PDA

View Full Version : READ! Who clipped the Komet's wings?



Pilotsteveroy
04-10-2007, 10:28 PM
Hello friends and fellow Simviators.

I'm trying to figure out why, at some point, someone reduced the realism of the ME-163 Komet and quartered it's engine output.

I'm not sure which patch it was in the myriad of upgrades this great simulation underwent, but at some point, one of the most incredible aircraft ever devised became a flyable machine. I was instantly hooked!

Sure, the fuel was in very short supply, but if you managed it properly and used the superb glide capability of the ME-163 to your advantage, you could remain aloft for at least 25 minutes... enough to wreak havoc among your enemies. It was very realistic.

The ME-163 had a rate of climb that is astounding even to this day. It was capable of unheard of performance... sitting still on the ground to blasting through 30,000 feet in just under two minutes. It had to have been the ride of a lifetime for the terrified pilots who flew her!

The earliest representations of the flight model of the Komet were very realistic and depicted the awesome power that is produced when you pour nearly pure hydrogen peroxide into hydrazine hydrate and methanol. However, someone decided to clip her wings at some point...


Chomping at the bit for the release of Il2 ˜46, I purchased the download and fired it up like a kid on Christmas morning. First things first, of course!

B-17's inbound... No time to waste. T-Stoff and C-Stoff tanks filled! Neoprene flight suit on, and it's off to battle the invaders in my flying deathtrap...

Engine to 110%. She bumps over the chocks and accelerates... kinda. Why does my "new" Komet take so much runway? Finally aloft, I raise the landing skid and release the wheel dolly. Time to climb like the man in a missile I am!

...Or so I thought. I could only hold a rate of climb of about 4,000 feet/min. It was as if I were dragging an anchor behind me! What gives?

Doing a bit of research, it seems as if during one of the later patches or the installation of Pacific Fighters, someone decided to severely dampen the thrust of the Walter engine. The Komet is now barely a shadow of what it was before. Has anyone else noticed this?

Il2's depiction of the Me-163 Komet was very realistic previously. Having read the accounts of Mano Ziegler in his book "Rocket Fighter: The Story of the Messerschmitt Me 163", as well as the must-read history of the aircraft written by the man who was the director of operations for the Komet program, Wolfgang Spate in his book, "Top Secret Bird", I'm knowledgeable regarding the performance of the design created by the genius Dr. Alexander von Lippisch and Professor Willi Messerschmitt.

Sadly, someone chose to alter historic figures... perhaps in the interest of preserving "fair" gameplay. I hope not.

Does anyone know if it's possible to simply overwrite the flight model of a particular aircraft? If so, I'd be very interested in replacing the current flawed variant with the first release, while keeping everything else unchanged. Please reply to this account... it's a somewhat heartfelt plea for realism and historical accuracy.

-Pilotsteve, PP, AMEL, IP.

Pilotsteveroy
04-10-2007, 10:28 PM
Hello friends and fellow Simviators.

I'm trying to figure out why, at some point, someone reduced the realism of the ME-163 Komet and quartered it's engine output.

I'm not sure which patch it was in the myriad of upgrades this great simulation underwent, but at some point, one of the most incredible aircraft ever devised became a flyable machine. I was instantly hooked!

Sure, the fuel was in very short supply, but if you managed it properly and used the superb glide capability of the ME-163 to your advantage, you could remain aloft for at least 25 minutes... enough to wreak havoc among your enemies. It was very realistic.

The ME-163 had a rate of climb that is astounding even to this day. It was capable of unheard of performance... sitting still on the ground to blasting through 30,000 feet in just under two minutes. It had to have been the ride of a lifetime for the terrified pilots who flew her!

The earliest representations of the flight model of the Komet were very realistic and depicted the awesome power that is produced when you pour nearly pure hydrogen peroxide into hydrazine hydrate and methanol. However, someone decided to clip her wings at some point...


Chomping at the bit for the release of Il2 ˜46, I purchased the download and fired it up like a kid on Christmas morning. First things first, of course!

B-17's inbound... No time to waste. T-Stoff and C-Stoff tanks filled! Neoprene flight suit on, and it's off to battle the invaders in my flying deathtrap...

Engine to 110%. She bumps over the chocks and accelerates... kinda. Why does my "new" Komet take so much runway? Finally aloft, I raise the landing skid and release the wheel dolly. Time to climb like the man in a missile I am!

...Or so I thought. I could only hold a rate of climb of about 4,000 feet/min. It was as if I were dragging an anchor behind me! What gives?

