PDA

View Full Version : Way off climb rates in 1.11

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:21 PM
Come on Oleg were so close yet no cigar/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ive been doing some simple math calculations and heres what i come up with \using IL2-compare

If we use the 24m/s climb of the LA7 than we can work out the climbs of the other planes too.

What I did is make some simple numbers to show the power to weight ratios.I take empty weight and divide by max horsepower and I come up with numbers such as
la7-1.4
G10-1.3
E4--1.6

Now using the spot on accurate sealevel speeds in IL2-C and divide by the power/weight ratio number from above calculations....then I didved by magic (18) and it comes up with 24 for the LA7...which is what IL2-C has for LA7

G10 you get 25m/s not the 19 in il2-c

E4 is 16m/s compared to 18 in il2-c

K4 is 24m/s instead of Il2-c at 19m/s

now oleg is gonna take away 150kg from the 109's giving
G10 at 27m/s

E4 at 17,4m/s

K4 at 25.5m/s

These seem very close to what these planes were suposed to have in relation to the LA7's

BUT this wont help out since he equates the climb numbers different for every plane

If you use my equation you get an IL2 at 10m/s instead of the 15.5m/s that IL2C has showing....come on it shouldnt climb like this and if maddox uses this simple way of calculating,than all planes will climb more proportionate to..... MAX SPEED,HORSEPOWER AND WEIGHT OF PLANES

I also notice this....every listed rate of climb is hit upon at 0 alt only when plane is using 100% power.You go way wacky when yougo too 110%

The LA7 is at 30m/s at 0 alt when 100 percent power has it at the listed 24...THIS SUCKS/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WHY OH WHY??!?!?!

VOW forum has guys testing and fidning that the LA7 hit 5000M at 3.45 and not the 4.5 in object viewer.I bet if you run engine at 100 percent instead of full power youll hit the claimed 4.5

Message Edited on 09/21/0305:26PM by Wolfstriked

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:21 PM
Come on Oleg were so close yet no cigar/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ive been doing some simple math calculations and heres what i come up with \using IL2-compare

If we use the 24m/s climb of the LA7 than we can work out the climbs of the other planes too.

What I did is make some simple numbers to show the power to weight ratios.I take empty weight and divide by max horsepower and I come up with numbers such as
la7-1.4
G10-1.3
E4--1.6

Now using the spot on accurate sealevel speeds in IL2-C and divide by the power/weight ratio number from above calculations....then I didved by magic (18) and it comes up with 24 for the LA7...which is what IL2-C has for LA7

G10 you get 25m/s not the 19 in il2-c

E4 is 16m/s compared to 18 in il2-c

K4 is 24m/s instead of Il2-c at 19m/s

now oleg is gonna take away 150kg from the 109's giving
G10 at 27m/s

E4 at 17,4m/s

K4 at 25.5m/s

These seem very close to what these planes were suposed to have in relation to the LA7's

BUT this wont help out since he equates the climb numbers different for every plane

If you use my equation you get an IL2 at 10m/s instead of the 15.5m/s that IL2C has showing....come on it shouldnt climb like this and if maddox uses this simple way of calculating,than all planes will climb more proportionate to..... MAX SPEED,HORSEPOWER AND WEIGHT OF PLANES

I also notice this....every listed rate of climb is hit upon at 0 alt only when plane is using 100% power.You go way wacky when yougo too 110%

The LA7 is at 30m/s at 0 alt when 100 percent power has it at the listed 24...THIS SUCKS/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WHY OH WHY??!?!?!

VOW forum has guys testing and fidning that the LA7 hit 5000M at 3.45 and not the 4.5 in object viewer.I bet if you run engine at 100 percent instead of full power youll hit the claimed 4.5

Message Edited on 09/21/0305:26PM by Wolfstriked

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:05 AM
Ok heres some more testing and these numbers see the WS getting bias on their side

Plane/calculated climb/IL2-Compare climb/difference

Russian side
************************************************** ***
Lagg3______11.5----14 +2.5
Lagg3(43)__15.8----17 +1
mig3-1940__14------18 +4
P39-N______14------16 +2
p39Q10_____15------17 +2
P40E_______10------14 +4
I16-18_____16------19 +3
I16-24_____17------20 +3
I153_______14------18 +4
p47D10_____15------17 +2
la5,la5f___19------20 +1
la5fn______21------24 +3
la7________24------25 +1
Yak3_______18.5----22 +3.5
Yak9U______18.5----22 +3.5

IL2-1940___10----15.5 +5.5

German side
************************************************** ****
E4_________16------18 +2
F2_________20------18 -2
F4_________25------19 -6
G2_________19.6----22 +2.4
G6_________17------19 +2
G6late_____17.5----19 +1.5
G6AS_______21.5----19 -2.5
G10________25------19 -6
G14________24------18 -6
K4_________24------19 -5

A4_________15------18 +3
A5_________18.5----16 -2.5
A8_________20------16 -4
F8_________19------14 -5
A9_________22------18 -4
D9-early___18------16 -2
D9-late____22.5----16 -6.5

JU87-G1____6--------8 +2

Guys defenitly just fly the Russian side and leave the terrible performing German planes in the hangar.I cant believe that the BF and FW companies tried to get better and better performance out of their planes Instead,Maddox games has them losing out on climb ability as they progressed their engines for more horsepower.

These calculations are based upon the power to weight ratio AND very importantly the max speed so that aerodynamics can be taken out of picture.

What needs to be done is give the planes what physics should give them in real and leave the performances as they were in the war.The german planes being boom and zoom and the russian planes being turners with an increase in speed and climb as war progressed.Now russiand are turners and climbers and that suckshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Message Edited on 09/21/0307:10PM by Wolfstriked

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:11 AM

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:22 AM
No I am not a luftwhinner..my favorite plane is the LA7 for looks and of course it was a top climber AND turner so what else can you ask for/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Only johno__UK has the brains to see Im right???

The rest of the posters here cry and when they have proof to change they overlook the post?!?!?!?

Remember that Oleg says that add-on will be final tweak to FM.

NOTHING MORE and he means it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Im starting to wonder if the russian goverment had something to do with the Bias and told Maddox games they can use planes as long as they perform better/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:39 AM
Take off in a Ju-87G-1 "Stuka" and youll get a good feel for what awell modeled IL2-1940 should feel like on take off.Considering that the plane has a climb rating of 8m/s compared to what the IL2 should have,then it feels just about right.Now of course with its terrible aerodynamics and worse power to weight ratio than an IL2 you wont gain much speed in dives and zooms but Take offs feel right.The way I remember them in IL2-original/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:18 AM
ok I give up...i just got a il2 to 5000 with open radiator and full fuel in 6:10 compared to 9:2 in object viewer

than i got an fw190F8 up to 5000 in 5:15 when its supposed to be 6:8

Oh well i really thought this sim had a great foundation for realism but after these two tests and the LA7 to 5000 in 3:45 i now know its hopeless/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:39 AM
My number one prob is with the yak-1. That thing eats F4s for breakfast, there is no chance against it.

"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
09-22-2003, 03:50 AM
are you going vertical?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:57 AM
Ibhskier,

You must be doing something wrong, online I have no real problem with Yak1's when in an F4, just keep that alt high and dont get into a turning fight.

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:22 AM
Ive gottn these to 5000m climbs

La7 3:45
FW190-F8 5:18
IL2-41 6:10
109-K4 3:35

This is not good and all planes climb way better than they should.Doesnt give the feeling that you have an advantage if you have altitude and the motto "Alt is everything in a dogfight" doesnt hold true in FB/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Plus with weird energy losses for many planes and the whole physics seems way off.OK Ill stop testing since nobody really cares about it anyway.I will say to Oleg

Please get this right in next sim so that we may experience all the strength and weaknesses that the pilots had to face.Its all about realism is my motto/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Laters

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:38 AM
Tiger27 wrote:
- Ibhskier,
-
- You must be doing something wrong, online I have no
- real problem with Yak1's when in an F4, just keep
- that alt high and dont get into a turning fight.
-
I agree. Historically, the f-4 could turn with any russian fighter. Only when the G series came out, did the Soviets out perform the messerschmitt. You should not have to use the vertical with the F. Others yes, but not the F.

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/insignia/italy/incocca-tende-scaglia.jpg
Saluti!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:32 AM
NEWS:

Quote YOUSS:

Yes. This docs was sended to Dimas, and aswer was "allready have".

till now:

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

Lets wait and see

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:21 AM
Thanks for the heads up on the DM and accelleration.Good to know that what we read is gonna be repaired,then is actually repaired/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Now off to try out these new dedicated servers!!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:25 PM
Worst overmodelled climbers are Yak1B, Lagg-3 41 and 43, P-39 and La-7.. these should be fixxed in priority.. Also Il-2 first series.

