climb in the 1st 1 km of some 109's as indication that they are way overmodelled as to climb. You did start your climbs at higher than climb speed and yet don't account for any zoom involved. In the same planes which should reach 6 km in 6 minutes you reached 5 km in 5 minutes and 55 seconds yet completely fail to take that into account. Is it still overmodelled even when MOST of the total climb is below par?

In all fairness to post about the plane being overmodelled in climb on the basis of partial data obtained in non-standard conditions (not terribly but still non-standard) is false.

Good tests -- Bad conclusions -- Worse thread titles.

- Wastel's tests did not provide the best indication
- of how well the 109's can climb in Auto Pitch.

Well they did for REAL 109's. Because REAL 109's did not make best climb at 210 kph. So without your trying to do so, you have pointed out a fault in the SIM itself. Look at where the best climb speeds should be for the same 109's in IL2 Compare.

- That's all there is.

That was all that you would see, admit or maybe understand. Not all there is.

- And that will be all I have to say on this subject.

Oh I love promises like that!

- RAF74 Buzzsaw


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:29 PM
Oh lord I love this Forum.

What MaxGunz said /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Come on Buzz you know that what we are getting at is that the 109 FM in FB has disparities vs the real world 109. That's what is being said.

You maybe don't realise that you are proving the point of the very people you seem to be arguing against.

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:06 PM
- RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
-
-- And that will be all I have to say on this subject.



Oh God plz make this be this true !!!!!!

enough BS



HAUPTMANN LBR=Rommel 1º Technischer Offizier TOS I/JG52 - Erst Staffel - Nr. 7
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.com.br

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 02:02 AM
Seems simple.

Luftwhiners and historical accuracy buffs complain.

"The 109 is castrated!" or "Bf does not have proper climb".

So testing reveals Manual pitch is actually overmodelled.
Dangerous to operate maybe, but overmodelled.

Further testing reveals Auto pitch gives good climb, but at different speed than some might have suspected.

The point of the test was to prove that the 1st statement made by the whiners was FLAT OUT WRONG.

The 2nd statement by the historical accuracy buffs is a bit more complex. Apparently it can climb well... but not in the way it should. If you were Oleg... which would you prefer to read

1st -
Oleg you gay communist, you cut the ****** off my plane!
You hate me! i hate you! You're never fair!

2nd -
Oleg, it appears climb rate is okay, but the speed used to achieve it is weird. should be 270 rather than 210 to get the best, most accurate result. Is it possible to include a correction of this in next patch/add-on (etc)? Look forward to your reply.


Now thank Buzzsaw for his tests and politely ask Oleg to give the Auto prop pitch the tiny tweak it might need.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 02:57 AM
How many angels can dance on your head?



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 03:13 AM
S! Buzzsaw,


To everyone having a problem suceeding in combat in the Bf-109 K-4, I would suggest climbing at 210kph for those long and lonely flights to the front, until Oleg takes a look at finds that the plane should be moving 60kph faster while climbing at the same rate as it does now.

Just think of it as 60km per hour of flight time more you have to climb in. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thats not complicated now is it?


"I sometimes forget that I'm in the very small minority of people (I think it might just be me) that believe if you take, Sex, Politics, Religion, or FM Discussions personally, you should just shut the f*ck up and let mommy and daddy have adult time." - JazzMan


:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/profile_74sqn_06.gif


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 03:40 AM
Nobody's talking about the K-4.






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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 04:42 AM
Tests Tests Tests...
Thing is, each plane has data that shows how fast it would climb and at what speeds. I see to many people saying things like "Its a game it wont ever be perfect" This is true to a point. Climb rates should be correct and can be fixed easily enough. Dont complicate it with a bunch of variables. Thats what the game cant do. Flight models for a sim should reflect a planes performance under perfect conditions. The game engine (to my knowledge) cannot handle all the variables that could effect a planes performance. And can that even be written in the code? Your talking about a lot of information for the pc to chew on. No sense arguing about test results. The data for each plane is readily available. Real world actual test data. Plane x can climb so fast at X speed, the game should reflect that much about it.