Doing a bit of research, it seems as if during one of the later patches or the installation of Pacific Fighters, someone decided to severely dampen the thrust of the Walter engine. The Komet is now barely a shadow of what it was before. Has anyone else noticed this?

Il2's depiction of the Me-163 Komet was very realistic previously. Having read the accounts of Mano Ziegler in his book "Rocket Fighter: The Story of the Messerschmitt Me 163", as well as the must-read history of the aircraft written by the man who was the director of operations for the Komet program, Wolfgang Spate in his book, "Top Secret Bird", I'm knowledgeable regarding the performance of the design created by the genius Dr. Alexander von Lippisch and Professor Willi Messerschmitt.

Sadly, someone chose to alter historic figures... perhaps in the interest of preserving "fair" gameplay. I hope not.

Does anyone know if it's possible to simply overwrite the flight model of a particular aircraft? If so, I'd be very interested in replacing the current flawed variant with the first release, while keeping everything else unchanged. Please reply to this account... it's a somewhat heartfelt plea for realism and historical accuracy.

-Pilotsteve, PP, AMEL, IP.

PBNA-Boosher
04-10-2007, 11:08 PM
I'd hate to say it, but:

Got Chart?
Got Track?
Got Oleg?

Feathered_IV
04-10-2007, 11:33 PM
I wish all posts such as this were so well written and such a joy to read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As for the refinements to the Komet's performance modelling; I think that was one of the early PF patches. It is a bit of a shock at first when you go from one to the other, although I find it is still a formidable piece of kit.

Welcome to the forum too btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

leitmotiv
04-11-2007, 01:28 AM
Ditto, of Feathered_IV above---where did you read about the castration of the Komet?!

Bewolf
04-11-2007, 02:13 AM
As much as I enjoyed reading your posting, you made a big mistake. You talked about a german plane and didn't instantly bring up tracks and charts. That is a big mistake on these forums were relaxed discussion is not possible, especially when someone actually likes german planes and thinks they were not all a complete waste.

Expect the haters to arrive soon =)

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pilotsteveroy:
I could only hold a rate of climb of about 4,000 feet/min. It was as if I were dragging an anchor behind me! What gives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT: you read from Rudy Opitz?

Rudy Opitz tells it like it was here. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)

Page 2 of the article, this is words from Rudy Opitz;

"The engines were completely throttleable. Acceleration at first seemed surprisingly slow. The aircraft was poised on small wheel blocks, and when you went from ground idle to full power, the dolly wheels would roll over the blocks, and it took a while to build up flight speed. Once airborne, you accelerated to speed for best climb.

"We'd take off and try to keep the plane low, say 15 feet up, and then start to trim it for speed and then very gradually climb as we accelerated to the best climbing speed, which was about 420 miles per hour. The airplane was very short-coupled, so you didn't want to over-control it in pitch as you took off. When we reached the best climbing speed, we'd pull back and climb at approximately 70 degrees."

What many have not done -- get to 420mph before any climb. 420 mph is 676 kph.

So your speed before nose goes up is?

More ---

"The day for the flight test was cloudless but hazy, and the program called for takeoff to the northeast, establishing a maximum power climb at 420mph indicated airspeed on a straight line out over the Baltic Sea, taking panel pictures at 1,500-foot intervals up to an altitude of 40,000 feet. It seemed to be simple enough. However, the time schedule for taking the data was not easy to comply with when one realizes that the aircraft needed only ten seconds to climb 1,500 feet after reaching the desired airspeed and only six seconds were needed to climb through 1,500 feet at higher altitudes.

Sergio_101
04-11-2007, 03:02 AM
Yup, what a relief. A Luftwhiner that complains
without a laundry list of chats drawn
in MS Paint.

Barbi/issy/Kurfy will be extremely disapointed in you.

Meaningless Charts are required to muddle the subject
and brow beat the readers into submission.

Hint, when you make a chart, it's best to scan an
old original document and alter it.
This makes it look more authentic, right Barbi?

By the way, M_Gunz is correct.
Although I found the new FM to be a bit dull
it is true that you need to be going at least
400kmph for climb.
I'll try a bit faster next time.

Sergio

LEXX_Luthor
04-11-2007, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doing a bit of research, it seems as if during one of the later patches or the installation of Pacific Fighters, someone decided to severely dampen the thrust of the Walter engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, that was me. I'll put it back.