____________________________________

Official Sig:

<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:49 PM
Ohh yeah, look what i've found after hours of carefull testing.

190= 12,5

109= 15,6

Ju87= 6,7

P39= 31,14

Lagg3= 376,2

Yak9= 3289,3

Yak3= 12378,6

La7= 23147237687235608934658273566912354901485193562

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:18 AM
"Quote YOUSS:

Yes. This docs was sended to Dimas, and aswer was "allready have".

till now:

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

Lets wait and see"

What is the source of this news? If indeed it may be true, it is very significant news, and it may look like the long discussions have paid off.

I think you should post it separately as a new thread, Redwulf. Thanks for the update.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:35 AM
Wolfstriked wrote:

- If you use my equation you get an IL2 at 10m/s
- instead of the 15.5m/s that IL2C has showing....come
- on it shouldnt climb like this and if maddox uses
- this simple way of calculating,than all planes will
- climb more proportionate to..... MAX
- SPEED,HORSEPOWER AND WEIGHT OF PLANES

How freaking SIMPLE it all really is!

I don't understand why people go to the trouble of all those years in school for aeronautical engineering when anyone with a 4 function calculator can handle such complex things as climbrates for so many different airplanes!

I do understand that something is not right but you really put the light spot onto the answer. All they really need to do is plug in the simple stuff and everything will fly right. It can easy, just like in Aces Over Europe and the original Red Baron.

How is it that this has not been figured out before?

====> O H ! S H E E S H ! <====

Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:45 PM
Its very simple and Im not being naieve but rather sensible/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Its not been figured out yet because many here beleive the FM of FB to be super realistic and its not.See if a plane gets a stronger engine and it gets higher top speed then its climb rate increases.I didnt say in this post that this is a better way to model FM than a degree in aeronautical engineering.Your not being sensible but instead your being naieve/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:04 PM
Now This Cube guy from SimHQ makes great sense here guys!!...

Cube
Member
Member # 8234

posted 09-24-2003 14:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After il2compare became available to public there was a lot of talk that planes performance is wrong, but nobody actually compared data and said what is broken, and Buzzsaw even started nice campaign of propaganda using tests with manual pitch and claiming that everything is correct.
So there it is - in game planes performance (il2compare data what provides numbers directly from games engine) vs real life.

The first thing what is evident at a glance is that climb performance of all the Bf109 series are completely wrong. Climb performance is defined by engine performance at different altitudes and engines of all Bf109 have power vs altitude curve of this shape:http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/DB605A.jpg

Herehttp://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/MT215_Climb_Test.jpg

you can see real climb curve of Finnish G2 what nicely illustrates this - climbrate is increasing from sl to 2km, then we see a slight drop till 6km and then it begins decreasing much faster.
But in the game we see completely different climbrate curve, what is straight - like there was no any supercharger and climb performance begins decreasing right from sl.

Theres a chart with Finnish G2 climb performance (done at 1.3ata what equals to games 100%) plotted against in game G2 climb curve:

While overall climb to 5km time in both cases is almost the same - 4:06 min real Finnish G2, 3:55 min games G2, in the game G2 lacks power in most crucial region of air combat - from sl to 3km.

Yes you have clear, even overmodelled advantage above 5km, but because undermodelled performance at low altitudes you cant use historic tactic of running away and entering sustained climb or spiral climb, because till you reach 3km enemy simply catches and kills you.

The same applies to whole Bf109 series. And what is more surprising that climbrate curves of all the other planes matches their real life shapes pretty well - this raises a question whether its simply bug or deliberate crippling of Bf109.

Neglecting this wrong climb vs altitude performance and looking only at climb to 5 km times - average climbrates looks correct for most of Bf109 series, even a bit better than in real life, but within 5% error limit. But there are three planes what can be called anomalies because their climbrates (both general shape and absolute numbers) doesn't even look close to real life. These planes are Bf109G14, Bf109G10 and Bf109K4.
Here you can see G14 and G6AS comparison:

These planes being similar aerodynamically also have almost the same engines (G14 - DB605AM and G6AS - DB605ASM) what produces the same power till 4 km and only then output of DB605AM drops. Yet in the game G14 climbrates begins sharply decreasing right from sl, resulting in much worse average climbrate, while in real life these planes should show very similar performance till 4 km.

And theres even more obvious example - G10 and K4 climbrates:

This time both of these planes has exactly the same engine (DB605DC) but climb performance is nowhere close. We again see unjustified sharp decreasing of climbrates for G10. This chart also reveals third anomaly - K4, but this time climbrates are hugely overmodelled. Theres no any aerodynamic explanation how its climbrates can be increasing till 7 km (strange but its lw and not vvs who still complains about K4 climb performance, but I think this shows that high altitude combat is still porked and high altitude performance means little in the game). Real climb curve should be very similar for both of these planes and be somewhere in between of current performances.

The FW190 series are modeled very accurately and there are little to complain about. Theres a comparison between real FW190A5 climb testhttp://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/FW190A5.gif
(done at 1.32ata what equals to games 100%) to in game FW190A5:

The only flaw is strange increase of climbrate around 5km when second stage of supercharger kicks in (this applies to other FW190 models too, not only A5), yet the average result still fits to 5% error margin.

Well so far so good - seems german planes are modeled more or less correctly and luftwhinnes have nothing to complain about. Yet its time to look at russian planes - and here we see the cause of all complaining. Its not Bf109 or FW190 climbs or turns bad its russian planes who employs inertialess drives and shows incredible climbrates and turnrates what are not even close to real life.

At first a little about sources of real life performance of the planes - because Oleg always claims that our sources are incorrect and his secret sources shows otherwise. Once asked what sources he considers as true Oleg in ubi forum responded that he bases planes performance on NII VVS (Nauchno ispytatelnyj institut VVS) and LII (Letno issledovatelskij institut) test data and as the secondary source he uses TsAGI (Tsentralnyj aerogidrodinamicheskij institut) data.
So for comparison Ill provide a wide range of NII VVS and LII tests, data from TsAGI book "Samoletostroenie v SSSR", and data from some other russian books, what mostly refers to the NII VVS tests.

The first thing what you notice after looking at Russian planes performance in patch 1.11 - german planes have no climb advantage anymore. Well you could expect that - IL2 does very good job of rewriting history: at first we are told that germans had crappy engines and russian engines never overheated - while in fact engines was Achilles heel of all russian aviaindustry and almost every test I have points problems with very quickly overheating engine. Second, it almost become unarguable truth in everybodys mind that russian planes outturns german ones with ease, what again is only partially true - according to russian tests of captured german planes they had advantage both in vertical and horizontal turning up to 1942. Now the time has come to climbrates.

La7 is the best climber now with 30 m/s !!! climbrate at sea level and 3:27 min time to climb to 5km. Only FW190D9 (3:20 min), G6AS (3:11 min) and of course broken K4 (2:54 min) slightly overtakes it if we measure average climbrate to 5 km but only because of higher climbrates at 4-5km altitude, and up to 3 km La7 leaves everybody behind.

And now lets look at real climb performance of the La7 (tests of climb to 5km):

NII VVS, February-March 1944, La7 prototype - 4.45 min

LII, June 1944, La7 No. 452101-39 - 5.3 min

NII VVS, August 1944, La7 No. 45210150 - 5.1 min

NII VVS, September 1944, La7 No. 45210203 - 5.0 min

NII VVS, April 1945, La7 No. 452132-76 - 4.3 min

TsAGI data -http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/103.jpg

FB object viewer - 4.5 min

And theres a comparison of the _best_ real life result (NII VVS test of April 1945 - 4.3 min) to in game performance (dark green line represents climbrate at 2500rpm 1180mmHG what equals to in game 110% or MAX, and light green line represents climbrate at 2400rpm 1000mmHG what equals to in game 100%)

Well the chart speaks for itself. Only one note - games climb to 5km time (3:27 min) is better than best real life result (4.3 min) by 24%. And we have similar situation with all La series.