It just doesnt make sense Admiral. They had everything going for them. Are we better than they are or just luckier?

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:27 AM
A nice bit of testing, Huckebein. I am not sure
I'd say planes are overmodelled until they are about
10% off, maybe?

That would put the E4, G2, G6/AS, G14 and K4 on specs,
just leaving the F4, G6, and G10 off specs on the LW side,
and only the Yak1b off on the VVS side?

Or to put it another way, those are the only ones which
are seriously off.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- model / seconds to 1000m / climb rate in FB m/s /
- climb rate in RL
-
- E4 / 55 / 18 / 18
- F4 / 57 / 17.5 / 22
- G2 / 45 / 22 / 22
- G6 / 53 / 19 / 22
- G6/AS / 43 / 23 / 24
- G10 / 49 / 20.5 / 24
- G14 / 44 / 22.5 / 24
- K4 / 41 / 24.5 / 24.5
-----------
- Yak1b / 51 / 19.5 / 16.5
- Yak3 / 44 / 22.5 / 21-22
- La7 / 38 / 26.5 / 24.5
-
- From Bf-109 variants only E4, G2 and K4 deliver the
- performance expected. Test the other models so we
- can compare the results.
-
- Also test some the russian planes. You can see from
- my results that Yak1b and La7 are overmodelled.
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 09/23/03 02:53AM by
- Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:40 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- I think that Buzzsaw does us all a service in
- showing what it takes to climb the 109's near enough
- to the right times.

I agree with JG5_JaRa that it seems that there is
little difference in the delta of times for deltas
of altitude (1 to 2k, 2k to 3k, etc) for Wastel's
and BuzzSaw's tests. In that sense, both sets of
tests are useful.

What we seem to have is a situation in which
climbing at 270 or 210 kph IAS makes very little
difference for sustained climb rates. This sounds
a bit off. I've noted issues with regard to aircraft
climbing too well at slow speeds across the board,
so I don't think it is an overmodelling of VVS planes,
or anything like that, since it seems to be pretty
consistent over nations. It seems to point to an
issue with the physics engine, the way it has been
implemented, or the interaction between the engine,
the implementation, and the parameters needed to tweak
things.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:55 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-- Salute Wastel
--
-- And you are still insisting that only climbs at 270
-- kph when testing FB 109's are valid? -
-- Are you really that inflexible?
--
-- For one thing, 270kph is not a figure relevant to
-- all models of the 109.
-
-
- Don`t think so, he is just perfectly right. Best
- climb speed given in 109 manuals 270 or 280 kph IAS.
-

What's more I think Oleg must know that and I know he can program it; he already has done.

In IL-2 I tested all the flyable ac. Tested ac at 200, 250 and 300 kph climb speed. From results I got best climb speed by quadratic regression. Then tested again at the calculated best speed, to confirm it was better than other speeds. These are best climb speeds I found for 109s:

E-4... 270
E-7... 270
F-4... 260
G-2... 280
G-6... 290
G-6Late 300
G-6/AS 300

Now, there was generally some contemporary Russian type that could get a better rate of climb, but at least it seems I was finding best speeds in the right sort of speed range. Anyway, it seems that the 109s in IL-2 climbed best at the historical figure +/- 10%.


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:23 AM
AaronGT wrote:
- A nice bit of testing, Huckebein. I am not sure
- I'd say planes are overmodelled until they are about
- 10% off, maybe?
-
- That would put the E4, G2, G6/AS, G14 and K4 on
- specs,
- just leaving the F4, G6, and G10 off specs on the LW
- side,
- and only the Yak1b off on the VVS side?
-
- Or to put it another way, those are the only ones
- which
- are seriously off.

No, you cannot claim any accuracy if you can reproduce performance with +/-10% error. It's way too much. Engineers would do anything to get 10% performance improvement. That's equally high for climb and turn.