JG52Karaya-X
04-11-2007, 03:59 AM
Well the thread starter has a point, the Me163 was a much better climber before the introduction of the new FM with version 4.xx but on the other side it had a very edgy stall handling and would even flat spin (something the real bird simply would never do).

For the price of a reduction in RoC we now have a much nicer handling Komet.

leitmotiv
04-11-2007, 04:13 AM
Bewolf and Sergio pegged the discussions to a "T"---woe unto the unwary who enter these woods---here is the realm of the Dead Dreary Techno W----r/Aeronautical Engineer Wannabes.

ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE

THE INFERNO, Dante

FluffyDucks2
04-11-2007, 04:25 AM
Soon they will come...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-11-2007, 05:21 AM
When they appear avert your eyes lest you be blinded by their sheer brilliance. Their leader, the one with the aura of self important magnificence is the one to whom you should tug your fore lock whilst he berates you with his sharp tongue and charts.
Be afraid,
yawn,


.

p-11.cAce
04-11-2007, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What many have not done -- get to 420mph before any climb. 420 mph is 676 kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry...no charts (yet) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I agree that the FM changed, the great adverse yaw modeling (imho) that was present in 4.01 and very obvious with the -163 due to its vertical stabs lack of leverage due to the short fuselage was also taken away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Anyway - I would guess that like the many difficulties posted regarding "catching up to AI" the solution here is the same - keep the nose down, build speed, then maneuver.

leitmotiv
04-11-2007, 08:09 AM
The Komet is, indubitably, the wildest ride in this game, and the things you can do to bomber formations are obscene once you learn its tricks. The catch is the getaway from vengeful Mustangs---therein is the rub!

Matz0r
04-11-2007, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Komet is, indubitably, the wildest ride in this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tried the Bi-6? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif That thing is even more fun, climbs at least twice as fast.

bienenbaer
04-11-2007, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I'd hate to say it, but:

Got Chart?
Got Track?
Got Oleg? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got no chart
I got no track
I dunno Oleg

Worse, my performance reference is Wikipedia. It says "reaching 40,000 ft (12,000 m) in an unheard-of three minutes".

You can do this in the game, too, if you do not initially climb but accelerate first to a TAS ~ 650 to 700 kph (the magical 420 mph mentioned above). Then start climbing at around 75m/s - not faster - and slowly reduce this to 70m/s. Most important is to keep climb rate and attitude fairly constant!

I made it from 250 m to 12250 m in just 3 minutes.

Of course, this is just a simviator's story. Believe it or not.

leitmotiv
04-11-2007, 11:52 AM
Hojotoho! Hojotoho!

Choctaw111
04-11-2007, 02:02 PM
Yes, the performance was reduced with no need for charts or other "proof" to verify that fact. There were several threads about it quite a while back as I recall.

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bienenbaer:
You can do this in the game, too, if you do not initially climb but accelerate first to a TAS ~ 650 to 700 kph (the magical 420 mph mentioned above). Then start climbing at around 75m/s - not faster - and slowly reduce this to 70m/s. Most important is to keep climb rate and attitude fairly constant!

I made it from 250 m to 12250 m in just 3 minutes.

Of course, this is just a simviator's story. Believe it or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just going from a top German test pilot that tested, flew and trained others on Me-163
has said. The method desired that I see was to maintain constant IAS in the climb rather
than to watch climb rate. The article is very interesting and ends with Rudy Opitz refuting
a number of myths about the 163 and operations.

30,000 ft in 2 1/2 minutes at best climb speed... does the clock start after pitching into
the climb or from takeoff?

bienenbaer
04-12-2007, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by bienenbaer:
You can do this in the game, too, if you do not initially climb but accelerate first to a TAS ~ 650 to 700 kph (the magical 420 mph mentioned above). Then start climbing at around 75m/s - not faster - and slowly reduce this to 70m/s. Most important is to keep climb rate and attitude fairly constant!

I made it from 250 m to 12250 m in just 3 minutes.

Of course, this is just a simviator's story. Believe it or not.


I was just going from a top German test pilot that tested, flew and trained others on Me-163
has said. The method desired that I see was to maintain constant IAS in the climb rather
than to watch climb rate. The article is very interesting and ends with Rudy Opitz refuting
a number of myths about the 163 and operations.

30,000 ft in 2 1/2 minutes at best climb speed... does the clock start after pitching into
the climb or from takeoff? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The clock goes after pitching into climb: 39000 ft in 3 min. I only knew the magical 70+ m/s and tried to maintain it. Probably you can even do better by airspeed then by ROC.