Now comes Yak series.
Yak3 real life tests of climb to 5km:

TsAGI data -http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/103.jpg

Book "Istrebiteli Yak perioda velikoj otechestvennoj vojny": serial plane - 4.5 min; Yak1M who was Yak3 prototype - 4.1 min

FB object viewer - 4.5 min

All sources agrees on Yak3 climb performance, so I just compared TsAGI chart (since Yak engines had no any wep system and their take-off power was equal to nominal power it represents 110% or MAX game performance) with in game performance:

This time difference is not so great but still obvious - games climb to 5km time (3:40 min) is better than best real life result (4.5 min) by 16%.
Again all Yak series shows similar tendencies, but one plane requires separate look - Yak9U.
Its engine VK-107A had wep mode (3200rpm 1100mmHG as opposed to nominal 3000rpm 1000mmHG) but in practice this mode was unusable because of too quick overheating of engine and dramatically shortening its lifespan. The Yak9U prototypes using wep showed 4.1 min climb to 5km time, but serial planes were limited to nominal power and as a result climb times were:

TsAGI data -http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/103.jpg

Book "Istrebiteli Yak perioda velikoj otechestvennoj vojny" - 5 min

FB object viewer - 5 min

Again all data is exactly the same so theres comparison of TsAGI chart (at 3000rpm 1000mmHG what equals 100% in the game) with in game performance:

So even if we neglect the fact that wep mode was unusable and consider 3000rpm 1000mmHG as games 100%, the difference between real life climb performance to 5km (5 min) and in game climb at 100% (3:59 min) is 25%, and if we consider this test result as real maximum achievable climbrate and compare it to in game climb at 110% (3:33 min), the difference is 40%.

Between early war planes the king of climb is I16type24 - 25 m/s climbrate on sl, 4:11 min time to climb to 5km. Again like in La7 case it leaves far behind all german planes of the same era up to 3 km.

And theres real life climb to 5 km results:

TsAGI data (it shows I16type29 but it had the same engine M-63 as type24 and other sources shows identical climb performance of these planes) -http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/029.jpg

Book "Poslednie istrebiteli Polikarpova" - 5.8 min

Book "Istrebitel I-16" - 6 min

FB object viewer - 6 min

Theres the best real life test result (5.8 min TsAGI chart - since I-16 had no any wep system it represents 110% in game performance) vs I-16 in the game:

The result - in game climb to 5 km performance (4:11 min) is better than real life performance (5.8 min) by 38%.

I16type18 and I-152 keeps the tradition and beats real life performance by about 35%.

Well, I think you all got the picture by now - in fact I began testing by searching overmodelled planes, and at the end I was already trying to find at least one russian plane what would show close to real life performance, but was unable to find one. All the russian planes are very far from reality and P-39N gets the prize of most overmodelled plane - I don't have real life test references, but so far FB object viewer provided pretty accurate climb results and games climb to 5km data (4:22 min) is better than FB object viewer (8.5 min) by 95% !!!

To conclude - I always fought that planes performance is broken simply because Oleg doesn't care about it - every modification to fm affects performance and to test every plane takes a lot of time and effort, but if he has such handy tool as il2compare where everything is clear at a glance and still lets the data to be wrong - hes surely biased.

Very nice to see that Youss wrote that Oleg stated the Fw190 is very closely modeled and hey its very close indeed....thanks oleg/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif for that!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:11 PM
This is original post which has better pics from IL2-compare

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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:16 AM
I'm not saying the FM is right. Just that your methods are far too wrong.

To get 10% more airspeed takes at least 20% more power. So going by straight airspeed is a fallacy. For more accuracy you need of course better AE understanding.

Will that 20% more power make climb 20%, let alone 10% better? I don't think it's so simple at all.

There's far too many other factors specific to each plane to boil things down the way that you do to make comparison should be climbrates.

Who is so naieve? Go get help with your work explaining what you see.

There is a problem when Buzzsaw climb tests the 109's he did better at 210 kph than anywhere near 270 kph. What does IL2 Compare say is best climb speed for the same planes? Is that how the sim works? If not then don't use the compare to say what the sim will do.

The flaws in the arguments are bigger than the flaws in the sim by multiple times over. Flame away!

Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 06:11 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- I'm not saying the FM is right. Just that your
- methods are far too wrong.
-
- To get 10% more airspeed takes at least 20% more
- power. So going by straight airspeed is a fallacy.
- For more accuracy you need of course better AE
- understanding.

I never said anything about increasing airspeed by changing power!!I just posted that if you use the LA7 for an example you should get a rough ball park figure as to what the other planes should be doing.I never said that my method is spot on.

- Will that 20% more power make climb 20%, let alone
- 10% better? I don't think it's so simple at all.

Ball park figures/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- There's far too many other factors specific to each
- plane to boil things down the way that you do to
- make comparison should be climbrates.
-
- Who is so naieve? Go get help with your work
- explaining what you see.

Heheh your telling me this...I sometimes mix myself up when I post here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- There is a problem when Buzzsaw climb tests the
- 109's he did better at 210 kph than anywhere near
- 270 kph. What does IL2 Compare say is best climb
- speed for the same planes? Is that how the sim
- works? If not then don't use the compare to say
- what the sim will do.

I agree and disagree completley!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I agree because I now see I was taking the readings in IL2-Compare "roc at constant TAS at SL""as the max in game and I now see they are wrong.The ""ROC at constant TAS"" is not reading the sim properly since its lower than the max climbs posted in ""max ROC vs Altitude"".I think Youss should get rid of this ""ROC at constant TAS"' chart unless he finds a way to better show what the sim is really doing.

I disagree because the speeds\turnrates/climbs vs alt seem spot on as to what is going on in sim.

Cube's charts show what I was suspecting and just couldnt post here due to my limited PC knowledge.See all I was trying to get across with my first post is that you take a power to weight ratio and then max speed and you should get ball park figures.

Now what I think might be wrong in FB is this(edit..I am not an aeronautical engineer so what I post here could be pure bullpoop)....The AOA and lift calculations need to be looked at.What I mean is that most all planes can climb at slower than listed speeds in IL2-Compare.See my theory is that FB isnt modeling wing lift ratios of the different planes and there different types of wings.I dont really know what High wing loading means so I cant use those terms but I hope you get my point.So a certain wing gets its max lift at a certain AOA which correlates with a certain speed.See if every plane had a certain speed to get its MAx ROC I feel that the climbs will be much better simulated.Let me shut up before I hang myself here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- The flaws in the arguments are bigger than the flaws
- in the sim by multiple times over. Flame away!
-
- Neal

No need to flame away here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 09/26/0301:13PM by Wolfstriked

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:13 PM
Wolfstriked it seems you are trying to prove two things here:

1. Somethings off on the climbrates

2. Oleg is biased

Let me take no. 2 first - I urge you to drop it. First of all because I simply do not believe it period. Oleg has shown FAR TOO MUCH INTEGRITY imo. for it to be relevant. Now you'll probably not agree on that. Then plz. listen to my second argument: If I were Oleg, and constantly had to read that I am biased - I would get so p*ssed off at the poster that I'd never read his arguments. Could you blame me ? So by pursuing the (ridiculous in my opinion) claim that Oleg is deliberatly dealing LW bad odds to make russian tech look better you are doing your self and all who agrees with you a HUGE non-favor.

OK As to the climbrates.

Cube has indeed offered some valuable input into the debate (unfortunately he can't keep from the bias thing either). Let's all take a breather and consider that we ALL have the same common goal, namely the most accurary we can squeeze out of FB.

Presenting a couple of tests is in itself non refutable proof of anything. Many factors can still be taken into consideration -

IE the Lagg3 came in many series. The Lagg3 series 4 climbs considerably better than the Lagg3 series 7. A TsAGI chart for series 7 can therefore NOT be applied when talking about the series 4.

Various manufactures of planes might also have something to do with it. I read somewhere that a hungarian railroad factory manufactured BETTER 109s than the german factories.

Hmmm.. I can't cook up any more examples of how charts could be not applicable to the models we have in game, but I am sure there ARE more. What I am saying is - hey Cube has a strong point, lets see how it fares. If we can keep from offending Oleg all the time, maybe even he will offer a counter argument ?

As for your mathematics - what if I took the vertical stab of the 109 and twisted it 90 deg ? Engine/Wingloading would be the same - but I have this feeling that it wouldn't be quite as adept as climbing as it used to be.

I still haven't seen any counter arguments to Cubes findings but I'd like to see a fair and nonb1tching discussion of them.

Look at my sig - can you tell I fly the russian planes mostly ? Well I tell you I'd like this thing to be accurate even if it means neutering my planes !

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
</A>

Message Edited on 09/26/0306:17PM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:34 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- Wolfstriked it seems you are trying to prove two
- things here:
-
- 1. Somethings off on the climbrates
-
- 2. Oleg is biased
-
- Let me take no. 2 first - I urge you to drop it.
- First of all because I simply do not believe it
- period. Oleg has shown FAR TOO MUCH INTEGRITY imo.
- for it to be relevant. Now you'll probably not agree
- on that. Then plz. listen to my second argument: If
- I were Oleg, and constantly had to read that I am
- biased - I would get so p*ssed off at the poster
- that I'd never read his arguments. Could you blame
- me ? So by pursuing the (ridiculous in my opinion)
- claim that Oleg is deliberatly dealing LW bad odds
- to make russian tech look better you are doing your
- self and all who agrees with you a HUGE non-favor.