+/-1m/s climb rate and +/-1sec per 360deg turn time is somewhat acceptable. Problem is that now LW are 10% below specs and VVS 10-20% above. Il2Compare leaves no doubt about this.


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

Message Edited on 09/27/0307:06PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:44 AM
Aaron, 10% margin of error is huge.

Personally, I'd expect something to act within 1.5% margin of error, to call it 'accurate'.













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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 09:08 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- AaronGT wrote:
-- ...I am not sure
-- I'd say planes are overmodelled until they are about
-- 10% off, maybe?
-- ...
--
-- Or to put it another way, those are the only ones
-- which
-- are seriously off.
-
- No, you cannot claim any accuracy ...
- Engineers would do anything to get 10%
- performance improvement...

To be fair Aaron does say that an ac is overmodelled at about 10%. But yes, engineers would be delighted with another 10% wouldn't they? My 109 crew chief swears I should be getting that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif He gets angry when I tell him what I've got to do to get it...

- ... Problem is that now LW are
- 10% below specs and VVS 10-20% above. Il2Compare
- leaves no doubt about this.

And that's a crippling disadvantage; enough to turn a strength into a weakness where the RL figures are even remotely similar.

I was always a little sceptical of all the claims of bias, and rightly so in many cases I'm sure. However, some of the arguements being made with the use of data from IL2Compare are rather persausive. The game won't survivve long if there's a widely held perception that the 'dice are loaded.'

Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:55 AM
Ok - maybe a 10% error margin is too much! I suppose
a 10% error margin wouldn't be so bad if the relationships
between aircraft were preserved.

It's odd that things were more or less correct in IL2.
I think I'll have to borrow back my copy of IL2 from the
friend I loaned it to! Mind you, everything seemed to
fly slower in IL2 than in FB.

I still think the differences, and the lurching about
of FMs between patches suggests that there are some
bugs somewhere in the physics model or physics model
implementation. Since everything works more or less
right (the planes fly more or less like planes) it is
probably a tough one to fix. I think the delay on the
patch sort of confirms that they are bug hunting.

Were the climb rates for the 109s correct at any point
in FB? If they were then it might mean that the physics
model has been changed in the patch, but the 109s not
correctly reparamterised.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 01:57 PM
hm, now in FB the 6,5tons heavy P47D10 can outclimb a 3250kg
109G6 lol

http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/110missing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:44 PM
Even though all climbs are off in FB.The G6 has a power to weight ratio of 1.7 compared to the p47D10 ratio of 1.96.Now if The p47 had a better supercharger for high alt then it really could climb better than the G6

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:11 AM
Buzzsaw, please correct me if I'm wrong...

but wasn't Wastel was testing 109G's, whereas you were testing a 109K?


The climb of the 109K is absolutely miles better than any G.

Historically, the K4 may have been only incrementally better than its G10 and G14 predecessors, but as we all know, FB isn't totally accurate.

So it really isn't a surprise to me if, climbing in a K4 (at the rather unorthodox IAS of 210kph), you managed to beat Wastel flying some 109G or other.


If you were in fact comparing your K4 to Wastel's K4, then fine, I apologise...

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:18 AM
The P-47D will start to outclimb the conventional G-6 models roughly about from 8000m and upper. However, all the way up to 10000m the G-10 or the K-4 still outclimbs a P-47D.








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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 04:10 AM
Buzzsaw,

I've just been doing my own tests and (surprise surprise) it would appear that you're right... you do indeed get slightly better climb rates at about 210 IAS than 270 TAS, at 100% throttle (although, of course, at 110+MW50, things are different).


OK, I officially eat my previous statements.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 03:48 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- Even though all climbs are off in FB.The G6 has a
- power to weight ratio of 1.7 compared to the p47D10
- ratio of 1.96.Now if The p47 had a better
- supercharger for high alt then it really could climb
- better than the G6

What dimensions is that in? I make it 0.55hp/kg for the
109G6 non WEP (1475hp,2700kg) and 0.42 hp/kg for the P47
(2000hp, 4700kg) for loaded weights, giving the 109 a
better power loading at SL.