Main thing is not to pull too hard and then too loose to much speed, and as well not to divert in roll and yaw axis.

amilaninia
04-12-2007, 06:16 PM
Expecting 100% realism in a flight sim is a bit on the impossible side. However, the volatility of the Me-163 is an essential fact that shouldn't be neglected. The Komet, in the real life, would often explode if there were any residual amounts of propellant in its tanks when landing, yet I ˜ve landed my Me-163 on rough terrain many times and no explosion (flying full switch). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
It would also be nice (impossible) to have the Komet's unique vertically launched SG 500 rocket, deadly accurate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
04-12-2007, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by amilaninia:
Expecting 100% realism in a flight sim is a bit on the impossible side. However, the volatility of the Me-163 is an essential fact that shouldn't be neglected. The Komet, in the real life, would often explode if there were any residual amounts of propellant in its tanks when landing, yet I ˜ve landed my Me-163 on rough terrain many times and no explosion (flying full switch). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
It would also be nice (impossible) to have the Komet's unique vertically launched SG 500 rocket, deadly accurate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see an in game vido of what actually happens when a komet turns over and the pilot is eaten alive by leaking t and C-Stoff... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Pilotsteveroy
04-12-2007, 10:02 PM
Thank you very much for the (mostly) useful information regarding my concerns. I know that the pilots of the Komet held to a strict takeoff regimen in which the engine was powered up to 100% thrust, and once the machine bumped over the chocks it accelerated like a locomotive!
Once airborne, they'd drop the wheel dolly, accelerate to a preset airspeed, and climb at a 70 degree angle up through 30,000 feet or more. Usually, the engine would quit not long thereafter having consumed the T-Stoff (oxidizer) and C-Stoff (fuel) hypergolic chemical agents.

That being said, the dilemma still remains unsolved with any useful advice regarding any possibility of reinstating the Komet in this sim to her previously realistic performance. Yes, I know that there are many crybabies in here, as well as a plethora of fools who simply don't know what they're talking about in spite of their boastings of the contrary.
Without any attempt at sounding vain, I actually DO know what I'm talking about (to an extent, of course.) Regardless, at some point in the later patches to this sim (probably just before the release of Pacific Fighters), someone "tweaked" the performance of the Me-163 and quartered it's real-world operational characteristics.

In short, what I'm asking here is if it's possible to:

1) Derive a single aircraft flight model out of a patch or file and replace the one currently in the folder?

2) Somehow adjust or modify an aircraft flight model in whatever folder/file it may be in, and replace a certain setting or value... for example: engine thrust: 1000 (where it should be 3800) and replace that value in the line of code with the appropriate value?

Those who would reply with idiotic posts, please move on to the next thread. I reserve this space for serious aviation enthusiasts who seek realism, accuracy, and above all else, fun. I'd love to hear from those in the know. Thank you, my friends and fellow Komet pilots.
-Pilot Steve

Pilotsteveroy
04-12-2007, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to see an in game vido of what actually happens when a komet turns over and the pilot is eaten alive by leaking t and C-Stoff... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the "stalkervision" post, a bit of research would reveal the true characteristics of the fuel agents the Me-163b used in the Walter "hot" engine.

C-Stoff was a mixture of hydraxine hydrate and methanol. It was the "fuel"... the agent that actually burned. Contact with it would hold minimal consequences. It would probably act much like common rubbing alcohol, and have a rapid drying effect. Though highly volatile, it would not have had the effect you seek, "stalkervision". It would simply evaporate rapidly.

On the other hand, the T-Stoff agent was the real killer. Nearly pure Hydrogen Peroxide with water added as a stabilizing compound, this was deadly, deadly stuff. The genius who designed the Komet, Dr. Alexander von Lippisch, once said that if one were to dip a finger into it, "You'd only pull the bone out."

A powerful oxidizer without equal, H2O2 (Peroxide) is nearly pure oxygen in a liquid state. Anyone with even the most basic of chemical understanding knows the incredible reactive(catalytic) nature of oxygen, and the consequences of mishandling it.

Were T-Stoff allowed to contact any organic matter, it would rapidly decompose into a gaseous state and spontaneously ignite with a ferociously hot flame. Should a Komet overturn with an unfortunate person inside, "stalkervision", he wouldn't "melt". The H2O2 would oxidize and rapidly "bleach" his skin and react in a rapid chemical decomposition (flame.) He'd be burned alive. There is nothing pleasant about this scenario in any genre.

-Pilot Steve