You're offended. lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sussed out another worshipper. lol The sig is a give away too.

BTW - there really is no other reason to get so offended as to get involved in the kind of mini-crusade I've seen you in. If you like everything as it is, fine, sit back and enjoy it as it is. The only rationale for the above is you viewing it as a personal affront to *you* in some way, even if you don't realize it.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:52 PM
How do you conclude I am offended ?

I said:

-- I were Oleg, and constantly had to read that I am
-- biased - I would get so p*ssed off at the poster
-- that I'd never read his arguments.

Which part of 'If I were Oleg' didn't you understand ?

- Sussed out another worshipper. lol The sig is a give
- away too.

Oh my - you really are clever - what was the give away ? The VVS flag? the red star? the P39 ? or perhaps the word GIAP? Pray tell me because I NEVER thought anybody would figure out I fly russian planes - especially since I wrote:

- Look at my sig - can you tell I fly the russian planes mostly ?

Then you write:

- If you like everything as it is, fine, sit back and enjoy it as it is. The only rationale for the above is you
- viewing it as a personal affront to *you* in some
- way, even if you don't realize it.

Even though I wrote:

- Well I tell you I'd like this thing to be accurate even if it means neutering my planes !

Now you have clearly demonstrated your ability to write - but you've also clearly demonstrated your lacking ability to pay attention to what you read, even if you don't realize it.

For anybody who cares (I am sure DDT doesn't)

My mini-crusade (cant disagree on the label) is not directed towards pro/con LW/VVS. It is directed at the wild overclaims, half-lies, negations of fact, misrepresenting of words, generalisations etc... that has been infesting this forum for so long. Yup - it is an affront to me - I imagine I am not the only one. It hampers one of the truly unique things about the whole Il2/FB affair - the connection between developers and users.

DDT - if you wanna take jabs at me - can you do so in general discussion instead? That way this forum and this thread might be kept for it's original purpose - the discussion of FB.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:30 PM
Wolf, I know you call my figures there ballpark but what I'm trying to get across is that drag, at least the very major component increases with the square of the speed increase while climb does not but is still not so simple as power to weight.

Two of the same airframe but one that weighs 25% more and has 60% more power due to engine increase, maybe more armor (just as example) the heavier more powerful one will go about 25% faster but climb more than 25% faster as well but not 60/25 faster climb because induced drag in the climb will be higher than the first, lighter, plane.

I can't say that turns being right is proof that the drags at AOA are spot on simply because other factors got tuned as well.

I am more worried about the planes becoming flying exploits than I am about meeting anyones #\$%^&*! charts. I've seen one very good sim ruined over those charts and whiners. Guess which side 80% of the whining came from? Axis! The whining all gets drawn down to Personal Petty Agendas and the real problems are missed in the rush to pamper crying babies. You have seen it already, just look at how the trim is in response to the instant trim on a slider! The problem behind the complaints is still with us and we have another in trim being much harder to use for legitimate purposes. So take care what you demand for.

Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:36 PM
Rosh, your mini-crusade is about defending "poor Oleg". Say it however you want, it really doesn't matter. You simply would not take the time to get so involved in that unless you really cared and were upset by it as a result......or were just trolling.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:45 PM
Me an Oleg basher...come on i clearly state that many LW planes are also overmodeled.Now the fact that Many Allied planes are overmodeled by an extreme amount compared to the LW doesnt matter.Just fix em right.I hate this Russian bias bull!!

From reading Cube's newest report it has allied planes well more biased in climb rates.

And at the end short look at American and English planes. I don't have real life references, so just data from fb object viewer:

Hurricane MkIIc limb to 6.1km
7.5 min - real life, 6:50 min - game, difference - 10%

P40M climb to 6.1km
7.5 min - real life, 5:47 min - game, difference - 30%

P47D27 climb to 6.1km
11.5 min - real life, 6:02 min - game, difference - 90%

Now this is not russian bias but instead allied bias/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Come on Oleg and give us what we want and thats pure unadulterated FM's/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Well love ya for it and praise FB as the be all in sims until next Oleg sim comes out at which point well all buy.

Now of course we will all buy the next Maddox sim even if FB isnt repaired,and this is a given.I loved it when I heard that the new sim engine started development in november of 2002.Now I hate it because I realize that alot of the work going into it should of been spent on FB.Remember that we will use this sim until the next comes out and who knows when that will be.Maddox games will constantly be adding and adding as technology is increasing rapidly and we might not see the new sim for 2 or more years.I want FB to fill this void until it emerges.Thats it and I post as I see.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 09:32 PM

If you keep repeating that - you might end up actually believing it. Won't make it true tho' - now stick to subject or go GD please.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 09:48 PM
According to Butch2K, Republic claimed a time of 8.5 minutes to 20,000' (6.1Km roughly). The Object Viewer is off in this case.

I have no way of knowing what the test conditions were though, as he didn't provide those.

Also, he noted that the soviet tests of the D-10 produced considerable better climb times than the Republic #s for the same plane. Republic said the D-10 could make it to 15,000' in 7.2 minutes and soviet tests said it could reach 16,400' in 6.4 minutes.

As he didn't provide soviet testing of the D-27, we can only guess. It is certainly possible though that the D-27 would also have climbed better in soviet tests.

Finally, Republic was almost certainly doing testing in the US with commonly available fuel. Which was 87 octane, IIRC. The avialablility of 100octane in the field allowed overboosting to be done routinely. Cube's reported climb time for the D-27 is certainly within reason, and may even be short of what the airframe was actually capable of in the field.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 09:58 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- Oleg"
-
- If you keep repeating that - you might end up
- actually believing it. Won't make it true tho' - now
- stick to subject or go GD please.

You may deny all you like. Doesn't change anything.

And, while you may enjoy socialist regimes and being ordered around, I don't. You may delude yourself into thinking you actually have weight to throw around here, but, regardless, you can bite me. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:17 PM
> And, while you may enjoy socialist regimes and being ordered around, I don't.

Completely Bonkers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good post about the P47 though

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:17 PM
Guys, how many times you gonna post on the same subject. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Give it some time, rather pleasent surprize is right around a corner /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:45 PM
I agree - but at the same time - I don't see what difference any of this makes - lately all the dogfights online have been at sealevel - I have met very few pilots that actually take their plane to 5k+

Why, I don't know - You have alot of room at that alt - you can gain and loose E... fights last longer and are alot more interesting and fun...

I fly around at 6 to 7k hoping that someone will come up their and fight - so far - I've had to crop dust like the rest of em to get into a fight....

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:38 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Guys, how many times you gonna post on the same
- subject. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
- Give it some time, rather pleasent surprize is right
- around a corner /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- Regards,
- VFC*Crazyivan
- http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif
-
- "No matter how good the violin may be, much depends
- on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy
- pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub
-

Thats the second post Ive found from you,VFC*Crazyivan,that says that we are gonna be pleasantly suprised.Wanna fill us in on your top secrets?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:54 AM
Well i haveto agree with wolfstriked the fact that alot of the VVS birds are that over modeled and have been since il2 seems a bit more than just a coincidence with FM errors but crazyivan if you are right this could all change...

heres hoping

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 03:05 AM
All i can say that there is a patch in works and all 109`s from 1943 and up are being reworked, also P-39 and Lagg is being addressed.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:56 AM
That sounds cool CrazyIvan - I sure look forward to get back the Cobra http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But Cubes findings are about overmodelled allied A/C - so far only his findings on the P47 has met reasonable counterarguments. I do wonder about the rest. Do the yaks really climb that much better in game than in RL ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:38 PM
Manifold pressure is not being modeled correctly anymore.Take a G-6AS up in FB with MW50 and the manifold pressure gauge is pegged at 1.7 till 5000 meters at which point it starts to drop and engine performance gets worse up till 10000m where manifold pressure is at.8Now this is not how an engine works.

Now if you look at IL2-Compare youll see that it coresponds with climb rates since its straight up till 5000 and then slowly comes down as alt is gained.K4 is 1.8 till 5500 then down to .9 at 10000m.

Now go into original IL2 unpatched and take a G-6AS with WEP from ground level up and youll see manifold pressure go down as you gain altitude the way it should be modeled.there is a little white tick mark on the manifold pressure gauge that most likely signals when the supercharger should kick-in but it doesnt in IL2 and pressure keeps dropping.Seems they really wanted just low altitude for the first sim/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The bleed is so good in IL2 and I have to ask why the hell it was changed since it was perfectly simulated????!?!?!.At high speeds,cut throttle and you can feel the airbrake effect slow you down quickly and then start to slow down as the weight of the plane can cope with less pressure.Very cool and why was this removed??take a P39 over tree tops in IL2 and cut throttle and when speed gets very low floor the sucka and it like ""Oh Yeah BAby this thing screams power""and yuou accelerate real nice.I really like the new joystick modeling from FB but alot was lost in the process.Gear sounds,ground sounds,air turbulance sounds,bullets hitting you????!!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:06 PM
What worries me about crazy ivans post is: He didnt mention that LA7 is going to be adressed. I really hate this stupid ÃÅ“BER plane in 1.11. Its simply an UFO.

I loved the extremely knowledgeable post of Cube, he seems to know what he is talking about. Its always nice to have someone deliver the hard facts and numbers to backup what oneself always knew just from playing the game and experiencing the results of teh changes.
Actually its so obvious that the russian plane performance is unbelievable (and that for the greater part since Il2) and getting even more unbelievable with FB 1.11 that i really wonder that there is any argument about it.
A p39 is a super plane ??? an I16 outclimbs an F4 ??? Who believes it.....

For a long time i wanted to believe in Olegs "integrity" too, because i didnt like the idea of the creator of my all time favourite fligth sim being biased, but over the time the impression that he really is biased has hardened. If they do a last final retouching of the FM, i must say its also the last chance i am willing to give to that game as a serious sim. We have been promised great things and good FM modells for years now, from patch to patch, from Il2 to FB and so forth. I am tired and sceptical of what we will get in the end..still do hope so....
Anyway, if they dont fix it i will stop flying LW planes i think, or only when i like to fly with a handicap for the thrill of it...

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:19 PM
Had a huge post written and hit the wrong keys in the dark and lost it all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Anyway - Somebody seems to have some incorrect info about the P-47 over there. As nobody is posting all of their sources (and sources sources, etc) it's not all that easy to sort out.

Stonewall Jackson mentioned the P-47 as having a 2800'/min climb rate. He didn't mention which P-47 though. Given all the models and sub-models of this plane, that's pretty important info to include. Also though, 2800'/min is pretty poor for a fighter overall, so it's not really all that hard to beleive that the P-47 did have (at least) that sort of climb rate.

Buzzsaw then said that the D-30 could make it to 20,000' in 8.2min on "normal" power, which he also described as being 1625hp. 20K' in 8.2min is 2439.02'/min. He also attibuted that same output to the D-27RE. Offhand, I don't know if they used the same engines or not. But, IIRC, the D-15 in the training video (streamable from Zeno's) was said to have 2500 with water. So, it's certainly possible he's correct here. Adding an extra 975hp would certainly increase the climb rate substantially. I don't know if it would shave about 2 minutes off the climb to 6.1Km or not.

Cube then responded by posting an odd chart. It's odd because it calls the P-51 a P-51, but the P-47 an F-47D. It does not state which D however, and Cube seems to imply/assume that it's the D-10. That to me seems to be a bit of a large leap to make such an assumption. He also says its a comparison of "all american planes", which it clearly is not. And in isolation, it's hard to really put much credibility in it.

Looking at it again, it says that the F6F-5 has a ROC at 20K' of 2,390'/min vs. the "F-47D"'s of 1,870'/min. I know that the F6F had a much lower wing loading and was one of the most maneuverable planes the US had (one of the reasons it's my favorite), but, it only had a 3 speed supercharger and no turbo. AFAIK, the P-47 should have had a much higher ROC than the Hellcat up that high. This chart also claimed a cieling of 37,500' vs the "F-47D"'s of 36,500'. Again, this looks rather odd to me. Even with higher wingloading the power production would be significantly better on the Jug I would think, due to the Turbo. Grumman had looked into putting a turbo on the Hellcat but never did. I also have a 1st person account of a Grumman test pilot who got certified on the Jug for the purposes of learning the turbo system for Grumman's experimentation with the Hellcat. He said that the Jug was better up high, had a higer cieling and could climb better up high, than the Hellcat because of the Turbo.

Take it for what you will I suppose. I know there are holes in my knowledge here, but, to me, something just doesn't look right.

At any rate, Cube then goes on to say that the D-10 could make it to 5Km on WEP in 6:05. I'm not sure what his source was, because it couldn't have been that chart. 5Km (16,400') was not mentioned anywhere there. But, it does sound relatively close to the #s Butch posted on another forum for the soviet tests of the D-10.

Cube then added his green line to the IL2Comp. chart and when I look at it, I see something else that looks rather odd. It lists alt on the verticle axis, and ROC in m/min on the horizontal axis, starting at 0 in the lower left hand corner. At just under 8Km his chart lists the D-10 as having a 0m/min climb rate. That to me looks like a service cieling. 8Km is only 26,240'. Lower than any service cieling listing I've ever heard for any P-47. And even lower than the one on the chart Cube listed (which itself seems low).

I don't know if it's because Cube's methods are incorrect, if his SL ROC data is incorrect, or if his alt. ROC data is incorrect, but, overall, he does appear to be in error about the P-47. And much to the low side (and it's detriment if he's taken too seriously about it).

If anyone wants to cross post this overthere, feel free, I don't have an account there and it seems silly to make one for one post.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:46 PM
Zentaurus wrote:
- I loved the extremely knowledgeable post of Cube, he
- seems to know what he is talking about. Its always
- nice to have someone deliver the hard facts and
- numbers to backup what oneself always knew just from
- playing the game and experiencing the results of teh
- changes.

hehe I agree and it sucks when high school dropouts (like me) add there nonsense to the mix.I see Cubes performance graphs being extremely useful once FB-1.2-final is out since we can get an awesome gauge or the realism of the game.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:27 PM
FW190 seems well modeled.Take an FW190-A8 up and at ground level you get 2700 rpm and 1.6 ATA.Now the auto prop pitch is working perfectly since you keep the rpm at 2700 all the way up to 10000m.As soon as you lift up your boost starts to drop till about 1700m and 1.35ATA (sometimes at 2000m??)at which point the auto supercharger kicks in and its back to 2700 rpm and 1.6 ATA(full power) climb rates increasing and at 4500m it starts level drop until 10000m.This is in synch with IL2-C.

Now manual prop pitch on this oplane doesnt seem to be working.I went to manual at ground level and 2700rpm 1.6 ATA and 50%PropP and when climing with decreasing manifold pressure the rpms should drop since the prop is at set angle.It doesnt and even at 8800m and 0.8 ATA the rpm is still at 2700.I even dove straight down and rpm stayed at 2700.So it seem that manual prop pitch for this bird is not working.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:01 AM
akdavis, thanks for cross posting that for me. I'm curiuous though, what do you mean about me misunderstanding his data?

I looked at his post again and realized I screwed up in interpreting the ROC axis - it was meters per second, not minute, and, it didn't extend down to 0 for some odd reason. I guess I just expected it to for some reason.

That aside, I think my points (the rest of them) stand. The P-47 was certainly capable of more than Cube seems to be giving it credit for.

Or was there something else I missed as well?

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:45 AM
To BlitzPig_DDT /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Your right and something is wrong with Cubes 8000M ceiling for the P47.His records are way off since easily you can see it has to be higher considering it was made to be a high alt fighter.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 01:31 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

-
-
- Cube then added his green line to the IL2Comp. chart
- and when I look at it, I see something else that
- looks rather odd. It lists alt on the verticle axis,
- and ROC in m/min on the horizontal axis, starting at
- 0 in the lower left hand corner. At just under 8Km
- his chart lists the D-10 as having a 0m/min climb
- rate. That to me looks like a service cieling. 8Km
- is only 26,240'. Lower than any service cieling
- listing I've ever heard for any P-47. And even lower
- than the one on the chart Cube listed (which itself
- seems low).
-
-

DDT, the RoC starts at 7.x, NOT 0. The 0(zero) is for altitude only. So at ~8km the P-47 is still climbing at a rate of 7.x m/s.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg

"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 01:51 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- akdavis, thanks for cross posting that for me. I'm
- curiuous though, what do you mean about me
- misunderstanding his data?
-
- I looked at his post again and realized I screwed up
- in interpreting the ROC axis - it was meters per
- second, not minute, and, it didn't extend down to 0
- for some odd reason. I guess I just expected it to
- for some reason.
-
- That aside, I think my points (the rest of them)
- stand. The P-47 was certainly capable of more than
- Cube seems to be giving it credit for.
-
- Or was there something else I missed as well?
-
-

I think the misunderstanding was here, although I might be misunderstanding myself:

"At any rate, Cube then goes on to say that the D-10 could make it to 5Km on WEP in 6:05. I'm not sure what his source was, because it couldn't have been that chart. 5Km (16,400') was not mentioned anywhere there. But, it does sound relatively close to the #s Butch posted on another forum for the soviet tests of the D-10.

Cube then added his green line to the IL2Comp. chart and when I look at it, I see something else that looks rather odd. It lists alt on the verticle axis, and ROC in m/min on the horizontal axis, starting at 0 in the lower left hand corner. At just under 8Km his chart lists the D-10 as having a 0m/min climb rate. That to me looks like a service cieling. 8Km is only 26,240'. Lower than any service cieling listing I've ever heard for any P-47. And even lower than the one on the chart Cube listed (which itself seems low)."

I think the IL2Comp graph Cube posted is using Butch's D-10 data.

--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 01:54 AM
Milo - see my post after that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Message Edited on 09/28/0312:55AM by BlitzPig_DDT

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 06:19 AM
He did say thatThats why the climbs are starting to look right.Once they release well all be happy/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 07:29 AM
Need to ask some stupid questions here. lol Wolf - "he" who? What do you mean about starting to look right?

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 09:00 AM
So all a guy here has td do here is claim to be a friend of a cousin of some one who knows/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif lol...just kidding

Im offended....stupid questions?????

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:03 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- Now using the spot on accurate sealevel speeds in
- IL2-C and divide by the power/weight ratio number
- from above calculations....then I didved by magic
- (18) and it comes up with 24 for the LA7...which is
- what IL2-C has for LA7

Can you explain the methodology a bit more. I am

Have you got some figures for time to X m in real life
and in FB? That might be a more meaningful comparasion.

Also rather than assuming a priori that there is a bias
with respect to country, perhaps mine the data to see
if there are any other systematic differences that could
be present. E.g. are light planes tending to climb more
quickly that expected, irrespective of national origin.
Is there an issue with planes with similar prop designs
climbing too slow, or planes with a certain type of engine
tending to climb too quickly?

It might be that there is a bug in the prop efficiency
parameters for the LW planes, for example, which may
look like an anti LW bias, but be a bug in the parameterisation of the flight models which hurts the LW
but is not intended to be a bias against the LW. People
do seem to be reporting that at 100% power the LW planes
are not acheiving the correct boost levels, so it might
be a bug in the CEM.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:13 PM
Wolfstrike - a post with many good charts.

One question, though - what climb speed did you use
to calculate the in game best climb? Was it the best
climb found from testing in game, or the best climb
speeds documented in real life? If the former, it would
be interesting to also test the latter. Given Buzzsaw's
test, perhaps the problem is some systematic overmodelling
of climb at low speeds (the Hurricane II seemed very
prone to this). If the climb times at historical best
climb speeds are accurate for the VVS types, we may be
getting closer to identifying a bug with respect to
the way climb is modelled at lower speed, perhaps?

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:20 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- 2. Oleg is biased
-
- Let me take no. 2 first - I urge you to drop it.
- First of all because I simply do not believe it
- period.

I'm not convinced by it either. Well, you could argue
that using Soviet sources as the primary data is biased,
but if we look at the best climb speeds for IL-2 (first
edition) posted by Kernow, the climb speeds were basically
spot on for the 109 then. That the best climb speeds for
the 109 are off now suggests more that there is a bug
or modelling issue, rather than Oleg suddenly deciding
to be totally biased over the last year. Given Oleg's
illness, and so on, and commitments to WW2-RTS it suggests
that the bugs in the FB code (It already seems that there
is CEM issue for 109s below 3km) haven't got discovered/fixed yet due to problems related to the effort
that can be deployed.

So rather than throwing accusations of bias about, it's
probably more helpful to pool all the talent and documentation here to see if we can determine if there
is a bug, and if so, where it might lie. That might help
getting it fixed sooner.

- Look at my sig - can you tell I fly the russian
- planes mostly ? Well I tell you I'd like this thing
- to be accurate even if it means neutering my planes
- !

Same here! I fly VVS too (249th IAP) when I can. Work
is nuts at the moment, so I am too tired for weekday
flying currently, though, plus I have to do a ton of DIY
before my in-laws come to visit in a month... So it's
easier to spend 10 minutes reading the posts rather than
90 minutes flying time to target in FB at the moment.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:25 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- P47D27 climb to 6.1km
- 11.5 min - real life, 6:02 min - game, difference -
- 90%

BlitzPig DDT keeps claiming that Oleg is very anti
US and is neutering the P47. Doesn't look like the
climb is! That's a reason why I am so unconvinced
about the presumptions that Oleg is so biased (at
least with regard to US lanes). If he
was then you'd think the bias would be just a little
more consistent! It looks like a case of bugs to me.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:27 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Finally, Republic was almost certainly doing testing
- in the US with commonly available fuel. Which was 87
- octane, IIRC. The avialablility of 100octane in the
- field allowed overboosting to be done routinely.

I somehow doubt that Republic would have tested their
planes with an inferior fuel to what was available in the
field, since the information would be passed to crews
in the field to let them know what performance they
could expect in the field. Seems a bit unlikely.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:41 PM
Aaron, 87 was used stateside. The good stuff was used for combat. I've yet to hear that any 100 octane was kept around for anything. It only makes sense to send it all to the front anyway.

And, if you do some digging you'll see that Cube is wrong about the P-47. Way wrong. It looks as if you simply found what you *wanted* to find/see/beleive.

And you hit it earlier but maybe didn't want to accept it. He uses only "super secret" soviet documentation. That means a bias. Instantly. It plays out in game. Any plane the soviets liked, does well. Any plane they didn't like, is crappy. Any plane they respected is better than any plane they didn't respect (irrespective of general world opinion perhaps being completely different).

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:47 PM
What makes one assume its a systematic bias ??
Maybe the fact that Maddox and co are ignoring the so called "Luftwhiners" so consistently for such a long time ? Its not really an issue which just started in 1.11. There has been plenty, tons of evidence in wrong modelling of FW for a long time (sight and performance). Now finally in 1.11 that has been partially resolved (not the sight). But now the 109s are porked...sigh. Whereas the overmodelling of WS planes has been quite consistent...i remember a LA5 not overheating for many patches, i see all the incredibly effective guns Yaks and I16s have and so forth, i see the immense sturdyness of those wooden planes...
Why is there so much Luftwhining and so little Allies whining ?? Possibly because they have not much reason for it ?? The bias may not be really intentional, maybe its just a question of sympathy and the way the data is choosen and interpreted, but Olegs posts seldom seem to be really concerned about complaints, he mostly seems to just dismiss and play them down...so one gets a feeling of running against walls...

Still i think you have made a reasonable point here, it might just be a systematic problem in the modelling and i do too have the suspect that the game might favorise lighter planes more, or rather planes with little wingload. Maybe the effect of wingload to drag and maneuverability is exaggerated, but i am really no physics crack...so leave that to more competent people.
Still, i say Olegs behavior and the way the planes fly in il2/FB seems to justify the idea of bias. If thats not true it would be so easy just to be more open and friendly about discussion, give numbers and resources (at least those which are not "secret") and help the community to understand why things are so and so...or even helpt to figure out what i wrong.
Right now it seems they are only very, very hesitantly adjusting things when a lot of pressure/complaint is put on them...they dont want data and tests and are just defensive..

II/JG54_Zent

AaronGT wrote:
-
- Wolfstriked wrote:
-- Now using the spot on accurate sealevel speeds in
-- IL2-C and divide by the power/weight ratio number
-- from above calculations....then I didved by magic
-- (18) and it comes up with 24 for the LA7...which is
-- what IL2-C has for LA7
-
- Can you explain the methodology a bit more. I am
-
- Have you got some figures for time to X m in real
- life
- and in FB? That might be a more meaningful
- comparasion.
-
- Also rather than assuming a priori that there is a
- bias
- with respect to country, perhaps mine the data to
- see
- if there are any other systematic differences that
- could
- be present. E.g. are light planes tending to climb
- more
- quickly that expected, irrespective of national
- origin.
- Is there an issue with planes with similar prop
- designs
- climbing too slow, or planes with a certain type of
- engine
- tending to climb too quickly?
-
- It might be that there is a bug in the prop
- efficiency
- parameters for the LW planes, for example, which may
- look like an anti LW bias, but be a bug in the
- parameterisation of the flight models which hurts
- the LW
- but is not intended to be a bias against the LW.
- People
- do seem to be reporting that at 100% power the LW
- planes
- are not acheiving the correct boost levels, so it
- might
- be a bug in the CEM.
-
-
-
-

ZG77_Nagual
09-28-2003, 05:24 PM
Oh come on - the 190 has some of the best fidelity of any plane in the simm - it is the only plane modeled to factory specs and many changes were made to it as a direct result of user input. In the originial IL2 the 109g6as was the best dogfighter in the simm - the 190a5 certainly one of the best (I flew it exclusively). Currently the 190a9, flown with a lick of sense, is more than a match for anything but a well flown 262.
In fact the 190s are now better than they ever were. Look how quickly and radically the 190 was changed after FB came out. I do not know how you can rationalize any argument that asserts bias - your logic is not experientially supported - at least not from my perspective.

As to possible flaws or uncounted variables in the physics engine resulting in unforseen performance changes - seems possible to me. Or even just missing something in beta - no big deal.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 06:11 PM
It's just an extremely paranoid mindset that produces those kind of remarks.

I suppose there's some kind of paranoid spin that could be put on Oleg "working closely" with the german FB community for FB 1.2, making a 190 that flies almost exactly to spec [in fact, slightly better], etc, etc.

And the anti-US bias line is pretty funny in light of the P40 and P47 performance we're seeing now. Still, seeing how bugs that improve performance have been written off as "bugs" and bugs that decrease performance have been regarded as deliberate by one particular contributer to this thread I'm sure we'll see some new form of attack on Olegs "bias" when 1.2 comes out.

Good luck asking to see the evidence for it, though.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 07:07 PM
- Stonewall Jackson mentioned the P-47 as having a
- 2800'/min climb rate. He didn't mention which
- P-47 though.

A Vought comparison document gives the following figures for the P-47D

Weight 14,087lbs
2,600 hp at 64" HG
3,170 ft/min at sea level
1,870 ft/min at 20,000ft
7.6 mins to 20,000ft (appears to be 7 mins 36 secs)

The engine is a 2800 - 63 I think, though the text is poor.

- Looking at it again, it says that the F6F-5 has a
- ROC at 20K' of 2,390'/min vs. the "F-47D"'s of
- 1,870'/min.

Those are the figures in the Vought chart too. Same chart?

- I know that the F6F had a much lower
- planes the US had (one of the reasons it's my
- favorite), but, it only had a 3 speed supercharger
- and no turbo. AFAIK, the P-47 should have had a much
- higher ROC than the Hellcat up that high.

The Vought chart has got power figures as well. The P-47 is listed at 2600hp from sea level up to 27,000ft or so, the F6F-5 2250 hp at sea level, dropping to about 1900 hp at 20,000ft.

The difference at 20,000ft is 700hp or so.

The weight difference is about 1600 lbs, and the F6F has lower wingloading, and the benefit of exhaust thrust (around 200 - 250lbs thrust)

You can get the whole document from http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/

it's part of the F4U comparitive analysis.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 08:07 PM
Well, what are you talking about ? I happen to be german and follow the german board and there was no sign of UBI or Oleg working together with the german community. On the contrary for example Wastels good and great work (as well as others)was put down with a few condescending words so that he felt completely devastated and disappointed (as he said himself in the german forum). Time after time people trying to show that things are off in FB are treated like that. Please do also have a look at the FW190 visibility thread here in the forum...
If something has changed and they are really working together with some 109 experts please enlighten us and show us the thread or tell us the source of your information. It would be really good if that would be true...

I might add, the worst problem is not even the modelling of the german planes which are not too far from reality, just the important 5 % off where it counts.., but the modelling of the russian planes. I have heard so far that the Lagg3 is going to be overworked but i havent heard a thing about the overUFO LA7.

To conclude: If you have information show it, otherwise shut up, IMO even if Oleg should not be biased you are definitely.
Still one point where we dont differ it seems: We both have hope for patch 1.2 (which wouldnt have been done if nobody complained as 1.11 originally was meant to be "final").
But why do you think so if everything is ok right now ??

II/JG54_Zent

clint-ruin wrote:
- It's just an extremely paranoid mindset that
- produces those kind of remarks.
-
- I suppose there's some kind of paranoid spin that
- could be put on Oleg "working closely" with the
- german FB community for FB 1.2, making a 190 that
- flies almost exactly to spec [in fact, slightly
- better], etc, etc.
-
- And the anti-US bias line is pretty funny in light
- of the P40 and P47 performance we're seeing now.
- Still, seeing how bugs that improve performance have
- been written off as "bugs" and bugs that decrease
- performance have been regarded as deliberate by one
- particular contributer to this thread I'm sure we'll
- see some new form of attack on Olegs "bias" when 1.2
- comes out.
-
- Good luck asking to see the evidence for it, though.
-
-
-
-
-
- <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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:31 PM
Hi Zentaurus,

I base the remarks "working closely" [note the inverted commas around the original remark] on this thread:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004187

from Anteater:
The short version:
Since the last patch was not very well recieved (mildly put) Oleg decided to include a bunch of germans in a closed alpha FM test for version 1.2.
One of them apparently leaked it and gave it to a friend who went trolling with it.
Those guys who are seriously into that testing told me it was all hot air what the original poster said. Also he was really quite insulting to Oleg, amost on a racist level.
I dont have the version they were testing so I cannot tell you anything about it. Neither can the real testers (of course)

Apparently the story of the leakage differs slightly from the truth but as far as I know Oleg has indeed tried to reach out to the German FB community and include them specifically in the new 1.2 testing regime.

For work being done on 190D FMs, see http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1951

I don't recall Wastel being spefically put down, but I do remember seeing Youss ask him for scans of the documents he was basing his work on. If he wants to cry after being asked to show actual evidence then that's largely his own business. Word of this available in the infamous VOW "game balance" thread at http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=0

The Lagg3's are apparently being reworked as well as the La7's climb performance. No word on its turn performance as yet. Youss has asked for and received tracks of its 3.x min climb to 5000m and are as far as I know being treated as a bug report. Again, see the "game balance" thread.

I agree that it's a shame about the Fw-190 view/cockpit framing, I've added my name to the lists of people who'd like to get that fixed previously too. I have a suspicion that there might be a right way and a wrong way to go about asking for changes, asking being polite demanding. Keyword: polite.

I really wish people would've read the rest of the "game balance" thread rather than seeing that remark and going ballistic, since there's a tonne of info in it.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:33 PM
Zentaurus wrote:
We both have hope for patch 1.2 (which wouldnt have
- been done if nobody complained as 1.11 originally
- was meant to be "final").

Well said there Zentaurus but lets just wait andd see how good it really is!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ok I am admiting I was way wrong by posting my findings here but I contribute that to IL2-Compare having wrong numbers posted.I had written how climbs were way off and was because I had looked at IL2-Compare and didnt realize that the "ROC vs constant TAS at 0m" was irrelevant to in-game.Now if the "ROC vs constant TAS at 0m" changes in final patch and shows more realisticly what a plane s climb will be at 0m, then my numbers will show any mistakes better.

Its when I looked at the "Max ROC vs altitude",I could clearly see that "ROC vs constant TAS at 0m" was not being used in game at all.

IL2-C states that the K4 had climb rate of 19m/s at 0m but the K4 climbs WAY faster than 19m/s all the way up to 7500m using MW50.So forget the magic number since it doesnt mean anything when we realize "ROC vs constant TAS at 0m" is not even used in game.

Maddox needs to better simulate engine performance and to stop the silly HIGH climb rates for given thrust.What I mean is this...A real planes performance drops as alt is gained due to pressure dropping yet some planes get full boost all the way up as though pressure is not simulated and then instead it seems the engines are tweaked to get certain climbs.

And then you have the way too high climb rates for the full boost settings and your gonna be way off.Like how Cube showed in his graph of the LA7 seen on this page

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1

You can see that the LA7/110% had a climb of 24m/s up to 1500m at which point it starts to drop but the ingame LA7 has a whopping 29.5m/s and comes down to 24m/s at 2000m.

Lets see what maddox games can do with this sim But remenber that time is running out.

I publicly apologize for posting the original post.But that doesnt mean Climbs are way off....hey folks they are!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:57 AM
Hey clint, that was a sensible post !! What made you so mellow ?? Anyway, thank you and i think i rest my case until 1.2, we will see what happens, i am still sceptical, very sceptical and what was leaked of the alpha doesnt seem very promising yet, but well, its an alpha...so see you later!

Zent

clint-ruin wrote:
- Hi Zentaurus,
-
- I base the remarks "working closely" [note the
- inverted commas around the original remark] on this
-
- <a
- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004187"
- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
- 4187</a>
-
-
- from Anteater:
- The short version:
- Since the last patch was not very well recieved
- (mildly put) Oleg decided to include a bunch of
- germans in a closed alpha FM test for version 1.2.
- One of them apparently leaked it and gave it to a
- friend who went trolling with it.
- Those guys who are seriously into that testing told
- me it was all hot air what the original poster said.
- Also he was really quite insulting to Oleg, amost on
- a racist level.
- I dont have the version they were testing so I
- cannot tell you anything about it. Neither can the
- real testers (of course)
-
-
- Apparently the story of the leakage differs slightly
- from the truth but as far as I know Oleg has indeed
- tried to reach out to the German FB community and
- include them specifically in the new 1.2 testing
- regime.
-
- For work being done on 190D FMs, see <a
- href="http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&a
- ction=topic&id=1951"
- target=_blank>http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page
- =forum&action=topic&id=1951</a>
-
- I don't recall Wastel being spefically put down, but
- I do remember seeing Youss ask him for scans of the
- documents he was basing his work on. If he wants to
- cry after being asked to show actual evidence then
- that's largely his own business. Word of this
- available in the infamous VOW "game balance" thread
- at <a
- href="http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&a
- ction=topic&id=1830&start=0"
- target=_blank>http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page
- =forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=0</a>
-
- The Lagg3's are apparently being reworked as well as
- the La7's climb performance. No word on its turn
- performance as yet. Youss has asked for and
- received tracks of its 3.x min climb to 5000m and
- are as far as I know being treated as a bug report.
- Again, see the "game balance" thread.
-
- I agree that it's a shame about the Fw-190
- view/cockpit framing, I've added my name to the
- lists of people who'd like to get that fixed
- previously too. I have a suspicion that there might
- be a right way and a wrong way to go about asking
- for changes, asking being polite demanding.
- Keyword: polite.
-
- I really wish people would've read the rest of the
- "game balance" thread rather than seeing that remark
- and going ballistic, since there's a tonne of info
- in it.
-
-
-
- <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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:03 AM
Wolf, it looked like you mis-read my statement a few posts back. *I* was asking the "stupid questions" by asking you for clarification on what you said. I wasn't implying anything about you.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:20 AM
clint.

wastel scanned, and sent the evidence directly via e-mail. They received and confirmed it was the same docs they already had, but will look over the points.

-----------
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, 01:38 AM
P47D27 climb to 6.1km
11.5 min - real life, 6:02 min - game, difference - 90%
===========

When someone compares the climb of the P-47D-27 in the game to "real life" numbers, it's important that you compare apples to apples. Doesn't make much sense to compare a "combat power climb" in FB to real published numbers for a "military power climb".

The P-47D-27 with the HS "paddle blade" prop was capable of obtaining 20,000 feet (~6,100m) in about 7 minutes, which is pretty close to what I am getting in this game.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:48 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Aaron, 87 was used stateside. The good stuff was
- used for combat. I've yet to hear that any 100
- octane was kept around for anything. It only makes
- sense to send it all to the front anyway.

Hmmm... so you are saying that they never tested
P47s with the fuel that they were going to use in
combat? That's ridiculous. They needed bullets
at the front too. Did they only test rifles with
blanks? At least SkyChimp has dug out some decent
reference material we can really get our teeth into.

- And you hit it earlier but maybe didn't want to
- accept it. He uses only "super secret" soviet
- documentation. That means a bias.

It certainly means a bias in the selection of the
reference material, but the accusations seem to
be in some sort of deliberate desire to bias things
to do the USA/Germany/etc down, which seems a
rather strong accusation.

- plays out in game. Any plane the soviets liked, does
- well. Any plane they didn't like, is crappy.

This is not true. We have instances of overmodelling
of aircraft that the USSR didn't use - e.g. the UFO
Hurricane I (Finnish) or overmodelled climb of the B239
(Finnish use). So it doesn't seem nearly as cut-and-dried
bias as you seem to think.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 02:04 PM
Aaron, what's happening to you? You're acting like Clint. I've been over all of this about a billion times. It's tiresome to have to explain it over and over again to people who just don't want to see it. So....forget it. I see where you stand, and it's a hopeless cause for me to indulge you further.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 03:30 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Aaron, what's happening to you?

Maybe I am just stressed out from other things...

It is just that I don't see a particularly systematic
and deliberate bias in the game. I certainly see
discrepancies between real world data and performance in
FB, which affects some aircraft, but I am not convinced
so far that the effects on aircraft on a national basis
is anything other than coincidental.

In IL2 (see Kernow's posts) we have 109 best climb
speeds being very close. In FB they are off. We also
have other climb speed bugs (see Buzzsaw) CEM bugs
(see Kernow again) and other bugs (P47D27 roll, but
fixed in other aircraft).

Now if we are to believe that there is some national
bias going on, we need to explain why the 109 was right
in the original IL2 in terms of climb speed, but not
now. This would presume that Oleg has suddenly decided
to be be beastly to the hun between the original IL2 and
now. This seems unlikely.

But, given the bugs mentioned above, I think what we
to FB over and above that which was in IL2, the introduction
of some bugs. These bugs may well be hard to find, and
in it is possible that in the attempt to tune the tunable
aspects around those bugs, some strange behaviour has
been introduced. It seems that in FB, for example, pretty
much all aircraft have excellent climb below their
historical best climb speeds. Given that they seem to
be messed up across the board, that makes it look like
a series of bugs, rather than bias.

So we have some planes that are overmodelled, and some
that are undermodelled. The B239 and P39 seem to be
US-built planes that are overmodelled in some aspects.
But only one of these was used by the VVS.

Now it does seem that in general the VVS aircraft tend
to be more likely to be overmodelled than those of other
nations, but before suggesting some deliberate bias by
the developers it is worth looking to see if there are
systematic differences in the types of planes, to make
sure that there isn't a systematic bug or sets of bugs
before impugning the developers' integrity.

For example, the VVS planes tend to be lighter. Several
have good power:weight ratios. They tend to have lower
will tend to favour VVS planes. So then it is worth finding
non VVS aircraft that have similar parameters and seeing
if they have consistent types of overmodelling.

There appear to be some issues with CEM (flagged for
fixing in patch 1.2). Perhaps simpler CEM modelling
for simpler real life CEM in VVS planes favours VVS
planes, but not through design, but because the simpler
implementation was correctly modelled.

Aircraft from one nation's designs often tend to have
similarity in systems of design ethics, so a consistent
bug that favours those elements might look like national
bias without being so.

Basically from my point of view the jury is out on
the national bias, and I think it is a bit rich to
accuse Oleg of national bias without a bit more evidence.
Saying you suspect that there might be, is another matter.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:08 PM
There are so many planes in FB (all) whose climb performance are way over what is available from other sources - it only make sense to do the comparative performance rather then look at the graphs for the particular tests coming either from manufacturer or captured tested planes.

There are so many errors in Cube's post in SimHQ - it is impossible to salvage the thread. We don't need to repeat his errors here. It started with incorrect graph scaling,
incorrect assumptions of models of the planes presented as "real" and applicable for the purpose of comparison. Bad part -he tried to draw the conclusions and draw many people in the debates.

In April of 1944 Russian LII VVS tested P-47D-10RE and came up with those numbers for climb to 5000m:
"Normal" power - 11.0 minutes
"Combat" power - 7.6 minutes
"Emergency" power - 6.4 minutes.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:54 PM
Bogun wrote:
- In April of 1944 Russian LII VVS tested P-47D-10RE
- and came up with those numbers for climb to 5000m:
- "Normal" power - 11.0 minutes
- "Combat" power - 7.6 minutes
- "Emergency" power - 6.4 minutes.

Those are pretty much the same as the figures
SkyChimp quoted.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:09 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Bogun wrote:
-- In April of 1944 Russian LII VVS tested P-47D-10RE
-- and came up with those numbers for climb to 5000m:
-- "Normal" power - 11.0 minutes
-- "Combat" power - 7.6 minutes
-- "Emergency" power - 6.4 minutes.
-
- Those are pretty much the same as the figures
- SkyChimp quoted.
-
-
-

The performance table for P-51A and P-47D-10 RE are on the page 260 of this often quoted TsAGI book.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:08 AM
heres sum facts on the climb and turn rates of la5 and bf109 g10 http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:49 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Wolf, it looked like you mis-read my statement a few
- posts back. *I* was asking the "stupid questions" by
- asking you for clarification on what you said. I
- wasn't implying anything about you.
-
-

Thanks DDT,I was kinda joking when I wrote that response back though/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

****Back to the front men as it seems that once again we take to ze air to fight these uber allied planes.Be very careful of the P39 as many reports coming in are say that the americans have used some new technology they call "Area 51".

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:11 PM
I agree with you AaronGT. Those calling Oleg deliberately biased and messing up German planes "on purpose" are to quick to jump to this conclusion. Not only that if I was Oleg and his crew I would be getting pretty sick and tired of all these false acusations. I know I would. It would take a lot of the joy out of crafting a nice flightsim.

:FI:SnoopBaron

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:26 PM
German planes claimb is as much overmodeled as all the rest... Including Fw190A all series...

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:03 PM
There all overmodeled/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Dogfighting HE-111's and Sturmoviks that can climb faster than hurris....Up to a certain alt so its not all bad/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What I am gonna do is take the final patch and just accept as it seems that Oleg and his comrades are moving on to better things for us all and well just hold them back.

I stumbled onto their website for battlefield commander and it just looks like its gonna be another breakthru game.I dont mind at all since they are using the IL2 engine so anything added in will also be in for next major Flight sim from them.